Email Correspondence
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Auseth, Angie
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:09 PM
'Jim Abrahamson'
RE: Sign approval
image001.jpg
The item was approved at last night's Council meeting, however, there was not an applicant present to represent the
item. In the future, someone should be available, just in case there are any questions from the council. I will be sending
you a formal letter of approval shortly, with the conditions, etc.
Please let me know if you have any questions in the mean time.
Sincerely,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:59 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: Sign approval
Hi Angie,
Do you have the final approval from the city council meeting last night?
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales I Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
1
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.sign-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
i usti nas@sign-source.com
2
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fauske, Alyson
Friday, September 05, 2008 3:48 PM
Auseth, Angie
FW: changeable message signs
10-2008.pdf
You probably already have this
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Spack [mailto:mspack@spackconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:35 PM
To: Fauske, Alyson
Cc: Oehme, Paul
Subject: changeable message signs
Alyson,
I forwarded you a bunch of emails yesterday, but here is the most useful one.
See below from Randy over at Eden Prairie. Attached is the ordinance they recently adopted
on the issue. It is based on the research Minnetonka did.
Here is Minnetonka's general page:
http://www.eminnetonka.com/community development/planning/show proiect.cfm?l
ink_id=Dynamic_Signs_Ordinance&cat_link_id=Planning
Here is Minnetonka's staff report:
http://www.eminnetonka.com/news events/proiects/planning/dynamic signs/cc st
aff_report_062507.pdf
Mike
Mike Spack, PE
Spack Consulting
The Traffic Study Company
3268 Xenwood Ave S
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
952-378-5017
www.spackconsulting.com
Blog: www.MikeOnTraffic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Newton [mailto:RNewton@edenprairie.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Mike Spack
Subject: RE: ITETRAFFIC Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-233)
Mike -
1
I saw your question about Changeable Message Signs on the ITE listserv.
Our planning group just went through this process and got a lot of information from
Minnetonka.
I have included a link to the City of Minnetonka's project page for this item. If you click
on their staff report PDF a pretty good report from SRF is included which discusses various
studies and their results.
http://www.eminnetonka.com/community development/planning/show proiect.c
fm?link_id=Dynamic_Signs_Ordinance&cat_link_id=Planning
This whole issue is an interesting debate and I'm sure there will be a lot of variation in
the ordinances that get adopted.
I've included our recently adopted ordinance as an FYI.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group [mailto:ITETRAFFIC@LIST.ITE.ORG] On Behalf
Of ITETRAFFIC automatic digest system
Sent: ThursdaYJ September 04J 2008 11:36 PM
To: ITETRAFFIC@LIST.ITE.ORG
Subject: ITETRAFFIC Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-233)
Date: FriJ 5 Sep 2008 00:35:44 -0400
Reply-To: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group <ITETRAFFIC~LIST.ITE.ORG>
Sender: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group
<ITETRAFFIC~LIST.ITE.ORG>
From: ITETRAFFIC automatic digest system <LISTSERV@LIST.ITE.ORG>
Subject: ITETRAFFIC Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-233)
To: ITETRAFFIC@LIST.ITE.ORG
Message-ID: <ITETRAFFIC%200809050035447850.9C61@LIST.ITE.ORG>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://list.ite.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?LIST=ITETRAFFIC>J
<mailto:LISTSERV@LIST.ITE.ORG?body=INFO%20ITETRAFFIC>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ITETRAFFIC-unsubscribe-request@LIST.ITE.ORG>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ITETRAFFIC-subscribe-request@LIST.ITE.ORG>
List-Owner: <mailto:ITETRAFFIC-request@LIST.ITE.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://list.ite.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?LIST=ITETRAFFIC>
There are 16 messages totalling 5439 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Private Changeable Message Signs (for advertising) (9)
2. Activation of temporary traffic control devices
3. ped barrier (6)
Institute of Transportation Engineers
1099 14th Street NWJ Suite 300 WestJ WashingtonJ DC 20005 USA For questions or problems
contact the ITE Webmaster (mailto:website~ite.org)
2
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CODE AMENDMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 10-2008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.70, BY DEFINING "DYNAMIC
DISPLAYS," ADDING PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO DYNAMIC DISPLAYS
AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION
11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, ordains:
Section 1.
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 2, Subsection 14,
defining "Motion Signs," is repealed in its entirety.
Section 2.
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 2 is amended by adding
the following definition which is to be inserted alphabetically and the
subsequent clauses renumbered consecutively:
"Dynamic Display" - A sign or characteristics of a sign that appear to have
movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than
physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the
apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or
any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a
technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without
having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its
components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing,
blinking, or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating
panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any
other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of
images or displays.
Section 3.
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 3, Subsection C IS
amended in its entirety as follows:
Dynamic Displays are prohibited in all districts, except as otherwise
expressly permitted in this Section 11.70.
Section 4.
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 3, Subsection 0,
prohibiting Motion Signs, is repealed in its entirety.
Section 5.
City Code Chapter II, Section 11.70 IS amended by adding new
Subdivision 7 to state as follows:
Subd.7. Dynamic Displays.
A. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between Dynamic
Displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction
can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a
changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing
message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to
occur. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects
used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Time
and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns
because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and become
inaccurate without frequent changes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new
technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by
state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use
these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are
intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize
proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact
residential character.
The City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but
with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their
potential threats to public safety.
B. Permitted Sign Type and Locations. Dynamic Displays are
permitted solely as Free-standing Signs and only in the Commercial
Regional (C-Reg), Commercial Regional Service (C-Reg-Ser),
Community Commercial (C-Com), Neighborhood Commercial (N-
Com) Office (OFC), Town Center (TC-C), Public (Pu), and
Industrial (I, 1-2, 1-5 & I-Gen) zoning districts.
C. Duration of Image. A Dynamic Display's image, or any portion
thereof, may not change more often than once every 20 minutes,
except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-
minute, date, or temperature information. A display of time, date, or
temperature must remain for at least 20 minutes before changing to a
different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself
may change no more often than once every three seconds.
D. Transition. If a Dynamic Display's image or any portion thereof
changes, the change sequence must instantaneous without any
special effects.
E. Prohibition on Video Display. No portion of a Dynamic Display
may change any part of its sign face by a method of display
characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, or depict action or a
special effect to imitate movement, or display pictorials or graphics
in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion of any
kind.
F. Prohibition on Fluctuating or Flashing Illumination. No portion of a
Dynamic Display image may fluctuate in light intensity or use
intermittent, strobe or moving light, or light that changes in intensity
in sudden transitory bursts, streams, zooms, twinkles, sparkles or in
any other manner that creates the illusion of movement.
G. Audio. Dynamic Displays shall not be equipped with audio
speakers.
H. Malfunctions. Dynamic Displays must be designed and equipped to
freeze the sign face in one position if a malfunction occurs.
Dynamic Displays must also be equipped with a means to
immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign
owner or operator must immediately turn off the display when
notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards of this
ordinance.
I. Brightness. All Dynamic Displays shall meet the following
brightness standards:
a. No Dynamic Display may exceed a maximum illumination of
5tOOO nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and
a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter)
between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at
maximum brightness.
b. All Dynamic Displays having illumination by means other than
natural light must be equipped with a dimmer control or other
mechanism that automatically controls the sign's brightness to
comply with the requirements of this Section.
c. No Dynamic Display may be of such intensity or brilliance that
it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign,
device or signal.
d. The owner or controller of the Dynamic Display must adjust the
sign to meet these brightness standards in accordance with the
City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately
upon notice of non-compliance from the City.
e. A written certification . from the sign manufacturer that light
intensity has been preset to conform to the brightness levels
established by code and that the preset level is protected from
end user manipulation by password protected software or other
method. This would offer the advantage of ensuring that
electronic signs at a minimum cannot exceed the standards.
J. Dynamic displays are allowed only on free standing signs
in the permitted districts. Dynamic displays may occupy no more
than 35% percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder
of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays
even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is
allowed on a sign face.
Section 6.
City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in
their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
15th day of April, 2008, and finally read and adorted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1St day of April, 2008.
$;t7 . T
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the oft/day of ~
, 2008
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CODE AMENDMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 10-2008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 BY AMENDING SECTION 11.70
RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY
CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
ORDAINS:
Summary: This ordinance allows amendments to city code chapter 11 relating to
signs with dynamic display.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on ~ dtJ ,2008.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
Cn'Y OF EDEN PRAIRIE
. JIENNEPIN'COUNTY,
MINmSOTA
. DYNAMrC DlSPLAY CODE
AMENDMENT
~Y OF ORDINANCE
. NO. 10-2008 .
. ANORDINANCEOFTHECITY
OFEDEN~iMINNESOTA,
AMENDING CITY CODE
cHAPTER n :BY AMENDING.
SECTION 11.70 RELATING TO
SIGN PERMITs; AND ADOPTING
BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPl'ER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH. AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN ' PENALTY
PROVISlQNS. .,. .
THEClTY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN . PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: .
. Summ,.rv: This ordinance
alloWs amendments to city code
chapter llre)atmgtosigns with
dyn$Drlc diilpJay.
, . Effective pate: This Ordinance
shall~e,.ff~!ct\WOl1PUbli~tion.
PhilYoW,lg,M;8Ybt'. .
Attest: 84tl1leen Porta,City Clerk
(A fullcQPyof th~ .text Qf this
Ordinance ~s avalJablefrom City
Clerk.) . .'. ... /
(PubUshed tiltM EdenPl'airieNews
on Tl;1ursd8y',AprU 24, 2008; No.
~). .. ..
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
State of Minnesota )
)SS.
County of Hennepin )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the authorized agent of the
publisher of the newspaper known as the Eden Prairie News and has full knowledge of the facts
herein stated as follows:
(A) This newspaper has complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33IA.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No., j cj to
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstu'WXYZ
By~f,~<pa~vauW
) Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and sworn before me on
11/r:L r.// t,
this c/ 7 day of /liud .2008
)'
e GWENM. RAOOENZ
NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA
. My Commisslon Expires.lan. 31, a110
~"7L 7J1 ~da,..i1
Notary Public 1'1
./
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter................................ $40.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter............................................... $12.19 per column inch
Auseth. Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jim Abrahamson [JimA@sign-source.com)
Friday, September 05, 2008 10:45 AM
Auseth, Angie
Adam Skare; Ron Clark; Bryan Monahan
FW:scan
newsslogo.gif; image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.jpg; VT Safety Study.pdf; Arbitron
Report.pdt
Hi Angie,
Let us know if this helps. I would also like to see if you know how many units you have in the city existing now?
Adam it may help to have you on hand at the next planning meeting as it seems the staff could use some explanation on
the operation ot these units.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
iustinas@siqn-source.com
~....'.:'
EJ..
From: Adam Skare [mailto:ASkare@daktronics.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:30 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: RE: scan
Jim,
1
I've attached a few documents that they may find useful. Please let me know if you'd like me to attend any meetings,
make any presentations or go over anything with you or the city.
Adam Skare
Commercial Sales! Rcscller Development
9921 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
teI952.942.5874 mobile 651.357.4135
fax 952.944.3520
email askare@daktronics.com
website www.daktronics.com
DAKTRCNI C.S
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05,20089:55 AM
To: Adam Skare
Subject: FW: scan
Hi Adam,
Please let me know if Daktronics has any safety studies that have been done on the issue of your LED units.
Please read the attached and let me know if you can help.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
2
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
iustinas@siqn-source.com
~
From: Justina Sleeper
Sent: Friday, September 05, 20089:47 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: scan
Thanks - Have a Great Day!
Justina Sleeper
Customer Service
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ph. 952.908.9125
E-Fax 952-908-9155
www.siqn-source.com
www.techniprint.net
3
Driving Performance and Digital Billboards
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education
By:
Suzanne E. Lee
Melinda J. McElheny
and
Ronald Gibbons
Virginia
fIJl Tech
,.
TRANSPORTATION
INSTITUTE
Center for Automotive Safety Research
March 22, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB LE OF FI G URE S ............. .................................................................................................................... ...............3
TAB LE OF TAB LES ............................ .......... ................................................................................................... .........5
ABSTRA CT ....... ................. ..... ................................ ............................ .................................... ....................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy..................... ................................. ......................................................... ........... ...............7
INTR 0 D U CTI ON .................................................... ............................... ......... ............... ..... .................................... .11
RE VIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH .................................................................................................................12
ME TH 0 D ............. ........................................................... ............. ....................... ..................................... ................. .19
SELECTION OF CITy................................ ....... .................. ....... ...................... .............. .................... .............. ......... ..19
DIGITAL BILLBOARDS.......... .... ....... .......... ........... ....... ............... ....... .............. ................ ................ ................ ...... ..19
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ................ ................... ............. ......... .... ..... .... .......................... .................................... .... ..19
Independent Variables........................................................................................................................ ...............20
Dependent Variables........................................................................................................................ ..................23
SELECTION OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES BASED ON PREVIOUS DRIVING STUDIES ...................................................24
Measures of Visual Demand. ................ ...... ............ ................. ....... ..... .......... .......................................... ..........24
Search and Scan Patterns ..................................................................................................................................24
Mirror Glance Duration... ............................... .......... ............ ................... .... ..... ................ ................ ......... ...... .25
Velocity............................................................................................................................ ..................................25
Lateral Position........................................................................................................................... .......................25
PARTICIPANTS. ........... ..... ... .... ...... ............ ...... .............. ........ ........ ........ ... ...... ... ..... ..... ..... .... ....... ..... ....... ...... ..... ......26
ROUTE AND EQUIPMENT....................... ........ ............ .... ................... ...... ......... ................. ................ ......... ......... ..... .27
Route............................................................................................................................... ...................................27
Vehicle.......................................................................................................................... ......................................31
Data Collection System.......................................................................................................................... ............31
PROCEDURE.. ........... .... .......... ........................ .......... ...... .......... ..................... ........ ........ ........ .............. .................... .35
Participant Recruitment and Screening... .......... ........ ...... ............ ................ ........... ............ ................ ............... 35
Experimental Protocol.................................................................................................................................... ...35
DATA REDUCTION ..................... ............................ ........ ...... ......................... ................ ......... ......... ..... ............... .....3 8
Analyst Training.......................................................................................................................... .......................38
Software............................................................................................................................... ..............................38
Procedure..................................................................................................................................... ......................39
Event Identification......................................................................................................................... ...................39
Eyeglance Analysis........................................................................................................................ ....................39
Final Reduced Data Set. ........................ ............... ........ .......... ......................... ........................ ................... ....... 40
Statistical Analysis .. ........ ... ....... ...... .......... .... .... ...... ...... ..... ...... ....... ....... .... ..... ........ ................. ....... ........ ........ ...40
NIGHTTIME STUDy................... ................................ .... ........................................ ............................... ................... Al
RES UL TS ......... ............ .......................................................... .............. .......................... ...... .................................... ..44
PosT-DRIVE QUESTIONNAIRE - DA YTIME RESUL TS................................................................................................44
Demographics Overview......................................................................................................................... ...........44
Route Familiarity.................................................................................................................... ...........................45
Overview of What Drivers Noticed ..... ........ .... ......... '" ............ ........ ....... ... ........ .... ..... .... ....... ...... ......... ...... .,. ..... 46
POST-DRIVE QUESTIONNAIRE - NIGHTTIME RESULTS. ....... ............... ... .................................. ............................... ..49
Age.......................................................................................................................... ...........................................49
Route Familiarity................................................................................................................... ............................50
Attention Getters ... ...... '" ... ............. ..... .......... ...... .......... ........ .................... ... ... ................ ...... ....... ..... ...... ...... .....50
Most Memorable ......... ........ ........ ..... ..... ........ ........... ......... .......... ....... ........ .................... ............. ....... ...... .... ...... 51
DRIVING PERFORMANCE RESULTS - DAyTIME......... .... .................. ............. ........................ .............. .... ... ............. ..52
Event Type.......................................................................................................................... ................................52
Other findings ............ .......... ..... ...... .... ........... .... .... ........... ..... ...... ...... .... .................... .... ...... ..... ............. ............63
DRIVING PERFORMANCE RESULTS - NIGHTTIME ........... .............. ....... ......... ..... .... ........................... ..................... ... 64
Event Type........................................................................................................................... ...............................64
NIGHTTIME LUMINANCE MEASURES............................. .... ............... ................ ......... .......... .... ... .... ...... ... ....... .........68
COMPARISONS TO THE CHARLOTTE STUDY ..............................................................................................71
C ON CL U S I ON S ............. ................................... ................................... ..................... ........................................ ........73
RE FEREN CES ................. ....................... ................................. ............ ....... ........ ........ ...................... ........................74
AP PEND ICES........................ ............... .............. ....................................... ............. ................................................... 77
ApPENDIX A: INITIAL PARTICIPANT TELEPHONE SCREENING FORM........................................................................ 77
ApPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM...................... ....... ..... ....... ............ .................... ................ ................. ......80
ApPENDIX C: HEALTH SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................................................................85
ApPENDIX D: POST DRIVE-QUESTIONNAIRE............ ...... ........... ..... ............ ............. .... ............. ............... ........... .... ..87
2
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANTS TO EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS................................................................20
FIGURE 2. MAP ILLUSTRATING DIGITAL BILLBOARDS (BLACK), CONVENTIONAL BILLBOARDS (RED), COMPARISON
SITES (AQUA BLUE), AND BASELINE SITES (BLUE). .............................................................................................23
FIGURE 3: NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT THAT APPEARED IN THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER...................................26
FIGURE 4. EXPERIMENTER SEATED IN EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE..................................................................................27
FIGURE 5. MAP OF 50-MILE DA VTIME Loop ROUTE IN CLEVELAND, OHIO. ................................................................28
FIGURE 6. DIRECTIONS MOUNTED ON DASHBOARD OF VEHICLE (THIS PICTURE IS FROM A PREVIOUS EXPERIMENT
WHICH USED THE SAME PROTOCOL AND VEHICLE TYPE). ....................................................................................30
FIGURE 7. EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE, 2002 CHEVROLET MALlBU. ................................................................................31
FIGURE 8. FORWARD FACING CAMERAS MOUNTED BEHIND THE CENTER REAR VIEW MIRROR..................................32
FIGURE 9. DRIVER FACE CAMERA, MOUNTED NEAR THE LEFT A-PILLAR. ...................................................................32
FIGURE 10. DRIVER F ACE CAMERA MOUNTED ABOVE REAR VIEW MIRROR...............................................................33
33
FIGURE 11. DIAGRAM OF SIMULTANEOUS PRESENTATION OF FOUR CAMERA VIEWS. .................................................33
FIGURE 12. DATA ACQUISITION SVSTEM LOCATED IN TRUNK OF VEHICLE. ...............................................................34
FIGURE 13. COMPONENTS OF THE DATA COLLECTION SVSTEM. ..................................................................................34
FIGURE 14. MAP ILLUSTRATING NIGHTTIME ROUTE WITH DIGITAL BILLBOARDS (BLACK), CONVENTIONAL
BILLBOARDS (RED), COMPARISON SITES (AQUA BLUE), AND BASELINE SITES (BLUE). .......................................42
FIGURE 15. Top DA VTIME ATTENTION GETTERS (TOP NINE OF EIGHTEEN POSSIBLE). .................................................47
FIGURE 16. Top NIGHTTIME ATTENTION GETTERS (TOP NINE OF EIGHTEEN POSSIBLE). ..............................................51
FIGURE 17. PERCENT EVES-ON-ROAD TIME FOR THE FOUR EVENT TVPES. (COMPARISON EVENTS WERE
SIGNIFICANTL V LOWER THAN THE OTHER THREE EVENT TVPES, WHICH DID NOT DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER). .53
FIGURE 18. MEAN NUMBER OF GLANCES TO ANV LOCATION DURING AN EVENT. (THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVENT TVPES.) ..............................................................................................................54
FIGURE 19. MEAN NUMBER OF LEFT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (THERE
WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVENT TVPES.)...........................................................................55
FIGURE 20. MEAN NUMBER OF RIGHT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. (NONE OF
THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES WERE SIGNIFICANT.) .............................................................................................56
FIGURE 21. MEAN SINGLE GLANCE TIME FOR LEFT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE
ROAD. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTL V FROM ONE ANOTHER.) ..............57
3
FIGURE 22. MEAN SINGLE GLANCE TIME FOR RIGHT FORWARD GLANCES FOR EVENTS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE
ROAD. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.)..............58
FIGURE 23. TAILS ANALYSIS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF GLANCE DURATION, (METHOD DESCRIBED IN HORREY AND
WICKENS, 2007). .... .............. ........................................ ................... ........................................... ....................... .59
FIGURE 24. MEAN SINGLE GLANCE TIME FOR GLANCES IN THE DIRECTION OF EVENTS. (DATA POINTS WITH A
SHARED LETTER DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.) .............................................................60
FIGURE 25. STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED BY EVENT, IN MILES PER HOUR. (DATA POINTS WITH A SHARED LETTER
DO NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE ANOTHER.) .......................................................................................61
FIGURE 26. STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED BY EVENT FOR EVENTS OCCURRING ON INTERSTATES, IN MILES PER
HOUR. (NONE OF THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES WAS SIGNIFICANT.) ...................................................................62
FIGURE 27. STANDARD DEVIATION OF LANE POSITION BY EVENT, IN INCHES. (NONE OF THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES
WAS SIGNIFICANT.) .... .................. ...................... ......... .................................. .... ....... ................... ............ ......... ... 63
FIGURE 28. EYES-ON-RoAD PERCENT BY EVENT TYPE FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY. .........................65
FIGURE 29. OVERALL GLANCE FREQUENCY BY EVENT TYPE FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY. ...............65
FIGURE 30. MEAN GLANCE TIME FOR GLANCES IN THE DIRECTION OF AN EVENT FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY
STUDY. .. ... ....... ... ..... ..... ........ ....... ...... .............. .... ....... ....... ... ........ .......................................... ..... ............ ........ ... 66
FIGURE 31. MEAN NUMBER OF GLANCES IN THE DIRECTION OF AN EVENT FOR THE NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY
STUDY. .. ............. ...... .... ..... ............. ... .... ... .............. ........... ... ..... ..... .............. ........ ............ ... ...... ...... ........ ..... ......66
FIGURE 32. SPEED MAINTENANCE AS MEASURED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPEED BY EVENT FOR THE
NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY. ....... ....... ..... .................................... ................ ................ ...... ......... .... ...... ....67
FIGURE 33. LANE KEEPING AS MEASURED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF LANE POSITION BY EVENT FOR THE
NIGHTTIME EXPLORATORY STUDY. ..... ................ ............. ...... ......... ....... ... ..... ....... ................ ...... .... ..... ...... .... .... 68
FIGURE 34. BRACKET FOR RADIANT IMAGING CCD PHOTOMETER. ............................................................................69
FIGURE 35. RADIANT IMAGING CCD PHOTOMETER IN POSITION FOR MEASUREMENTS, WITH EXPERIMENTER MAKING
FINAL ADJUSTMENTS.............. ................ ........ ...... .... ...... ......... .......... ... ... ........... ..... ...... ........... ............ ....... ....... 69
FIGURE 36. AVERAGE LUMINANCE OF THE FOUR EVENT TYPES, IN CANDELAS PER METER SQUARED. ......................70
4
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES. ......... ..................................................................................................... ............20
TABLE 2. EVENT TYPES INDICATING DESCRIPTION, SIDE OF THE ROAD, LATITUDE, LONGITUDE, AND SPECIFIC SITE
LOCATION INFORMATION................................................ .................................................. ................. ............. ....22
TABLE 3. DIRECTIONS FOR 50-MILE DAYTIME ROUTE IN CLEVELAND, OH...................................................................29
TABLE 4. DIRECTIONS FOR 1.5-MILE PRACTICE ROUTE IN INDEPENDENCE, OHIO. .......................................................30
TABLE 5. ORDER OF PARTICIPATION (SHOWN BY AGE AND GENDER). .........................................................................36
TABLE 6. NIGHTTIME DRIVING DIRECTIONS. ...............................................................................................................41
TABLE 7. NIGHTTIME ORDER OF PARTICIPATION. ........................................................................................................42
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS FOR ALL DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS. ................................................45
TABLE 9. ROUTE SEGMENT FAMILIARITY FOR ALL DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS. .............................................................46
TABLE 10. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DA YTIME PARTICIPANTS FOR THE QUESTION: "WHAT WAS
MOST MEMORABLE ABOUT THE DRIVE? FOR EXAMPLE, WERE THERE ANY OBJECTS THAT STOOD OUT?"............47
TABLE 11. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DA YTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION:
"DOES ANYTHING ABOUT OTHER DRIVERS BOTHER YOU? IF SO, PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE." ...........................48
TABLE 12. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR DAYTIME PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION:
"WHAT OTHER ACTIVITIES DO YOU TYPICALLY ENGAGE IN WHILE DRIVING?" ....................................................49
TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS FOR ALL NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS. ...........................................50
TABLE 14. ROUTE SEGMENT FAMILIARITY FOR ALL NIGHTTIME PARTICIPANTS. ........................................................50
TABLE 15. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF COMMENTS FOR NIGHTTIME P ARTICIP ANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION:
"WHAT WAS MOST MEMORABLE ABOUT THE DRIVE? FOR EXAMPLE, WERE THERE ANY OBJECTS THAT STOOD
OUT?" .................................................................................................................................. ...............................52
5
ABSTRACT
The results of a naturalistic study showed that several driving performance measures in the
presence of digital billboards are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as
the on-premises signs located at businesses. These performance measures included eyeglance
performance, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. The current study was conducted in
Cleveland, OH following the model of a previous study conducted in Charlotte, NC (which
showed no measurable effects of conventional billboards on eye glance patterns, speed
maintenance, or lane keeping). Thirty-six drivers drove an instrumented vehicle on a 50-mile
loop route in the daytime along some of the interstates and surface streets in Cleveland.
Participants were not informed about the true purpose of the experiment, and were told that the
purpose was to help understand the way people drive in a natural environment. Along the route,
participants encountered five digital billboards, 15 conventional billboards, 12 comparison sites
(similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving), and 12 baseline sites (sites with no
signs). Twelve participants returned for a nighttime session to explore the potential effects of the
digital billboards at night.
The eight seconds leading up to the events of interest were then analyzed in terms of eye glance
patterns, speed maintenance behavior, and lane keeping behavior. In a post-drive questionnaire,
42% of drivers mentioned billboards as one of the top five items that caught their attention (out
of 18 choices). Eyeglance results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance
patterns (percent eyes-on-road and overall number of glances) between event types. Drivers also
did not glance more frequently in the direction of digital billboards than in the direction of other
event types, but drivers did take longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and
comparison sites than in the direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites. However,
the mean glance length towards the digital billboards was less than one second. Various
researchers have proposed that glance lengths of 1.6 seconds, 2.0 seconds, and longer may pose a
safety hazard. An examination of longer individual glances showed no differences in distribution
of longer glances between the four event types. There were only minor differences in speed
maintenance or lane keeping performance for the four event types.
The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is
that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and
baseline sites. Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn
regarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in
driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a
par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on-premises signs located at
businesses.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The most notable findings from this study are as follows:
. Eyeglance results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance patterns
between digital billboards, conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline events
during the daytime.
. Drivers did not glance more frequently in the direction of digital billboards than in the
direction of other event types during the daytime.
. Drivers took longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and comparison sites than in
the direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites during the daytime.
. An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds indicated that these longer glances
were distributed evenly across the digital billboards, conventional billboards, comparison
events, and baseline events during the daytime
. The nighttime results indicate that digital billboards and comparison events may be
associated with more active glance patterns, as well as with more frequent and longer glances
towards the digital billboards and comparison events.
. For the post-drive questionnaire, 42% of drivers mentioned billboards as one ofthe top five
items that caught their attention; note that drivers did not know this was billboard study.
. In an open-ended question, three drivers mentioned billboards as the single most memorable
item on the trip, and two referred specifically to the digital billboards as being memorable.
The motivation for the current study was to examine driver performance in the presence of
digital billboards, as compared to other driving locations without them. There is a long history
of studying billboards in the context of traffic safety but, although the research record covers
many years (1951 until the present), it is lacking in volume and is primarily focused on
conventional billboards. There were a few epidemiological studies performed in the early 1950's
examining traffic accidents in the presence and absence of billboards; however, much of this
early work was methodologically flawed. After a long gap in research, there were a few
additional studies in the 1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards
are unsafe. More recent studies conducted in Canada have shown that there may be changes in
driver behavior associated with video billboards (those with full motion), but those studies do not
address the digital billboards of interest in the current study (with a static message that changes
instantaneously without special effects).
Traffic accident analysis techniques have improved in recent years with the creation and
maintenance of national crash databases. A careful examination of these databases shows that
distraction caused by billboards fails to show up in any of the accident databases as an accident
cause. Likewise, an examination of numerous driver distraction studies demonstrates that
billboards fail to show up as a cause of driver distraction. The overall conclusion from all past
research is that conventional billboards in general have not been shown to cause traffic accidents
or change driver behavior. However, the question of whether digital billboards change driver
behavior in some way cannot be answered by these previous studies; this is the motivation for
the current study.
7
The current study was conducted in Cleveland, OH to assess the effects, if any, of digital
billboards on driver behavior and performance. The study was conducted following the model of
a previous study conducted in Charlotte, NC that showed no measurable effects of conventional
billboards on eyeglance patterns, speed maintenance, or lane keeping. Thirty-six drivers were
recruited with males and females equally represented; they were also equally divided by age
(older: 50-75, younger: 18-35). Participants drove an instrumented vehicle on their own (without
an experimenter in the vehicle) on a 50-mile loop route in the daytime along some of the
interstates and surface streets in Cleveland. Participants were not informed about the true
purpose of the experiment, and were told that the purpose was to help understand the way people
drive in a natural environment. Along the route, participants encountered the following items:
. 5 digital billboards (all that were available on the route). The digital billboards were the
standard bulletin size (14 ft x 48 ft) and the copy changed instantaneously every eight
seconds (there were no special effects during the transition).
. 15 conventional billboards (similar to those studied in the Charlotte study).
. 12 comparison sites (similar to items you might encounter in everyday driving; comparable
to digital billboards in terms of visual activity/attractiveness, including on-premises signs
[some with digital elements], logo placards, landmark buildings, and murals).
. 12 baseline sites (sites with no signs).
After the drive, participants completed a questionnaire regarding which types of items and
activities they had noticed along the route. Participants were paid a nominal amount for their
participation. Twelve participants returned for a nighttime session to explore the potential
effects of the digital billboards at night.
The eight seconds leading up to the events of interest were then analyzed in terms of eyeglance
patterns, speed maintenance behavior, and lane keeping behavior. With 36 participants and 44
sites, there were 1,584 events available for analysis from approximately 63 hours of data
collection. A small amount of data was lost due to cell phone use, sensor outages, sun angle, and
vehicle stoppages, leaving 1,540 events for eyeglance analyses. Altogether, 124,740 video
frames were analyzed and 10,073 individual glances were identified. The speed data were
filtered to remove events as described above, and then further filtered to remove low speed
events, leaving 1,494 events in this dataset, with 121,014 data points. The lane position dataset
was further filtered to remove events indicating a possible lane change or lane position sensor
failure (often due to poor lane markings). After filtering, there were 1,188 events remaining in
the lane position dataset, with 96,228 data points.
In terms of demographics, the average age was 28 years for younger drivers and 59 years for
older drivers. Most had completed high school, but few had attended college. All participants
lived in the Cleveland area, and were familiar with at least some parts of the route. For the post-
drive questionnaire, 42% of drivers mentioned billboards as one of the top five items that caught
their attention (out of 18 choices). In a later open-ended question, three drivers mentioned
billboards as the single most memorable item on the trip, and two referred specifically to the
digital billboards as being memorable. By way of contrast, only 25% of drivers in the Charlotte
study checked off billboards in their top five list (of 18 choices), and none mentioned billboards
as being the most memorable aspect of the trip. Recall that drivers did not know that the purpose
8
of the study was to examine performance in the presence of billboards; in fact, they did not know
that the study had anything to do with billboards.
Eyeglance results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance patterns (percent
eyes-on-road and overall number of glances) between event types (digital billboard, conventional
billboard, comparison events, and baseline events). Drivers also did not glance more frequently
in the direction of digital billboards than in the direction of other event types. However, drivers
did take longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and comparison sites than in the
direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites. Given that three of the comparison sites
had digital components, the similar eyeglance findings for these two event types are not
surprising. An analysis of glances lasting longer than 1.6 seconds showed no obvious
differences in the distribution of these longer glances across event types.
There were differences in speed maintenance, with conventional billboards showing greater
variation in speed than digital billboards. However, this was thought to be the result of a road
type interaction, given that all of the digital billboards were on interstates. When only interstate
events were considered in the analysis, there were no significant differences in speed
maintenance across event types. There was a trend towards poorer lane keeping performance for
digital billboards and conventional billboards; however, this trend failed to reach significance.
A smaller exploratory study was also conducted at nighttime using a slightly shortened route.
Given that the digital signs being studied were intrinsically illuminated, this was felt to be an
important first step in determining whether there are driver performance differences in the
presence of these signs under different levels of ambient illumination. Twelve drivers were used,
again divided equally by age and gender. All ofthe nighttime drivers had previously driven the
route during the daytime and were thus somewhat familiar with the route (so were unlikely to get
lost or go offroute). The nighttime study was exploratory in nature with fewer data points, so
these data were examined descriptively rather than analyzed statistically (due to lack of statistical
power).
Four eyeglance measures were examined for the nighttime data: eyes-on-road percent, overall
glance frequency, mean glance duration in the direction of an event, and mean number of glances
in the direction of an event. The eyes-on-road measure showed that digital billboards and
comparison events tended to have less eyes-on-road time at nighttime than either baseline events
or conventional billboards. The overall glance frequency was also higher in the presence of
digital billboards and comparison events than in the presence of baseline events and conventional
billboards. These two findings taken together show a more active glance pattern at nighttime in
the presence of these two event types. The mean glance duration for glances in the direction of
an event also showed higher values for digital billboards and comparison events. Finally, the
mean number of glances in the direction of an event also showed digital billboards and
comparison events as having higher values than either baseline events or conventional billboards.
Taken together, these four findings indicate that digital billboards and comparison events may
result in more active glance patterns overall, as well as more frequent and longer glances towards
the digital billboards and comparison events at nighttime.
9
Two driving performance measures were examined for the nighttime data: standard deviation of
speed and standard deviation of lane position. The standard deviation of speed appeared to be
higher in the presence of both conventional and digital billboards than for baseline and
comparison events. Lane keeping also showed a trend towards greater lane deviations in the
presence of both digital billboards and conventional billboards.
The luminance values of many of the billboards, comparison events, and baseline events were
also measured at nighttime. The digital billboards had noticeably higher luminance values than
any of the other event types, even though their luminance was automatically reduced at night.
This probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital
billboards. The overall ranking of luminance by event (digital billboards were the highest,
followed in order by comparison events, conventional billboards, and baseline events) closely
mirrors the rankings of many of the performance measures for both daytime and nighttime,
including eyeglance, speed maintenance, and lane keeping.
The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is
that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and
baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital
billboards and by longer glances in the direction of the billboards). The comparison events, 25%
of which included signs with digital components, showed very similar results to the digital
billboards. Thus, there appears to be some aspect of the digital billboards and comparison events
that holds the driver's attention, once the driver has glanced that way. This is most likely the
result of the intrinsic lighting of these signs, which is noticeable even during the daytime.
Drivers may also have maintained longer glances towards the digital billboards in the hopes of
catching the next message (knowing that the message changes periodically). Although
exploratory in nature, the nighttime results were very similar to the daytime results, with
indications of degraded driving performance for digital billboards and comparison events.
These particular LED billboards were considered safety-neutral in their design and operation
from a human factors perspective: they changed only once every eight seconds, they changed
instantaneously with no special effects or video, they looked very much like conventional
billboards, and their luminance was attenuated at night. It is thus quite likely that digital signs
with video, movement, higher luminance, shorter on-message duration, longer transition times,
and special effects would also be related to differences in driver behavior and performance.
Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate
safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the
presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated
with everyday driving, such as the on-premises signs located at businesses. Conventional
billboards were shown both in the current study and in the Charlotte study to be very similar to
baseline and comparison events in terms of driver behavior and performance; thus, the design of
digital billboards should be kept as similar as possible to conventional billboards.
10
INTRODUCTION
There is a long history of studying billboards in the context of traffic safety, but although the
research record covers many years (1951 until the present), it is lacking in volume. There were a
few epidemiological studies performed in the early 1950's examining traffic accidents in the
presence and absence of billboards. As will be seen, much of this early work was
methodologically flawed. After a long gap in research, there were a few additional studies in the
1960's through the 1980's, none of which demonstrated that billboards are unsafe. Traffic
accident analysis techniques have improved in recent years with the creation and maintenance of
national crash databases. A careful examination of these databases shows that distraction caused
by billboards fails to show up in any of the accident databases as an accident cause. Likewise, an
examination of numerous driver distraction studies demonstrates that billboards fail to show up
as a cause of driver distraction. The lead author of this report recently participated on an expert
panel charged with providing recommendations for a minimal data set to be included on police
accident reports; billboards were never raised as a possible distraction or as an item that should
be included on these accident reports.
As will be seen, there has been relatively little research on billboards and their effect on driver
behavior, and little original research on digital billboards of the type discussed in this report.
The current project was therefore undertaken to fill this research gap and to determine whether
digital billboards do in fact cause a change in driver behavior as he/she passes a billboard
location. Several measures of eyeglance location were used as primary measures of driver visual
behavior. Additional measures of driver performance were included to provide further insight--
these included speed variation and lane deviation. Drivers in this study used an instrumented
vehicle, drove the route alone, and were uninformed as to the purpose ofthe study.
The report is organized as follows: a literature review, covering topics such as early accident
analysis studies, sign conspicuity studies, and later safety and driver distraction studies; a
methods section; a results section; conclusions; references; and supporting material contained in
appendices.
11
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Early studies from the 1950's attempted to correlate the occurrence and frequency of accidents
with the location of billboards or other roadway or roadside features. For example, a series of
studies by the Minnesota Highway Department (Rykken, 1951) analyzed accident features in
order to determine whether there was any direct relationship between accident frequency and
type and several elements of roadway and roadside design, including advertising sign type and
location. While a relationship between frequency of access points and accident occurrence was
evident, no apparent relationship was found between accident occurrence and advertising sign
type or location.
Rykken (1951) added that more accurate accident reports might reveal an unexpected
relationship between signs and accidents: the absence of signs when no other roadside objects are
present may increase the likelihood of accidents by decreasing the driver's sense of a need for
caution. Immediately after 45 miles of highway with no billboards or advertising signs in
viewable distance, a roadside interviewing station investigated driver response. Because drivers
expressed a feeling of fatigue and unease after having driven the section, the author postulated
that the combination of a small number of distracting features and the complete absence of
billboards produced a feeling of security, which tends to result in higher average driving speed.
Several severe accidents that occurred over that stretch were attributed to excessive speed.
McMonagle, a researcher with the Michigan State Highway Department, analyzed 2,675
accidents on a 70-mile strip of highway from 1947 to 1948 in order to measure the relationship
between accidents and highway design and roadside features (McMonagle, 1951). The strip of
road included a variety of roadside features and design characteristics, including the number of
lanes and traffic volume. Findings showed that the highest incidence of crashes occurred near
intersections, particularly when gas stations, restaurants and other establishments were clustered
nearby. Only a slight association (correlation coefficient .11) existed between large advertising
signs and accidents. While total advertising signs correlated with accident frequency to a greater
degree (correlation coefficient .41), advertising signs still contributed less to accident frequency
than did groupings of design features or roadside features such as gas stations.
In an attempt to correlate accident frequency with density of advertising and roadside business,
Rusch (1951) analyzed crash reports originating in 1947 and 1948 that examined sections of
highway distributed across Iowa. The accidents were assigned one of three causes: 1) roadside
business, 2) inattention or misdirected attention, or 3) "other causes." Roadside business was
listed as the cause of an accident only if the business was specifically named in the accident
report, as in the case of a vehicle exiting a gas station and being struck by oncoming traffic.
Results showed that twice as many collisions occurred on the portions of road in the high-density
category than occurred on the other parts of the test stretches put together. More accidents were
attributed to inattention than to any other cause in the high-density category. In the low-density
category, more accidents were attributable to miscellaneous causes than to business and
inattention combined. Sections of highway in the low-density category showed lower accident
rates than those in the high-density category, even when traffic volume was held constant. In
addition, accidents on low-density stretches occurred more sporadically with less of a tendency
to recur in the same locations the following year. In reference to this study, Andreassen (1985)
12
later claimed that "the greatest number of inattention accidents occurred on the sections where
business and advertising predominated as the roadside property usage, but this does not prove
anything about the effect of advertising signs on accident occurrence."
Overall, these early studies provided some initial insight into accident causation, but did not
demonstrate that billboards or other advertising signs were a possible cause of accidents.
Intersections and high-density roadways combined with inattention were most commonly
associated with an increased number of accidents. Interestingly, later analysts using modem
statistical techniques critiqued these early studies as being methodologically flawed (e.g.,
Wachtel and Netherton, 1980; Andreassen, 1985).
A critical research review sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A; Wachtel
and Netherton, 1980) summarized knowledge concerning commercial electronic variable-
message signage (CEVMS) in an effort to recommend national standards for their regulation.
Because there was little research available in the area of CEVMS, their literature review focused
on standard (conventional) billboards. Wachtel and Netherton (1980) opined that roadside
advertising research based on accident studies has had limited value owing to either insufficient
information concerning location and traffic or problems with statistical analysis and sampling
error. While some studies have found positive relationships between outdoor advertising and
accident frequency, others have arrived at the opposite conclusion.
According to Wachtel and Netherton (1980), human factors laboratory research techniques are
capable of gathering much more precise, reliable, and valid data in the attempt to measure and
explain the effect of outdoor advertising on driver behavior. Literature from several related
fields indicated that outdoor advertising probably does not hurt driving performance noticeably
when driving conditions are favorable (in terms of weather, traffic, road, vehicle, etc.). This is
because the driver has sufficient spare processing capacity to pay attention to the signs without
compromising the primary task. When stimulation is extremely low, as when there is very little
traffic and very little to look at or to decide, unusual environmental features such as road signs
may increase the driver's arousal and improve driving performance. When the driving task
becomes highly demanding, the outdoor advertising must compete with more vital information
sources such as traffic, weather, and official signage.
In a review of published literature relating accidents to advertising signs, Andreassen (1985)
brought attention to weaknesses in the small amount of research that has been conducted in this
area. Almost all studies have relied on correlations and/or subjectively assigned "inattention"
factors, which can only produce very tenuous evidence for a causal link between advertising and
accident frequency.
Garvey, Thompson-Kuhn, and Pietrucha (1995) reviewed the studies that attempted to evaluate
directly the relationship between traffic accidents and advertising signs. The common problem
with these studies is attributing accident causation; high-advertising and low-advertising sites
may have different accident frequencies because of differing traffic densities, pedestrian activity,
and roadway geometry. Although most evidence argues against a strong causative link, it is still
not possible to ascertain the existence or nature of the relationship between advertising and
accidents.
13
Recently, much attention has been focused on the causes and effects of distraction on driving,
especially in the area of cellular phones and other in-vehicle technology. A review of the recent
driver distraction literature failed to reveal any studies in which outdoor advertising was
mentioned as a cause for driver distraction. As a matter of fact, this report's lead author recently
served on the advisory panel for the revised Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria in which
transportation safety experts recommended revisions to the minimum set of data to be collected
as part of every crash report. There were lengthy discussions over which distraction variables
should be recommended, and the words "billboard" or "advertising" were never mentioned.
The national crash databases do not mention billboards in their list of driver distractions. The
two most prominent databases are the General Estimates System (GES), which estimates the
number of all crashes based on a representative sample, and the Fatal Accident Reporting System
(F ARS), which is a true census of every fatal crash. The only mention of billboards in the 216
page user's manual for the GES database is in the Driver's Vision Obscured By variable, which
has a category of Building, Billboard, or Other Design Features (GES, 2002). In other words, if
an accident was caused by a driver's vision being obscured, billboards would be lumped together
with buildings and other design features, both of which are much more common than billboards.
The same holds true for the F ARS user's manual of 458 pages - billboards are only mentioned in
the Driver's Vision Obscured By variable, and are lumped together with buildings (Tessmer,
2002).
One recent study of driver distraction (Glaze and Ellis, 2003) reported one mention of the word
"billboard" in the context of an accident caused by driver distraction. Glaze and Ellis performed
a study to determine the nature of distraction/inattention crashes in the state of Virginia. A
complex system of accident report sampling was administered via surveys sent to all seven
Virginia state police divisions, four selected counties, and 14 independent cities. Roughly 2,800
crash scenes were reported, involving a total of almost 4,500 drivers. At least one distracted
driver was involved in 98% of those crashes. Every accident report had a space to write an open-
ended description of the main distracting factor in the accident, and over 1,400 responses were
recorded. One response (out of 2,800 crashes) included a billboard being repaired as a causal
factor for driver distraction leading to a crash. No mention of outdoor advertising was made in
any other place in the study, despite the fact that 35% of distracters were outside of the vehicle in
question (62% were in-vehicle and 3% were unknown). Typical in-vehicle distracters included
passenger/children distraction (8.7%), adjusting radio/changing CD or tape (6.5%), eating or
drinking (4.2%), and cell phone (3.9%). Typical out of vehicle distracters included looking at
crash, other roadside incident, or traffic (13.1 %), looking at scenery or landmarks (9.8%), and
weather conditions (1.9%). There were also 25 cases of drivers being distracted by traffic signs
or signals (<1%).
Tantala and Tantala (2005) have been the most recent researchers to attempt a rigorous
examination of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic accidents. They used
methods intended to control for the analytical issues noted with early studies of this type. They
conducted two analyses for this research. In the first situation, a highway (New Jersey Turnpike)
with advertising signs was selected and studied, including analysis of sign location, road
conditions, and traffic-accident locations, to determine whether traffic accidents were more
14
prevalent at or near existing signs. More than four years of data and 23,000 accidents were used
in this analysis. Statistical correlation coefficients showed that the correlation was statistically
low for all analyses conducted, including accident density and sign density (with and without
interchanges included), accident distance and viewer reaction distance (again with and without
interchanges included), and accident density and proximity to the sign. They also found that
these correlation values were consistent from year to year. This section of the analysis led them
to conclude that there are no statistical or causal relationships between advertising signs and
accidents.
In the second analysis by Tantala and Tantala (2005), the location of a recently installed sign was
identified, and the incidence of traffic accidents near the sign was examined. Accidents before
and after sign installation were examined to determine whether traffic accidents occurred more
frequently in the presence of the sign. The sign was installed at a busy intersection near a mall in
Pennsylvania. The intersection was controlled by a traffic signal. One year of pre-installation
and one year of post-installation data were compared. There were no other changes to the
intersection during the two year study period. After installation of the sign, the traffic volume
increased, the accident rate decreased, the maximum number of accidents in any given day or
week decreased, and the number of days without accidents increased. There were no statistically
significant changes in accident occurrences after the installation of the advertising sign.
Researchers are beginning to conduct more studies of driver performance in the presence of
various types of advertising signs. For example, Beijer, Smiley, and Eizenman (2004) studied
video advertising signs (those with full motion displays) in Toronto using eyeglance analysis
similar to that used in the Charlotte study. They compared the video signs to two other types of
active signs (scrolling text and roller bar) and to conventional billboards. Significantly more
glances, and even more importantly, significantly more glances that lasted,:::: 0.75 s were made to
video signs than to scrolling text, roller bar, or conventional billboard signs. Taking all active
signs together, these received significantly more glances and significantly more long glances per
sign than the conventional billboards. However, there were no digital billboards of the type
studied in the current research effort.
The most recent research paper in this area was conducted by Crundall, Van Loon, and
Underwood (2006). They conducted a laboratory study to examine the differences between
street level advertising (such as advertising on bus shelters) and raised level advertising (the
same sorts of signs, but raised lOft above the ground). They concluded that street level
advertisements attract and hold attention at inappropriate times as compared to raised level
advertising. Since the billboards studied in the current report were never at ground level, this
paper provided no new useful information.
It should be noted that the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) undertook another
project for the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE) (Lee,
Olsen, and DeHart, 2004). This project was undertaken in Charlotte, NC using methods similar
to those used in the current study to determine whether there is any change in driving behavior in
the presence or absence of conventional billboards. Several measures of eye glance location were
used as primary measures of driver visual performance. Additional measures were included to
provide further insight into driving performance; these included speed variation and lane
15
deviation. The overall conclusion from this study was that there is no measurable evidence that
billboards cause changes in driver behavior in terms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, and
lane keeping. A rigorous examination of individual billboards that could be considered to be the
most visually attention-getting demonstrated no measurable relationship between glance location
and billboard location. Driving performance measures in the presence of these specific
billboards generally showed less speed variation and lane deviation.
Participants in this study drove a vehicle equipped with cameras in order to capture the forward
view and two views of the driver's face and eyes. The vehicle was also equipped with a data
collection system that would capture vehicle information such as speed, lane deviation, Global
Positioning System (GPS) location, and other measures of driving performance. Thirty-six
drivers participated in the study, driving a 35-mile loop route in Charlotte, NC. A total of 30
billboard sites along the route were selected, along with six comparison sites and six baseline
sites. Several measures were used to examine driving performance during the seven seconds
preceding the billboard or other type of site. These included measures of driver visual
performance (forward, left, and right glances) and measures of driving performance (lane
deviation and speed variation).
With 36 participants and 42 sites, there were 1,512 events available for analysis. A small
amount of data was lost due to sensor outages, sun angle, and lane changes, leaving 1,481 events
for eyeglance analysis and 1,394 events for speed and lane position analysis. Altogether,
103,670 video frames were analyzed and 10,895 glances were identified. There were 97,580
data points in the speed and lane position data set.
The visual performance results indicate that billboards do not differ measurably from comparison
sites such as logo boards, on-premises advertisements, and other roadside items. No measurable
differences were found for visual behavior in terms of side of road, age, or familiarity, while
there was one difference for gender. Not surprisingly, there were significant differences for road
type, with surface streets showing a more active glance pattern than interstates. There were also
no measurable differences in speed variability or lane deviation in the presence of billboards as
compared to baseline or comparison sites. An analysis of specific, high attention-getting
billboards showed that some sites show a more active glance pattern than other sites, but the
glance locations did not necessarily correspond to the side of the road where the billboards were
situated. Taken as a whole, the results of the previous research conducted for FOARE support
the overall conclusion that driving performance does not change measurably in the presence or
absence of billboards.
The only currently available research report related to electronic billboards is a literature review
sponsored by the FHW A (Farbry, Wochinger, Shafer, Owens, and Nedzesky, 2001). The
motivation for this report was to fill the knowledge gap in this area since the last attempt by
Wachtel and Netherton in 1980. However, the material does not appear to address the
instantaneously changing digital billboards of the type discussed in the current report. Examples
shown pictorially in Farbry et al. (2001) are signs with changeable elements (such as time and
temperature signs), tri-vision signs, and video digital billboards ofthe type studied by Beijer et
al. (2004). Farbry et al. (2001) raised questions about safety implications with regard to driver
distraction, summarized current knowledge in this research field, assessed areas needing
16
exploration, and developed a research plan to address them. While some electronic billboards
(EBBs) display motion and color with fine detail, others just show a short sequence of words in
which each letter is composed of a matrix ofLEDs (Farbry et aI., 2001). This type of display is
also used by governmental agencies to present information to drivers and is known by several
different acronyms: variable message sign (VMS); dynamic message sign (DMS); and
changeable message sign (CMS). A tri-panel sign, also known as a tri-vision sign, is composed
of triangular cylinders that rotate periodically, showing a different composite image in between
each rotation. The only movement is that of the images in transition.
Studies attempting to draw causality from correlation between dynamic billboards and accident
frequency run into the same difficulties found by studies investigating conventional billboards
and accidents (Farbry et at, 2001). Common obstacles include consistently confounding traffic
conditions in areas with heavy advertising, incomplete or inaccurate accident reports, and driver
motivation to omit distraction when reporting crash causality. Even given these stumbling
blocks, the correlation is still statistically clear: after a dynamic, illuminated billboard is installed,
crash rates go up. A common trend was exemplified when a 35% increase in sideswipe and rear-
end accidents on an interstate occurred after a variable message advertising sign was put up on
the side of a sports stadium. The correlation, while rarely this dramatic, is a consistent one.
However, even a correlation this strong is not sufficient evidence to assume causality. Enough
other variables were held to be confounding the situation that the sports stadium sign was not
deemed a traffic hazard in and of itself, and it remained in place for 16 years.
Farbry et aI. (2001) caution that correlations alone provide little fodder for the development of
countermeasures. Researchers hypothesize that a safety hazard is posed by dynamic advertising
because it may cause greater distraction, which can be measured in several formal ways. One
common method is to ask the driver to perform another task while driving, then to measure the
degree to which the safe operation or control of the vehicle is affected. Lack of control is
typically quantified by one of three measures: lateral deviation, maintenance of appropriate
speed, and/or braking for emergencies. Lateral deviation is defined as either the degree to which
the vehicle swerves away from the center of the appropriate lane or a measure of the variability
in steering wheel position. Maintenance of appropriate speed refers to the headway between the
vehicle and the vehicle ahead; if the lead vehicle slows down, the participant vehicle should also
slow down and maintain an appropriate speed to keep the headway constant. Some experiments
present an emergency and measure distraction by the amount of time it takes the participant to
respond appropriately.
The literature review by Farbry et aI. (2001) also revealed that the two demographic groups most
susceptible to the dangers of distraction while driving are drivers over the age of 65 or under the
age of24. Older drivers' visual processing speed and attention degrade with age, resulting in
little to no spare resources with which to encode and process anything but the most important
information in the driving environment. Younger drivers usually have faster processing speeds,
but they are less experienced and less efficient at resource allocation. Among other weaknesses,
younger drivers take more risks, may not recognize hazards, and have poor focus on the driving
task itself. Because of this, they may be more vulnerable to having their attention drawn by
irrelevant but attention-getting stimuli.
17
Other than age, a variable that may influence the degree to which a sign distracts a driver is route
familiarity (Farbry et al., 2001). A driver who is new to a road may be looking for navigational
or service cues, and this task may be take longer in a more complex visual environment
containing numerous advertising signs. On the same road, a familiar driver may not look around
much since he already has all ofthe information that he needs. Familiar signs may be less likely
to attract the attention of a driver who knows the roadway well and whose primary navigational
interests may be traffic conditions and incidents. According to this theory, a visitor would be
more likely to be distracted by an advertising sign than would a commuter.
Research regarding distraction, conspicuity, and legibility revealed that an increase in distraction,
a decrease in conspicuity, or a decrease in the legibility of a sign may cause an increase in the
crash rate (Farbry et al., 2001). The review shows that, at this point, there is no effective
technique for evaluating safety effects of EBBs on driver attention or distraction. Crash studies
may show a positive correlation between dynamic signs and crash rates, but driver age and route
familiarity are examples of confounding variables whose interference may hide the fact that very
little causality can be proven.
The final recommendation of the Farbry et al. (2001) report is for further research in this area.
They recommend research using several methods, including crash analysis of the sort conducted
by Tantala and Tanta1a (2005), simulator research, test track research, and field studies.
Simulator and test track research both have limitations with regard to sign research, especially in
regard to digital billboards. For example, it can be difficult to achieve the visual effect of an
internally illuminated sign in a simulator. For test tracks, only a limited amount of driving
performance data could be obtained, which would likely not be worth the expense of installing a
digital billboard on the test track. However, both test track and simulator research are more
appropriate for highly controlled experiments in which the goal is to obtain information about the
design and content of the billboard copy, the timing of the change, and other design elements. If
the goal is to evaluate driver performance and behavior in the presence of digital billboards that
occur in the natural course of driving, then a field study is the appropriate technique, and this
was the technique selected for the current study.
The overall conclusion from all past research is that conventional billboards in general have not
been shown to cause traffic accidents or change driver behavior. However, the question of
whether digital billboards change driver behavior in some way cannot be answered by these
previous studies; this is the motivation for the current study.
18
METHOD
Selection of City
Both Pittsburgh, P A and Cleveland, OH were scouted as possible locations for conducting this
study. The Pittsburgh streets where the digital billboards were located were generally very
curvy and hilly, often with nearby intersections. The digital billboards were often situated at the
bottom of a hill, at a curve, or just beyond an intersection. It would have thus been difficult to
conduct meaningful eyeglance and speed analyses under these conditions (i.e., the signs were
situated in most cases such that the driver had to look straight forward to see the signs). The
Cleveland digital billboards, on the other hand, were located off to the side of the roadway in
straight-away sections of interstate with no interference from hills, curves, or intersections. It
was thus apparent that choice of Cleveland would allow for a more robust analysis with fewer
dropped data points.
Digital Billboards
The item of interest in this study was digital Billboards. These billboards are illuminated from
within via a matrix of LEDs. These devices are capable of displaying several messages in a
rotation. The digital billboards are also capable of video and special transition effects (such as
fades or wipes from one message to the next). However, the digital billboards used in this study
simply transitioned from one message to the next in less than one second, using no transition
special effects or video; in other words, there was no motion or apparent motion used in
displaying the messages or transitioning between them. Messages changed once every eight
seconds. The billboards appeared very similar to conventional billboards, except that the copy
was crisper and easier to read from a distance even during the daytime, likely due to the intrinsic
lighting. The lighting level was automatically dimmed at night to adjust to the ambient lighting
level. Light measurements taken at night are presented in a different section of the report.
Experimental Design
This study was conducted as a mixed-factors research design (a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 design, with
four between-subjects cells). There were five independent variables: gender, age, route
familiarity (determined post-hoc, so not balanced across subjects), event type, and road type.
The between-subjects independent variables were gender (male or female) and age (younger or
older). For the within-subjects variables, the levels were as follows: route familiarity (familiar or
unfamiliar, defined later), event type (digital billboard, conventional billboard, baseline, and
comparison, also defined later), and road type (interstate or surface roads). All of the
participants drove each of the segments and were exposed to all of the billboards and comparison
sites. A representation of the experimental design is included in Figure 1.
19
Gender
Route Familiarity
Familiar
Male
MI-MIR
Female
MI-MIR
FI-Fl R
FI-Fl R
Younger
MI-M9
FI-F9
Age
Older
Ml O-Ml R
FlO-FI R
Figure 1. Assignment of Participants to Experimental Conditions.
Independent Variables
The five independent variables are listed in Table 1.
Event Type
Table 1. Inde endent Variables.
Levels
Youn er (18-35) or Older 50-75)
Male or Female
Unfamiliar or Familiar (familiarity with at least 4 segments
determined for each sub. ect
Digital Billboard, Conventional Billboard, Baseline (no
billboards or other large signs) or Comparison (other signs or
landmarks)
Interstate or Surface Street
Inde en dent Variable
A e
Gender
Route Familiarity
Road T e
Age and Gender. Of the 36 participants, eighteen were younger drivers (18 to 35 years old) and
eighteen were older drivers (50 to 75 years old). Eighteen of the participants were male and
eighteen were female. Age was equally balanced across gender, as is illustrated by Figure 1
(e.g., of the 18 younger participants, 9 were male and 9 were female).
Route Familiarity. Route familiarity referred to how often a section was normally driven by the
participant per week (unfamiliar = drove section less than once per week; familiar = drove
20
section at least once per week). Route familiarity was ascertained after the drive by asking
participants how familiar they were with the various segments they had just driven. Thus, this
variable was not balanced across the participant population.
Road Type. The two road types were interstates and surface roads. All of the participants were
exposed to both road types. Approximately 85% of the route consisted of interstate segments,
with the remainder being classified as surface streets.
Event Type. The four event types included digital Billboard, Conventional Billboard,
Comparison, and Baseline. All of the participants were exposed to all four event types. Events
were 8 seconds long (chosen because the digital billboards were programmed to change
messages instantaneously once every 8 seconds; an event length of 8 seconds thus made it highly
likely that a message change would be captured during the event). The end of an event was the
point at which the experimental vehicle passed the object, and the start of the event was then
defined as 8 seconds before the end point. All events on the route are listed and described in
Table 2.
Digital Billboards. Five digital billboards were included along the driving route. Displays on
the billboards changed instantaneously (i.e., no special effects such as fades, wipes, or shuttering
occurred when the message changed) every 8 seconds; the signs followed standards for color,
brightness, and placement. These five locations are shown in Figure 2 with the black dots (e).
Conventional Billboards. Conventional billboard events were defined as areas in which
designated billboards were visible. These were identified by GPS coordinates (latitude and
longitude) associated with their exact location near the roadway. Most of the billboards were the
bulletin size, 14 ft (h) by 48 ft (w). Of the total set of billboards available on the route, a sample
of 15 billboards was selected for efficiency of data reduction and to ensure a balanced sample.
The sample was selected so that it was balanced in terms of side of the road, media type, road
type, and (where possible) varying degrees of "visual clutter." None of the selected boards were
located directly prior to or after a road exit or entry (preliminary review of the video indicated
that drivers were likely to be changing lanes or monitoring items such as road signs during these
times, which could confound the results of the analysis). Each side of the road was equally
represented to the degree possible, and most of the digital and conventional billboards were 14 ft
x 48 ft bulletins. The remaining few were smaller boards, including standard poster, junior paint,
and 10'6" x 36' bulletins. Table 3 lists the selected billboards, while the locations of the selected
billboards are indicated by red dots (e) in Figure 2.
Comparison Sites. Comparison events were areas with visual elements other than billboards.
Examples include on-premise signs, logo placards, interesting landmark buildings, large wall
murals, and variable message signs. Several events had digital components. The events were
chosen before data collection began and were selected based on the experimenters' perception
that these vents were comparable to the digital billboards in the visual attractiveness. These 12
sites are shown as aqua blue dots (.) in Figure 2.
Baseline events. The baseline event type referred to areas with no billboards or other large signs
visible (except for perhaps speed limit and other small traffic control signs). These 12 areas
21
served as locations with which to compare velocity, lane position, and glance patterns and are
indicated by blue dots (.) in Figure 2.
Table 2. Event Types Indicating Description, Side of the Road, Latitude, Longitude, and
S .ft S't L f I ~ f
specI IC I e oca IOn norma Ion.
Event Road
Type Description Side Latitude Longitude Site Type
1 4 Baseline Both 41.41208267 -81.6701355 480 W, W/O Lancaster Dr. I
2 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42123795 -81.69820404 480 W, W/O Broadview Rd. I
3 3 On Prem/Logo Right 41.42151642 -81.70906067 480 W, E/O State Rd. I
4 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42173767 -81.71897125 480 W, E/O Pearl Rd. I
5 4 Baseline Both 41.42321014 -81.74341583 480 W, W/O Ridge Rd. I
6 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42559433 -81.76654053 480 W, W/O Tiedeman Rd. I
7 2 Static Billboard Right 41.42352295 -81.77274323 480 W, E/O W. 130th St. I
8 1 LED Billboard Left 41.42056274 -81.78245544 480 W, W/O W. BOth St. I
9 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.42053986 -81.7904892 480 w, @W. 139th St. I
10 2 Static Billboard Left 41.42324829 -81.80148315 4866 West 150th S
11 4 Baseline Both 41.4307785 -81.80125427 4545 West 150th S
12 2 Static Billboard Left 41.43348694 -81.79000854 13986 Puritas Ave S
13 4 Baseline Both 41.43657303 -81.78400421 13456 Bellaire Rd S
14 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.43969727 -81.77674103 12686 Bellaire Rd S
15 3 Tri- Vision Billboard Right 41.44282913 -81.77227783 12071 Bellaire Rd S
16 4 Baseline Both 41.45092773 -81.76893616 3757 West 117th S
17 2 Static Billboard Left 41.46089554 -81.76893616 3370 West I 17th S
18 4 Baseline Both 41.46966553 -81.75019836 90 E, @ W. 97th St. I
19 1 LED Billboard Right 41.47394943 -81.72478485 90 E, @ W. 55th St. I
20 2 Static Billboard Left 41.47385406 -81.70856476 90 E, W 10 Fulton Rd. I
21 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.48424911 -81.69098663 90 E, S/O Abbey Ave. I
22 1 LED Billboard Right 41.4903717 -81.68776703 90 E, @ W. 3rd St. I
23 3 On Prem LED Billboard Left 41.49866867 -81.67558289 2071 Carnegie Ave. S
24 3 On Prem/Logo Left 41.49928284 -81.67251587 2351 Carnegie Ave. S
25 3 On Prem LED Billboard Left 41.52510452 -81.66101074 90 E, E/O E. 49th St. I
26 3 Building Right 41.53549194 -81.64455414 90 E, W/O E. nnd St. I
27 2 Static Billboard Right 41.54089737 -81.62488556 90 E, W/O E. 99th St. I
28 2 Static Billboard Right 41.54464722 -81.61724854 90 E, W/O E. 105th St. I
29 4 Baseline Both 41.5479126 -81.60997009 90 E, @ E. 109th St. I
30 3 On Prem/Logo Right 41.55478668 -81.59642029 90 E, @ Coit Rd. I
31 4 Baseline Both 41.56173325 -81.59170532 90 E, W/O E. 140th St. I
32 4 Baseline Both 41.56638718 -81.57984161 90 E, W/O E. I 52nd St. I
33 2 Static Billboard Right 41.57143021 -81.56455994 90 E, @E. 167th St. I
34 3 On Prem/Logo Right 41.57068634 -81.56790924 90 W, @ E. 161st St. I
35 4 Baseline Both 41.56744385 -81.57712555 90 W, W/O E. 152nd St. I
36 4 Baseline Both 41.55927277 -81.59375763 90 W, W/O E. 140th St. I
37 1 LED Billboard Left 41.54701233 -81.61243439 90 W, WIO E. 105th St. I
38 2 Static Billboard Left 41.54128647 -81.62450409 90 W, W/O E. 99th St. I
39 3 On Prem LED Billboard Right 41.52567673 -81.66069031 90 W, W/O E. 55th St. I
40 2 Static Billboard Left 41.49006653 -81.66697693 77S, S/O Woodland Ave. I
41 2 Static Billboard Right 41.48295593 -81.66287231 77 S, @ 1-490 Exit I
42 1 LED Billboard Right 41.46414566 -81.65770721 77 S, S/O Pershing Ave. I
43 4 Baseline Both 41.45179367 -81.65712738 77 S, N/O Harvard Ave. Exit I
44 2 Static Billboard Left 41.4439621 -81.65229797 77 S, N/O Grant Ave. Exit I
Event Type: I=LED Billboard, 2=Static Billboard, 3=Comparison, 4=Baseline
Road Type: I=Interstate, S=Surface Street
22
2: Static Billboard
3: Comparison
4: Baseline
Figure 2. Map Illustrating Digital Billboards (black), Conventional Billboards (red),
Comparison Sites (aqua blue), and Baseline Sites (blue).
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables are discussed in more detail in the results section, but they are reviewed
briefly here. The purpose of the study was to determine if there are changes in driver behavior in
the presence of billboards. Eleven dependent measures were used as indicators of driver
behavior: nine eyeglance measures and two driving performance measures. The nine eyeglance
measures included: total number of glances for center forward, left forward, and right forward;
total glance duration for center forward, left forward, and right forward; and average glance
duration for center forward, left forward, and right forward. Keep in mind that all glance
locations reported here were out of the front windshield, but varied in location within the forward
view. The two driving performance measures were speed deviation (standard deviation of speed
over the 8 seconds ofthe event) and lane deviation (standard deviation oflane position over the 8
seconds of the event). Additional analyses examined driver glance behavior to certain other
locations, including interior locations and exterior locations other than forward. The next section
is a supplement to the literature review presented earlier, and lays the groundwork for the
selection of these dependent variables, which are similar to those typically used in transportation
safety research.
23
Selection of Dependent Variables Based on Previous Driving Studies
Measures of Visual Demand
According to Farber, Blanco, Foley, Curry, Greenburg, and Serafin (2000), typical measures of
visual demand include: 1) glance frequency, 2) glance duration, 3) average duration per glance,
and 4) total eyes-off-road time. Such measures are time-consuming to record and analyze but are
typically used to measure visual attention. For example, previous research has reported on driver
performance of in-car tasks such as adjusting the radio, viewing in-car displays (e.g.,
speedometer) or interacting with a navigation system (Wierwille, Antin, Dingus, & Hulse, 1988;
Gellatly & Kleiss, 2000; Kurokawa & Wierwille, 1990; Tijerina, Palmer, & Goodman, 1999).
Visual glance duration and the number of glances per task were investigated while performing
conventional in-vehicle tasks and navigation tasks (Wierwille, Antin, Dingus, & Hulse, 1988).
Findings indicated that glance frequency varied depending upon the task, and that glance
duration for a single glance ranged from 0.62 s to 1.63 s. The mean number of glances across all
tasks was between 1.26 and 6.52 glances. Zwahlen, Adams, and DeBald (1988) reported that
"out of view" glance times (rear view mirror, speedometer, etc.) ranged from 0.5 s to
2.0 s during straight driving. Another example of such research is an experiment by Parkes,
Ward, and Vaughan (2001) who measured glance frequency, glance duration, and average
duration per glance to evaluate two in-vehicle audio systems, in terms of total "eyes off road"
time.
Search and Scan Patterns
Early research included the investigation of visual search and scan patterns while driving
(Mourant, Rockwell, & Rackoff, 1969; Mourant & Rockwell, 1970; 1972). It was found that as
drivers became familiar with a route, they spent more time looking ahead, they confined their
sampling to a smaller area ahead, and they were better able to detect potential traffic threats (e.g.,
movement in the periphery). Mourant and Rockwell (1970) found that peripheral vision was
used to monitor other vehicles and lane line markers, that novice and experienced drivers
differed in their visual acquisition process, and that novice drivers may be considered to drive
less safely.
A recent field study investigated the influence of fatigue on critical incidents involving local
short haul truck drivers (Hanowski et aI., 2003). Fatigued drivers involved in critical incidents
when making lane changes spent more time looking in irrelevant locations (i.e., locations other
than out-the-windshield, out-the-windows, at the mirrors, or at the instrument panel). The mean
proportion of time spent looking at irrelevant locations was 8%. However, during normal lane
changes (not a critical event), the mean proportion of time that drivers spent looking at irrelevant
locations was 3%, a significant difference. In terms of eye behavior, it appears that fatigued
drivers involved in critical incidents pay less attention to relevant locations such as the road
ahead and appropriate mirrors.
24
Mirror Glance Duration
Based on available literature discussed in this section, mirror glance times range from 0.8 s to 1.6
s (M= 1.1 s). Searches to the rear (blind spot) appeared to require a minimum value of 0.8 s.
Nagata and Kuriyama (1985) investigated the influence of driver glance behavior in obtaining
information through door and fender mirror systems. For door mirror systems, they reported that
the average glance duration to the near-side (i.e., right side in this case) mirror was 0.69 s.
Rockwell (1988) reported that the average glance duration to the left mirror was 1.10 s (SD =
0.33 s). This finding was consistent across different participants in three different experiments
over a six-year period using the same data gathering and reduction technique. Taoka (1990)
modeled the eyeglance distributions of Rockwell and found they could be well represented by
means of a lognormal distribution. Taoka reported that the average time for viewing the left-side
mirror was also 1.10s (SD = 0.3 s). The 5th percentile value was 0.68 s and the 95th percentile
was 1.65 s. For right side mirror glances, Nagata and Kuriyama (1985) reported that average
glance duration was 1.38 s (angle difference from the vertical axis of70 degrees), while
Rockwell reported an average glance duration of 1.21 s (10% larger than left glances), with an
approximate standard deviation of 0.36 s. For the rear view mirror, Taoka (1990) reported that
the average glance time was 0.75 s (SD = 0.36 s). The 5th percentile value was 0.32 s and the
95th percentile was 1.43 s.
Velocity
Velocity (traveling speed) has been used as a measure of driving performance for several
decades. For example, Brown, Tickner, and Simmonds (1969) found that driving while
telephoning had a 6.6% reduction in speed as compared to driving alone, in an early closed-
circuit driving experiment. They also concluded that telephoning while driving may impair
perception and decision-making skills. More recently, AIm and Nilsson (1994) concluded that a
mobile telephone task while driving led to a reduction in speed level. In another effort, Tijerina,
Kiger, Rockwell, and Tornow (1995) assessed driver workload for commercial vehicle operators
in conjunction with using an in-vehicle device. Various measures were monitored including
speed variance, which was highest for activities involving radio tuning and 10-digit cell-phone
dialing tasks. Another study monitored speed for a driving study involving talking on a cell
phone or talking to a passenger (Waugh, Glumm, Kilduff, Tauson, Smyth, & Pillalamarri, 2000).
Results indicated that driving speeds were lower when talking on the phone as compared to
talking to the passenger. It is generally recognized that tasks with high visual or cognitive
demand can result in large deviations in speed.
Lateral Position
Lateral lane position or deviation is one of the most common measures of driver performance
and distraction (Salvucci, 2002). Lane position can be measured in terms of lane exceedances
(i.e., drift across the line between the current lane and the next lane) or, in the absence of actual
lane crossings, lateral position in terms of distance from the center of the lane or the side lane
line markings. Various researchers have used lateral position. For example, Serafin, Wen,
Paelke, and Green (1993) conducted an experiment involving a driving simulator and car phone
25
tasks. Greater lane deviation was observed for dialing while driving as compared to tasks
involving listening, talking, or mental processing. In another study, AIm and Nilsson (1994)
reported that for difficult driving tasks, a mobile telephone task had an effect on the drivers'
lateral position during various 500 m driving segments. Results indicated that the mobile-
telephone task made drivers drive closer to the right lane line, especially for complex tracking
tasks. In another study, Tijerina, Kiger, Rockwell, and Tornow (1995) evaluated various
measures including lane position variance and lane exceedances. They concluded that lane
keeping was degraded when performing message reading tasks. Again, multiple research
findings indicate that high levels of visual and cognitive demand can result in a greater level of
lane deviation.
Participants
Thirty-six participants who were familiar with the Cleveland, OR freeway system and downtown
area were recruited. Participants were recruited via newspaper advertisement (Figure 3), flyers,
and word of mouth. Participant selection was determined after a telephone screening and
selection process. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 71, with equal gender
representation (18 female, 18 male). The experimental protocol was approved by the Virginia
Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to any contact with participants. Figure 4 illustrates
an example of an experimenter seated in the experimental vehicle.
Driving Study
In Cleveland area, $20/hr for 2 hrs.
Must be 18-35 or 50-75 yrs old wi
driver's lie. Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute.
Call 866-454-4568 or email
drivers @vtti.vt.edu
Figure 3: Newspaper Advertisement that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
26
Figure 4. Experimenter Seated in Experimental Vehicle.
Route and Equipment
Route
The pre-planned loop route was approximately 50 miles long and consisted of sections on
Interstates 480,90, and 77, as well as surface streets in downtown Cleveland, OR. Prior to
collecting any data, experimenters from VTTI visited the area several times in order to determine
the final route by verifying the presence of suitable billboards. A potential 65-mile route was
originally recommended by associates from Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, a local
company located in Cleveland. After personal examination of the suggested route, the final 50-
mile route was selected by the VTTI research team so that it could be completed in a timely
manner, while still allowing participants to be exposed to a mixture of interstate, downtown, and
residential road segments. This loop contained a variety of billboards and other outdoor
advertisements (e.g., on-premise signs, logo placards) as well as standard department of
transportation (DOT) roadway signs. Figure 5 illustrates the final route used for data collection,
while Table 3 lists the driving directions used for the experiment. The directions were mounted
on the dashboard as illustrated in Figure 6.
27
Figure 5. Map of 50-mile Daytime Loop Route in Cleveland, Ohio.
28
Table 3. Directions for 50-mile da time route in Cleveland, OH.
Trip
Directions Distance Notes
Left out of Residence Inn onto W. Creek Rd.
29
Figure 6. Directions mounted on dashboard of vehicle (this picture is from a previous
experiment which used the same protocol and vehicle type).
Practice Route. A short, 1.5-mile practice route was also included. This route was driven prior
to data collection on the 50-mile loop route. During the practice route, the experimenter rode as
a passenger with the participant to make sure that the participant was familiar with the directions
and the vehicle's displays and controls. Table 4 lists the directions for the practice route, which
was conducted on local streets near the hotel where the study began and ended.
Table 4. Directions for 1.5-mile Practice Route in Independence, Ohio.
Directions
Triv
Distance Notes
Right out of Residence Inn onto W. Creek Rd.
30
Vehicle
A 2002 Chevrolet Malibu was used in this study and is shown in Figure 7. The vehicle had an
automatic transmission, an adjustable steering wheel, and other standard features.
Figure 7. Experimental Vehicle, 2002 Chevrolet Malibu.
Data Collection System
The vehicle was instrumented with a data collection system, including cameras, a computer, and
sensors that continuously collected data. The system was activated approximately 2 min after
the ignition was turned on and was deactivated when the driver turned it off. A video system
with four cameras was used. Two cameras were mounted on the back side of the rear-view
mirror--one facing forward left and the other facing forward right (Figure 8). This captured the
forward views of the roadway as well as the sides where billboards and other objects were
visible. The other two cameras captured the driver's face from two perspectives. One camera
was mounted on the top left comer of the windshield near the A-pillar (Figure 9). The other
camera was mounted just above the rear view mirror (Figure 10). Both faced the driver and
captured head and eye movements. Since data reductionists needed to review all four video
channels simultaneously, a quad-splitter was used to fuse the images. This produced a single,
compartmentalized image such that each camera was presented in one of four locations (Figure
11). The quad splitter, computer, monitor, and keyboard were located in the trunk of the vehicle
as shown in Figure 12. Finally, Figure 13 illustrates these components and shows how they
interacted with sensors. Infrared illumination was used to provide adequate illumination for a
smaller nighttime data collection effort, to be described later in the report.
31
Figure 8. Forward Facing Cameras Mounted Behind the Center Rear View Mirror.
Figure 9. Driver Face Camera, Mounted near the left A-Pillar.
32
Figure 10. Driver Face Camera Mounted Above Rear View Mirror.
Left Forward Right Forward
View View
Driver's Face, Driver's Face,
Left Side Right Side
Figure 11. Diagram of Simultaneous Presentation of Four Camera Views.
33
Figure 12. Data Acquisition System Located in Trunk of Vehicle.
Right Side
Lane
Tracker
Forward View
Quad Splitter
Titler, Recording,
and Storage
Systems
Driver's Face cO
Left Side cO
Figure 13. Components of the Data Collection System.
All video data were recorded at 30 Hz (30 frames per s), using MPEG 4 compression algorithms
at a rate of 4 MB per minute. Driving performance data, including lane position and velocity,
were collected at 10 Hz (10 times per s). The lane tracking system used fuzzy logic and
statistical probabilities to detect lane edges in the forward camera view. Lane position was
collected with a resolution of :1:2 inches from the center of the lane. Raw performance data,
including lane position, velocity, and video data, were saved on the hard drive of a laptop
computer and then backed up onto individual DVDs for each participant. After each trial, the
experimenter reviewed the data to assure that the data collection system performed to
specification.
34
Procedure
Participant Recruitment and Screening
Straight-text newspaper advertisements were placed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Figure 3)
and flyers were posted in strategic locations in Cleveland, OR to solicit volunteer participants for
the study. Respondents were instructed to contact the experimenter via email or by telephone. A
telephone/email screening form (Appendix A) was used to collect general information on age,
gender, medical, and driving history, familiarity with the route(s), and use of corrective lenses or
sunglasses. A list of potential participants was compiled as screenings were completed, and
participants who met all of the required criteria were then contacted to set up an appointment for
participation. The participant met the experimenter on the appropriate date and time in the hotel
lobby of the Residence Inn on West Creek Road, in Independence, OR (just south of Cleveland).
Experimental Protocol
Upon arrival, each participant presented a valid driver's license for the experimenter's
inspection. Each participant then completed an informed consent form (Appendix B) and a
health screening questionnaire (Appendix C). Participants also completed a vision test using a
Snellen eye chart. Only participants with vision of 20/40 or better were eligible to participate.
Participants received an orientation (including the practice route), drove the 50-mile
experimental route, completed a post-drive questionnaire (Appendix D), and received $20/hr for
their time. Most participants completed the experiment in less than two hours. All procedures
for recruitment and data collection were approved by the Virginia Tech IRB, as required by
federal and state law.
In all, 36 drivers were recruited for the full experiment. Another participant completed the
experiment, but the data were not used because it rained during most of the session. Ofthe 36
drivers who completed the experiment, 3 repeated the experiment on a later date due to rain.
That is, their initial data were not used and were replaced with the second driving session. The
order in which participants were run in the experiment is shown in Table 5.
35
Table 5. Order f P
0 artIclpatlOn sown >y
Number AgeGrp Gender
1 0 M
2 0 M
3 y M
4 0 M
5 y F
6 y F
7 0 F
8 y F
9 0 F
10 y M
11 0 F
12 Y M
13 0 M
14 0 M
15 y M
16 0 F
17 0 F
18 0 F
19 0 M
20 Y F
21 Y M
22 y F
23 y F
24 0 M
25 Y F
26 0 F
27 0 M
28 Y M
29 0 F
30 y F
31 y F
32 0 F
33 y M
34 y M
35 y M
36 y F
( h
b Age and Gender).
The informed consent form explained the general purpose of the experiment to the driver and
obtained his/her permission to participate in the study. After the required paperwork was
completed, the following script describing the experiment was read aloud to the participant:
Today we will have you drive a pre-determined loop route along major freeways and
highways. The vehicle that you will be operating is specially equipped with
instruments that collect information about your driving habits. The purpose of this
36
study is to collect information about the way people drive under normal
circumstances, in order to improve driver safety. We want you to drive as you would
if you were in your own vehicle and were driving, for example, to visit a friend, do
an errand, or go to work. With this in mind, we will also want you to obey all typical
traffic regulations as you normally would, including, but not limited to, posted speed
limits, lane markings, and traffic control devices (such as stoplights).
I will be riding in the passenger seat during a 5-minute orientation drive. You are
welcome to ask questions if necessary, as this orientation will help you become
familiar with the vehicle and its controls. As always, our first priority is your safety.
If at any time you feel uncomfortable please inform me and we can make any
necessary adjustments or end the study early.
After the 5-minute orientation, I will exit the vehicle and have you drive the pre-
determined route, which will bring you back to this location. This route will take
about 1.5 hours. A map and written instructions will be provided for your reference,
and I will also review the route with you before you depart. After the route is
completed, I will debrief you and the session will be complete.
Do you have any questions I can answer at this time?
The experimenter then reviewed the map (Figure 5) and directions (Table 4) in detail. A
laminated copy of the map was stored in the glove compartment for easy reference. A laminated
copy of the directions was prominently displayed on the dashboard (Figure 6). A cellular
telephone was also stored in the glove compartment for emergency use only.
The experimenter then oriented the participant to the vehicle, including adjustment of the seat,
seat belt, mirrors, and steering wheel. Displays and controls were also reviewed, including a
review of the map, directions, and cell phone operation instructions. The participant then drove
the 5-minute orientation route, with verbal reminders provided by the experimenter when
required. After the orientation route was completed, the experimenter checked the data,
reminded the participant to drive as he/she normally would, and then returned to the hotel. The
participant drove the 50-mile loop route, which eventually brought him/her back to the hotel.
After the experiment, in-vehicle eyeglance calibration was completed in the hotel parking lot.
With the vehicle parked, the experimenter sat in the passenger seat and provided verbal
instructions. The protocol included having the participant sit as if driving, while alternating 3-
second glances to various locations with a default forward glance location. The glances included
left blind spot, left window, left mirror, left forward, forward, right forward, right mirror, right
window, right blind spot, rear view mirror, instrument panel (speedometer), and climate and
radio controls.
After the eyeglance calibration, the participant and the experimenter returned to the hotel lobby,
where the post-drive questionnaire was completed (Appendix D). The experimenter then
reviewed the questionnaire to make sure that all ofthe answers were legible. Item #3, "Please
check the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive," included a
"Billboards" option (among a list of 18 possible items). If the experimenter noticed that
37
"Billboards" had been marked, she asked about every checked item in an attempt to discover the
details as to what caught their attention. For the billboard item specifically, the experimenter
noted what aspect of the billboard caught the participant's attention, without conveying the
importance of that particular topic. Payment was then issued to the driver at a rate of $20 per
hour, (2 hours in most cases, for a total of $40) and a payment log was signed to verify that funds
were received. At no time was the participant made aware that this experiment was related to
driving behavior regarding billboards or other roadside items.
Data for each participant were briefly reviewed to verify that all the cameras were operating
correctly and that data had been recorded. Data and video files were then transferred from the
data collection system's computer to a portable laptop computer. Each participant's data were
copied onto a separate DVD as a second back-up measure. The results from the post-drive
questionnaire were then entered into an Excel spreadsheet for later processing.
Data Reduction
Analyst Training
Two data analysts worked on this project under the supervision of the prIncipal investigator. All
analysts were experienced in video data reduction prior to this project. Training began with a 2-
hour session in which the user manual was reviewed and the analysis software was demonstrated
by the experimenter. Relevant functions were shown, and the process of how to load the map
and associated GPS coordinates was explained. Prior to actual data analysis, each analyst spent
an additional eight hours mastering eye glance direction determination and spreadsheet use. This
period included time with an experienced analyst present. A large part of that time was
dedicated to establishing inter-analyst reliability by comparing judgments and modifying
techniques until all analysts' independent determinations matched. Throughout the entire
analysis effort, at least one experienced analyst was available at all times to answer any questions
or review particular cases as needed. "Spot checks" were performed throughout the data
reduction process, with input provided as needed to maintain a high level of consistency. Robust
reliability was further assured by ascertaining that each analyst recorded a portion of the data
from each participant (i.e., a portion ofthe data for each of the 36 participants was analyzed by
each analyst). As events were completed, a written record was created with the analyst's initials
and date of completion.
Software
This section outlines the data reduction software program developed to analyze digital billboard,
conventional billboard, comparison, and baseline events. The software, currently called DART
(Data Analysis and Reduction Tools), was originally developed by software engineers at VTTI
for a large-scale naturalistic driving study known as the 100 Car Study (Dingus, Klauer, Neale,
Petersen, Lee, et aI., 2006). This program integrates Microsoft MapPoint 2003 using GPS data
for billboard, comparison, and baseline site locations with the data obtained from the multiple
sensors in the test vehicle via a graphical interface. A total of 36 files (representing the route
driven for each participant) were analyzed. After a file was opened, the software presented the
analyst with the relevant windows required for data identification and reduction. The MapPoint
38
application allowed the analyst to view a map of the Cleveland, OR area, showing the
relationship between the site and the roads, so that video could be compared with GPS data
during site identification and eyeglance analysis. The map illustrated the route and the location
of the vehicle, which was represented by a green vehicle icon that moved as the event was
played. This map served solely as a visual display and could not be manipulated.
Procedure
Data reduction was performed by the two analysts for each of the 36 data files. This occurred in
three steps: software preparation, event identification, and eye glance analysis. Analysts were
blind as to which event type was being analyzed (in other words, they knew the event only by its
number, and did not know what type of event was contained in that segment of data). This was
done to insure impartiality in this aspect of the data reduction (event identification and eye glance
reduction were the only two aspects of data analysis which had a subjective component; this was
compensated for by re-doing 10% of the events and calculating inter-rater reliability).
Event Identification
Analysts first used the DART software to identify the locations of interest. The GPS coordinates
for each location were entered into a master map. Each file was then opened and the DART
software suggested the correct point for each location of interest based on the master GPS list.
The analyst compared the forward view shown in the video with a master file of forward views
and adjusted the event timing slightly if necessary to make sure the forward views were the same
for every participant (thus providing a common geographic point of reference for each event
analyzed). The end of an event was defined as the sync number (time reference) at which the
test vehicle passed the site, and the event's beginning was calculated to be eight seconds before
the end point. Identification of the end point thus combined two methods: the GPS data was
used to align the vehicle directly in conjunction with the site, and then the video was used to
visually confirm accurate GPS positioning using comparison to a master file of forward views.
Eyeglance Analysis
Once all of the events were correctly identified and stored in the database, the analysts conducted
the eyeglance analysis for each event. The first step in eye glance analysis was familiarization
with the participant's individual glance patterns by means of a glance location calibration video,
during which participants looked at specific places according to a set script. Analysts referred
often to the calibration file collected for each participant to make sure that the glance locations
were being coded correctly.
As described in the procedures section, eye calibration was conducted after data collection was
complete, in order to serve as a record of how a particular driver's glance to particular location is
shown in video. Analysts reviewed these records in order to become familiar with the
39
participant's glance style. The analyst was thus able to conduct the glance analysis according to
each participant's glance style. Glances were coded according to the following abbreviations:
F - Forward
RF - Right Forward
LF - Left Forward
RVM - Rear View Mirror
OX - Outer eXterior, including side mirrors, side windows, blind spot, etc.
DIR - glances toward the experimental route DIRections
OINT - Other INTerior, including speedometer, sun visor, cell phone, etc.
Analysts reviewed events from beginning to end, one tenth of a second at a time, determining the
direction of glance for every tenth of a second for the eight-second duration of the event. New
glances were recorded as the sync number at which the participant's glance rested in a new
location. Transition time to the new location was included in the glance location the driver was
moving away from. The DART program automatically calculated the duration of each glance.
Summary information for each event included the number of glances, average glance duration,
number of glances in each direction, and the average duration of glances in each direction. The
final inter-rater reliability for the eyeglance reduction process was 96.5%, which is considered
quite good. Approximately 5% of the daytime events were analyzed by both raters
independently, resulting in 8,084 individual glance locations, each lasting 0.1 s. The agreement
between raters for each location was compared; the 96.5% reliability means that the raters were
in agreement for 7,804 glance locations.
Final Reduced Data Set
With 36 participants and 44 sites, there were 1,584 events available for analysis from
approximately 63 hours of data collection. A small amount of data was lost due to cell phone
use, sensor outages, sun angle, and vehicle stoppages, leaving 1,540 events for eyeglance
analyses. Altogether, 124,740 video frames were analyzed (1,540 events x 81 frames/event) and
8,678 individual glances were identified. The speed data was filtered to remove events as
described above, and then further filtered to remove events in which the maximum speed failed
to read 20 mph or the minimum speed failed to reach 15 mph, leaving 1,494 events in this
dataset, with 121,014 data points for speed. The lane position dataset was further filtered to
remove events indicating a possible lane change or lane position sensor failure (often due to poor
lane markings). After filtering, there were 1,188 events remaining in the lane position dataset,
with 96,228 data points.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated using ExceL All other statistical analyses were conducted
using SAS statistical software. The analysis of variance (ANOV A) statistical technique was
used; in SAS this was accomplished by means of the general linear model (GLM) procedure.
Where significant differences were found, and there were more than two levels of the
independent variable, a post-hoc analysis was run using the Least Squares Difference procedure
40
in SAS to determine which levels were significantly different from which other levels. (For
independent variables with just two levels that differ significantly, a simple examination of the
means will demonstrate which level is significantly greater than the other.)
Nighttime Study
A smaller exploratory study was also conducted at nighttime using an abbreviated route that
avoided some of the downtown streets. Given that the digital signs being studied were
intrinsically illuminated, this was felt to be an important first step in determining whether there
are driver performance differences in the presence of these signs under different levels of
ambient illumination. All of the nighttime drivers had previously driven the route during the
daytime and were thus somewhat familiar with the route (so were unlikely to get lost or go off
route). The nighttime route directions are shown in Table 6, while the order of participation is
shown in Table 7 (12 ofthe 36 drivers returned for the nighttime experiment). The nighttime
route map is shown in Figure 14.
Table 6. Nighttime Driving Directions.
Directions
Triv
Distance Notes
Left out of Residence Inn onto W. Creek Rd.
41
Figure 14. Map Illustrating Nighttime Route with Digital Billboards (black), Conventional
Billboards (red), Comparison Sites (aqua blue), and Baseline Sites (blue).
Table 7. Nighttime order of participation.
Number Aee eroup Gender
1 Younger Female
2 Older Male
3 Older Female
4 Older Female
5 Younger Female
6 Older Male
7 Younger Male
8 Younger Male
9 Older Female
10 Older Male
11 Younger Male
12 Younger Female
42
With 12 participants and 40 sites, there were 480 events available for analysis from
approximately 42 hours of data collection. A small amount of data was lost due to cell phone
use, sensor outages, and vehicle stoppages, leaving 470 events for eye glance analyses.
Altogether, 38,070 video frames were analyzed (470 events x 81 frames/event) and 2,335
individual glances were identified. The speed data was filtered to remove events as described
above, and then further filtered to remove events in which the maximum speed failed to read 20
mph or the minimum speed failed to reach 15 mph, leaving 456 events in this dataset, with
36,936 data points for speed. The lane position dataset was further filtered to remove events
indicating a possible lane change or lane position sensor failure (often due to poor lane
markings). After filtering, there were 411 events remaining in the lane position dataset, with
33,291 data points. Because the nighttime study was exploratory in nature with fewer data
points, these data are shown descriptively, but were not analyzed statistically (due to lack of
statistical power).
43
RESULTS
Post-Drive Questionnaire - Daytime Results
Participants completed the post-drive questionnaire (Appendix D) after they returned from
driving the daytime driving route as well as the nighttime route. The questionnaire gathered
information such as route familiarity and items noticed while driving; it also collected
demographic and personal information, including education level, marital status, ethnicity, and
income. The questionnaire was the same one used by Lee et al. (2004) in the previous study
using similar methods. The following sections summarize all questionnaire results for the
daytime drivers, followed by a section describing the results for the nighttime drivers.
Demographics Overview
In terms of demographics, the average age was 28 years for younger drivers and 59 years for
older drivers. The sample of drivers was quite diverse in terms of education level, marital status,
and income. All drivers lived and worked in the Cleveland, OH area and were familiar with
some or most of the route. The following sections provide details for relevant information about
the sample of drivers. Table 8 presents these findings as well.
Age. The sample of 36 drivers ranged in age from 18 to 71 years old. The mean age of all
participants was 43.3 years (SD = 16.7). The younger drivers ranged in age from 18 to 35 years
old, with a mean of27.9 years (SD = 6.0). The older drivers ranged in age from 50 to 71 years
old, with a mean of58.7 years (SD = 6.1).
Education Level. Participants were surveyed regarding the highest education level they had
completed. The number of responses and equivalent number of years were used to calculate the
product. This was used to calculate the mean education level for the sample by dividing the total
number of years completed by the number of participants (482/36). The average was 13.4 years
of education completed (equivalent to high school plus a year and a half of college). Most of the
participants had finished high school, but few had attended college.
Marital Status. Half of the participants were married, while 28% reported that they were single
and 17% were divorced. Two individuals (5.6%) indicated that they were separated.
Ethnicity. Most participants were European (Caucasian/White) with only one participant
identifying herself as African American.
Income. The income level with the most participants was the group earning between $25,000
and $49,000 per year (16 participants or 44%).
44
Table 8. Summary of Demographic Results for All Daytime Participants.
CATEGORY LEVELS
Age (mean) Younger Older All Drivers
Drivers Drivers
27.9 years 58.7 years 43.3 years
Education Hh?:h Sch. 2- Yr Del!. B.A.!B.S.
Level 52.8% 25.0% 22.2%
Marital Status Sinl!le Married Divorced Seoarated
27.8% 50.0% 16.7% 5.6%
Ethnicity African European
American
2.8% 97.2%
Income Level $O-24K $25-49K $50-74K >$100K
33.3% 44.4% 19.4% 2.8%
Route Familiarity
Route familiarity was assessed by three items in the questionnaire. Specific topics addressed
were: location of work, location of home, and frequency of driving on roads in the experimental
route (defined as familiarity). Table 9 presents the route familiarity findings.
Living and Working Location. All drivers reported that they were familiar with the Cleveland,
OR area and had driven on the interstates and surface roads included in the route. All of the
participants lived in the Cleveland area, and those who were employed also worked in the area.
Cleveland proper, Parma, and Independence were the most common locations where participants
lived and worked, with 39% of participants reporting that that they both lived and worked in one
of these three areas (Independence and Parma are adjacent suburbs of Cleveland).
Familiarity. Route familiarity was also evaluated in terms of five route segments that
represented various types of driving (i.e., various segments of interstate and downtown
Cleveland). Drivers were asked to indicate if they were either "familiar" (driven at least once a
week) or "not familiar" (driven less than one time a week) with each segment. In some cases,
participants inquired about this question item, indicating (verbally) that, although they were quite
familiar with certain areas, they may not drive on them every week. Nonetheless, the results
indicated that overall, drivers were familiar with the route, particularly 1-480 W between 1-77
and W150th (83% were familiar with this segment as shown in Table 9).
45
Table 9. Route Segment Familiarity for All Daytime Participants.
Route See:ment
IA80W W.130th - 1-90 Carnegie 1-77
between 1- Bellaire - between Ave. between 1-
77 and W.117th 9th and 90 and
0/0 W150th 185th Rockside
Familiar 83% 42% 64% 67% 72%
Overview of What Drivers Noticed
Drivers primarily noticed items such as traffic and other drivers, road or highway signs, and road
construction. Fifteen of36 drivers (42%) marked "billboards" as one of the top 5 items (out of
18 items) that caught their attention during the drive. Participants engaged in a variety of
activities while driving; listening to the radio or CD player and using the cell phone were the
most prevalent. At no point was it apparent that any participant knew the specific purpose of the
study; all responses indicated that drivers believed the study was related to observing drivers in a
natural driving situation, which was also true. The following sub-sections describe findings in
more detail, with tables illustrating drivers' responses.
Attention Getters. Participants were asked to indicate "the top five items that most caught your
attention during your drive." Over 50% of drivers indicated that they paid attention to traffic,
road signs, exit signs, and other drivers. The top 9 items (out of 18 listed) are shown in Figure
15. For those drivers who indicated "billboard" as one of the items that caught their attention,
the experimenter asked them to verbally expand upon all items; however, none of these drivers
made any additional comments about billboards except that they caught their attention. Three
drivers (8%) mentioned billboard under a separate question regarding the single most memorable
part of the drive. Their comments were "The lighted billboards," "Ridiculous billboards," and
"The light up billboards." A fourth driver mentioned "Markers and signs" but did not elaborate
further. Even in the daytime, the digital billboards appeared to have been noticeably different
from conventional billboards and appeared to attract a certain amount of attention.
46
100% -----
83%
---~--l
80% --
,
;
I
I
i
I
-------------1
60%
40%
20%
0%
&<~ 0
h:-' . ^-~
",,v c::>''''J
.~0 'f...0 *0
/~~ .~0 ~
v <::)~ O~
e} 11-<:::'
O~ V
00 0
~ .;..~C$
o .~v
~~ <Q~
.n0 .0<:::-
'/)-'< CJ
00CJ ~..:::>
11-<:::' '5::-0
V cP
~O
~
Figure 15. Top Daytime Attention Getters (top nine of eighteen possible).
Most Memorable. Participants were asked "What was most memorable about the drive?" This
was an open-ended question, so the comments varied. For ease of categorization, similar
comments were grouped where possible. There were 35 comments. Over 68% of the comments
were related to construction, weather/view, the experimental vehicle, or traffic, as presented in
Table 10.
Table 10. Number and Percent of Comments for Daytime Participants for the Question:
"What was most memorable about the drive? For example, were there any objects that
stood out?"
Comment Categories Number of Percent of
Comments Comments
Other Vehicles/Traffic 7 17.5%
New Route/feature about route 6 15.0%
Lake 5 12.5%
WeatherNiew 4 10.0%
Test Vehicle 3 7.5%
Digital BillboardslBillboards/signs 3 7.5%
Neighborhoods 3 7.5%
Rough Road 3 7.5%
Relaxing/Positive trip 2 5.0%
Construction I 2.5%
N ear accident/Accident I 2.5%
Sports Arena I 2.5%
47
What Bothers You? Participants were asked, "What bothers you about other drivers?" This was
an open-ended question, so the comments varied. For ease of categorization, similar comments
were grouped where possible. A total of 30 comments were made. The large majority ofthe
comments were related to aggressive maneuvers or questionable driving behavior such as
tailgating, being cut off, not using turn signals, or driving slowly in the fast lane (Table 11).
Table 11. Number and Percent of Comments for Daytime Participants in Response to the
Question: "Does anything about other drivers bother you? If so, please briefly describe."
Number of
Comments
7
6
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
Percent of
Comments
23.3%
20.0%
16.7%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
Other Activities. Participants were asked, "What other activities do you engage in while
driving?" Again, this was open-ended and the comments varied, but similar comments were
grouped where possible. There were 72 comments in all. Listening to the radio or CDs was the
largest single activity, making up over 26% of the comments. Using the cell phone was also
common (15%). Other activities included singing or talking, drinking, smoking cigarettes, and
eating, as presented in Table 12.
48
Table 12. Number and Percent of Comments for Daytime Participants in Response to the
Question: "What other activities do you typically engage in while driving?"
Comment Categories Number of Percent of
Comments Comments
Listen to radio/CDs 21 38.9%
Cell phone 11 20.4%
Smoking 4 7.4%
Eating 4 7.4%
Drinking 3 5.6%
Talk w/others 3 5.6%
Adjust radio/CDs 2 3.7%
Driving/steering 2 3.7%
Adjust AC/windows 1 1.9%
Look for something 1 1.9%
Homework 1 1.9%
Read directions/map 1 1.9%
Other questions asked participants for additional input about the written directions and the
purpose of the study. Substantively relevant participant responses included three separate
suggestions relating to conducting a driving study with passengers or children, the effect of video
cameras on driving behavior, and the statement that "driving in my own car would be more
'normal.' " While no one reported problems with the directions, three drivers did get off-route at
one point during their trip; however, very few data points were missed. Drivers were also
queried as to their recollection of the purpose of the study; all responses were within the scope of
what they had been told verbally and in the informed consent form.
Post-Drive Questionnaire - Nighttime Results
Age
The sample of 12 nighttime drivers ranged in age from 25 to 62 years old and consisted of
drivers who had recently performed the daytime portion of the experiment. As for the main
experiment, the participant pool was balanced for age and gender. The mean age of the
nighttime participants was 44.5 years (SD = 14.0). The younger drivers ranged in age from 25 to
35 years old, with a mean of31.5 years (SD = 4.1). The older drivers ranged in age from 54 to
62 years old, with a mean of 57.5 years (SD = 3.3). The demographics for these 12 drivers are
summarized in Table 13.
49
Table 13. Summary of Demographic Results for All Nighttime Participants.
CATEGORY LEVELS
Age (mean) Younger Older All Drivers
Drivers Drivers
31.5 years 57.5 years 44.5 years
Education Hil!h Sch. 2- Yr Del!. B.A./B.S.
Level 58.3% 25.0% 16.7%
Marital Status SiDlde Married Divorced
8.3% 66.7% 25.0%
Ethnicity European
100.0%
Income Level $O-24K $25-49K 1$50-74K
16.7% 41. 7% 41.7%
Route Familiarity
Route familiarity was assessed by three items in the questionnaire. Specific topics addressed
were: location of work, location of home, and frequency of driving on roads in the experimental
route (defined as familiarity). As before, all nighttime drivers lived and worked in the
Cleveland, OH area. Route familiarity was also evaluated in terms of five route segments that
represented various types of driving (i.e., various segments of interstate). Drivers were asked to
indicate if they were either "familiar" (driven at least once a week) or "not familiar" (driven less
than one time a week) with each segment. Table 14 presents the route familiarity findings.
Table 14. Route Segment Familiarity for All Nighttime Participants.
Route Segment
I-480W W.130th - 1-90 Carnegie 1-77
between 1- Bellaire - between Ave. between 1-
77 and W.117th 9th and 90 and
W150th 185th Rockside
% Familiar 75% 42% 58% 58% 50%
Attention Getters
Participants were asked to indicate "the top five items that most caught your attention during
your drive." Over 50% of drivers indicated that they paid attention to traffic, road signs,
billboards, and exits. Figure 16 shows the top nine nighttime attention getters. For those drivers
who indicated "billboard" as one of the items that caught their attention, the experimenter asked
them to verbally expand upon all items, but no one made any remarks relevant to billboards.
However, 3 of the 12 nighttime drivers (25%) noted billboards as being the single most
memorable thing about the drive. One person just said "Billboards," another said "I saw a
billboard that changed and I wished it hadn't because I wanted to read the previous message,"
and a third said "One billboard." This is much higher than the 8% who mentioned billboards as
50
being most memorable during the daytime, and may be a reflection of the nature of the digital
billboards.
Percent
1 00% ----~----
80% -t--oro;o--ororo---
I
60% -~-
40% !
20% +
0%
~~
" ,ro-
o >..0
.&' ~v
0~ oro-
.@
<Q~
.~0 ~C:> 0C:> "C:> *C:>
<v~ .~0 .t} .~".) ~
<::)'-" ~~ ~() O~
0' ~ <Q 1>-<:::
O~ 0<::-0 v
~(j)
<v~
~C:>
~0
,,0
Figure 16. Top Nighttime Attention Getters (top nine of eighteen possible).
Most Memorable
Participants were asked "What was most memorable about the drive?" This was an open-ended
question, so the comments varied. For ease of categorization, similar comments were grouped
where possible. There were nine comments from the 12 nighttime drivers. As mentioned, three
comments concerned billboards, while other common answers included the views and other
vehicles and traffic, as presented in Table 15. The drivers had previously answered the general
questions regarding "What bothers you about other drivers?" and "What other activities do you
engage in while driving?" during their daytime session, so these were not asked again here.
Likewise, the responses to "What is the purpose of this study?" were similar to what the same
participants had said during the daytime session; all responses were within the scope of what
they had been told verbally and in the informed consent form.
51
Table 15. Number and Percent of Comments for Nighttime Participants in Response to the
Question: "What was most memorable about the drive? For example, were there any
objects that stood out?"
Di ital BillboardslBillboards 3
View 2
Other Vehicles/Traffic 2
Positive tri 1
Personal condition while drivin 1
Driving Performance Results - Daytime
Event Type
Eveglance Results. With regard to eye glance behavior, there were six questions of interest, each
of which will be discussed in turn:
1. Does eyes-on-road percent (looking straight forward) vary in the presence of different
event types?
2. Is there a more active glance pattern in the presence of certain event types (as measured
by the number of individual glances to any location during the eight seconds of the
event)?
3. For events on the left side of the road, are there more glances in the left forward direction
for certain event types?
4. For events on the right side of the road, are there more glances in the right forward
direction for certain event types?
5. For events on the left side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the left
forward direction vary according to event type?
6. For events on the right side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the right
forward direction vary according to event type?
7. Are longer glances (longer than 1.6 s) associated more with any of the event types?
52
Question 1 (Does eyes-on-road percent (looking straight forward) vary in the presence of
different event types?) was answered by examining the amount of time spend looking straight
forward in the course of an event, and dividing it by 8 s to obtain the percentage of time the
driver was looking forward. As shown in Figure 17, this ranged between 70% and 75% for the
various event types, with baseline, digital billboard, and conventional billboard being close to
equal. Statistical analysis showed that this measure did vary across event types (F 3,96 = 11.62, p
< 0.0001, using an a of 0.05 as a criterion, as is standard for studies of this type). The
comparison events had significantly less eyes-on-road percent than did the other event types,
which did not vary from one another.
100% i
L · Percent Eyes-On-Road ~
---~.__.._-------
80% j
!
74.1%
-
r::
Q)
to)
...
Q)
Il.
20%
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 17. Percent Eyes-on-Road Time for the Four Event Types. (Comparison events
were significantly lower than the other three event types, which did not differ from one
another).
53
Question 2 (Is there a more active glance pattern in the presence of certain event types?) was
measured by examining the number of individual glances to any location during the eight
seconds of the event. A higher mean number of glances during the eight seconds indicated a
more active scanning pattern. As shown in Figure 18, there were very few differences in the
overall glance activity. The statistical analysis verified this observation, showing no significant
differences between event types (F3,96 = 1.78,p = 0.1564).
Questions 1 and 2 were aimed at the larger question of whether overall driver eye glance behavior
changed in the presence of certain event types. In other words, did driver total time looking
forward change in the presence of certain event types, and did drivers exhibit a more active
glance pattern for certain event types? Except for lower eyes-on-road time for comparison
events, there were no observed differences in overall eye glance patterns. The next four questions
are concerned with the specific eyeglance patterns that might be expected to occur if drivers
were allocating more visual attention to specific objects located on the side of the road.
7.00 T
I
I
6.001
III I
(I) 5.00 i
(J
s:
co
(5
-
0
~
(I)
.Q
E
:;,
z
1.00
0.00
. Mean Number of Glances (to any location) During an Event
5.75
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Event Type
Figure 18. Mean Number of Glances to Any Location During an Event. (There were no
significant differences between event types.)
54
Question 3 (For events on the left side ofthe road, are there more glances in the left forward
direction for certain event types?) was aimed at the question of whether the presence of a site of
interest on the side of the road was related to a greater number of glances in that direction. All
baseline events were included in this analysis since these events were considered to have been
located on both sides ofthe road. As can be seen in Figure 19, digital billboards to the left side
of the road did gamer a larger number of left forward glances during the eight seconds than did
any of the other event types. However, statistical analysis showed that these differences were
not significant (F3, 73 = 1.49,p = 0.2244).
2.00 I . Mean Number of Left Forward Glances for E\A3nts to the Leftl
1.80 +-= ----1
1.60 ~ 1.56-l
~ 1.40 l 1.37 jl
g 1.20 -LJi - - I
'0 1.00 ,
...
.8 0.80
g 0.60
z
0.40
0.20
0.00
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 19. Mean Number of Left Forward Glances for Events on the Left Side of the Road.
(There were no significant differences between event types.)
55
Question 4 (For events on the right side of the road, are there more glances in the right forward
direction for certain event types?) was similar in intent, but used events on the right side of the
road and right forward glances. Again, all baseline events were included in this analysis since
these events were considered to have been located on both sides of the road. As can be seen in
Figure 20, there appeared to be little difference in the number of right forward glances across
event types. Statistical analysis showed that the observed differences were not significant
(F3,77 = 0.29, P = 0.8353).
2.00 ~ean Number of Right Forward Glances for Events to theRigh~l
I ~ I
1.80! 161 I
1.60 1.48. _~
~ 1.40 1.42 ~
c:
~ 1.20
C)
15 1.00
~ 0.80
.Q
~ 0.60
z
0.40
0.20
0.00
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Event Type
Figure 20. Mean Number of Right Forward Glances for Events on the Right Side of the
Road. (None of the observed differences were significant.)
56
Question 5 (For events on the left side ofthe road, does the mean single glance time in the left
forward direction vary according to event type?) was measured by examining the mean single
glance time for left forward glances. Longer glances in the left forward direction for events to
the left could indicate that the driver is paying greater visual attention to the event. Figure 21
shows that the digital billboard and comparison event types had longer mean single glance times
than did baseline or conventional billboard events. Statistical analysis showed that these
differences were significant (F3,73 = 3.59, p = 0.0176). Post hoc analysis showed that the digital
billboards to the left had significantly longer left forward glances than did conventional
billboards or baseline sites, but that they did not differ from comparison sites. Comparison sites
differed from baseline sites, but not from conventional billboard sites, and conventional
billboards and baseline sites did not differ from one another.
1.40 rr . ..Mean Single Glance Duration - Left FOlWard~l
1.20 r-- - j
1.00 - A B A _ I
0.83
0.78
BC
~ 0.80
c:
o
u
Q)
CJ)
C
0.60 -I--~-----
::: 1-
0.001---
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 21. Mean Single Glance Time for Left Forward Glances for Events on the Left Side
of the Road. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.)
57
Question 6 (For events on the right side of the road, does the mean single glance time in the right
forward direction vary according to event type?) was similar to Question 5 in approach, except
that it examined right forward glances and events to the right. Statistical analysis showed that
the observed differences were significant (F3,n = 3.73,p = 0.0147). Post-hoc tests showed that
digital billboards located on the right had significantly longer glance times to the right than did
either baseline events or conventional billboards, but did not differ significantly from
comparison events. Comparison events had longer glance times than did baseline events, but did
not differ significantly from conventional billboards. Conventional billboards also had
significantly longer glances than did baseline events.
1.40
1.20
1.00
U) 0.80
"0
l:
0
Co> 0.60
CI)
(/)
0.40
0.20
0.00
. Mean Single Glance DuratiO~.- Right Fo~ard_ I
A B 1.03 I
0.94 B
c
Baseline
Col11Jarison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 22. Mean Single Glance Time for Right Forward Glances for Events on the Right
Side of the Road. (Data points with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one
another.)
58
Question 7 (Are longer glances (longer than 1.6 s) associated more with any of the event
types?) follows an approach provided by Horrey and Wickens (2007), who suggest analyzing
the tails of the distributions whenever eye glance analysis is performed. Various researchers
have suggested that longer glances may be associated with poorer driving performance. For
example, Wierwille (1993) suggests a 1.6 s criterion as representing a long glance away from
the forward roadway. As shown in Figure 23, the distributions of glance duration were
similar across all event types, and there was no obvious pattern of longer glances being
associated with any of the event types.
Baseline
Comparison
Ul 30%
Q)
g 25%
i5 20%
'0 15%
'E 10%
Q)
~ 5%
Q)
B. 0% -
,
".
. .
~ 30% 'I
g 25%1-
i5 20%
2 15% I
~ 10% i
~ 5%
B. 0%'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Glance Length (5)
Glance Length (5)
Conventional Billboard
Digital Billboard
Ul 30%
Q)
g 25%
i5 20%
'0 15%
-
~ 10%
~ 5%
B. 0%
Ul 30%
Q)
g 25%
i5 20%
'0 15%
~ 10%
u
...
Q)
B.
5%
0% --
r;::,":- (;)'?
, '> "
<:;). 1;)" o.
f;):' <:;)91
....':- ,"? .....'?
....~ ....rp ')..':- <')..'> 'l,? '),:. fJ,.~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~
Glance Length (5)
Glance Length (5)
Figure 23. Tails analysis for the distribution of glance duration, (method described in
Horrey and Wickens, 2007).
59
Discussion of Davtime Eveglance Results. Results showed that digital billboards were not
associated with changes in overall glance patterns (overall number of glances or percent eyes-on-
road time). Likewise, digital billboards were not associated with more frequent glances towards
the direction where the billboard was located. However, digital billboards in both the left and
right directions were associated with longer glances in that direction.
There were only five digital billboards along the route (these were all that were available). This
led to low statistical power for the digital comparisons, especially when the digital billboards
were separated into left and right (two in one direction and three in the other). To increase
power and verify the above findings, the data were next aggregated so that all glances in the
direction where an event was located were included. For glance frequency, there were still no
significant differences in the number of glances depending on event type (F3, 91 = 1.22, P =
0.3065). For glance duration, the findings from above were also confirmed with this combined
analysis (F3,91 = 4.98, P = 0.0030). Digital billboards and comparison sites did not differ from
one another, but each differed from conventional billboards and baseline events. Conventional
billboards and baseline events did not differ from one another; these results are shown in Figure
24.
1.4
1.2
1.0
III 0.8
"C
s::
0
(.) 0.6
CI>
t/)
0.4
0.2
. Mean Single Glance Duration in Direction of Events
A
A
0.92
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 24. Mean Single Glance Time for Glances in the Direction of Events. (Data points
with a shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.)
It should also be noted that digital billboards did not differ in glance duration from comparison
events for left side, right side, or the combined comparison. Several of the comparison events
had a digital component, but in the form of on-premises signing rather than as billboards. One
comparison event used full motion video at times. Thus, it is not surprising that these event
types revealed similar glance duration patterns. Finally, it should be noted that the results for
conventional billboards were similar to those found in the Charlotte study, with very few
differences between conventional billboards and either comparison events or baseline events.
60
Speed maintenance. As shown in Figure 25, there were differences in the standard deviation of
speed for the different event types. These differences were statistically significant (F3, 96 = 5.33,
p = 0.0019), with conventional billboards showing a higher speed deviation than baseline and
digital billboards, but not different from comparison sites. Baseline events, comparison events,
and digital billboards did not differ from one another. Much of this difference may be because
there is typically greater speed deviation on surface streets than on interstates, and all of the
digital billboards were on interstates. To account for this in the research design, the same
analysis was conducted, but using only events occurring on interstates. In this analysis, there
were no significant differences in standard deviation of speed (F3,96 = 1.66,p = 0.1819), as
shown in Figure 26.
1.0 T . Standard De\Aation of Speed ~l~~----~
0.8 ~ 0.85
0.71 A
!
J: 0.6
a..
~ 0.4
0.2
0.0
Baseline Comparison Digital Conventional
Billboard Billboard
Event Type
Figure 25. Standard Deviation of Speed by Event, in miles per hour. (Data points with a
shared letter do not differ significantly from one another.)
61
1.0 L\ --- -~ ~_~tandard De~~~ti~~~~~P~~d ~--: --. i
0.8 , 0.71 -(f.~
i ~~ I
I
I
0.6
0.4
:r
a..
~
0.2
0.0
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 26. Standard Deviation of Speed by Event for Events Occurring on Interstates, in
miles per hour. (None ofthe observed differences was significant.)
62
Lane keeping. The standard deviation of lane position was calculated for each event. Standard
deviation was used instead of average lane position, because average lane position can be to the
right or left, and thus an average would tend to wash out true differences, while standard
deviation takes overall deviation into account, regardless of left or right. While there appeared to
be differences in lane keeping for the different event types as shown in Figure 27, these
differences did not quite reach significance (F3,91 = 2.46,p = 0.0673). Nevertheless, the trend is
that digital billboards and conventional billboards seem to be related to poorer lane keeping, and
it is likely that a larger sample would have shown significance for this measure.
25
. Standard De\1ation of Lane Position
20.00
E II) 20
o Q)
.t:.c
s:: (..)
o .!: 15
;:; Q)
.~ s::
> .-
Q) 1: 10
OS
Q) s::
s:: Q)
j t) 5
o
Baseline
Comparison
Digital
Billboard
Event Type
Conventional
Billboard
Figure 27. Standard Deviation of Lane Position by Event, in inches. (None of the observed
differences was significant.)
Other findings
Road Tvpe. There were significant differences in the two overall eye glance measures, both of
which indicated a more active glance pattern on surface streets. The eyes-on-road percentage was
higher for interstate events than for surface street events (71 % for interstate vs. 64% for surface
streets; FI,32 = 30.29,p < 0.0001). There were also more total glances during an event on
surface streets as opposed to on the interstates (6.3 glances for interstate vs. 7.2 glances for
surface streets; F 1,32 = 10.51, p < 0.0028). There were no significant differences for the
eye glance measures associated with the left or right side of the road. These findings are
consistent with the findings of the Charlotte study, in that eyeglance patterns tend to be more
active while driving on surface streets due to driver monitoring of driveways, intersections, and
on-coming traffic.
F amiliaritv. Drivers spent significantly more time with their eyes on the road while driving on
unfamiliar roads (73% for familiar roads and 75% for unfamiliar roads; FI, 22 = 4.81,
p = 0.0392). However, this small significant difference likely has no practical implications,
especially given that the overall glance frequency was not significant (F 1,22 = 1.38, P = 0.2530).
63
There were no significant differences for speed maintenance or lane keeping depending on
familiarity with the route segment. These results are likely confounded by the fact that most of
the road segments that drivers classified as familiar were the interstate portions of the route,
while the unfamiliar roads tended to be the surface street sections.
Age. There were two age findings in the eyeglance measures. Older drivers had higher eyes-on-
road percentage than did younger drivers (73% for older and 67% for younger; FI, 32 = 4.46,
P = 0.0426). Younger drivers also had more frequent right forward glances for events to the
right than did older drivers (younger = 1.55 right forward glances per event; older = 1.34 right
forward glances per event; F 1,32 = 4.42, P = 0.0436). Younger drivers thus seemed to have a
slightly more active glance pattern than older drivers, but this did not show up in very many of
the eyeglance measures examined. There were no age differences for speed keeping or lane
maintenance.
Gender. There were no significant findings for gender for eye glance, speed maintenance, or lane
keeping measures.
Driving Performance Results - Nighttime
Event Type
Eveglance results. As mentioned previously, there were about one-third fewer data points for the
nighttime portion of the study, which was considered an exploratory study. Thus, the results in
this section are presented descriptively, without statistical analysis. Where the differences shown
are strong, it is likely that a larger study would show statistical significance, while weak
differences mayor may not hold up with a larger study. Four eyeglance measures were
examined for the nighttime data: eyes-on-road percent, overall glance frequency, mean glance
duration in the direction of an event, and mean number of glances in the direction of an event.
Eyes-on-road percent is presented in Figure 28, which shows that digital billboards and
comparison events tended to have less eyes-on-road time at nighttime than either baseline events
or conventional billboards. The overall glance frequency was also higher in the presence of
digital billboards and comparison events at nighttime, as shown in Figure 29. These two
findings taken together show a more active glance pattern at nighttime in the presence of these
two event types, which mirrors some of the daytime findings.
64
100% r---J
i I
I
I 79%
80% !
- 60%
c
Q)
u
...
Q) 40%
a..
20%
0%
Baseline
. Percent Eyes-On-Road
1--- ___n n
I
81%
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 28. Eyes-on-Road Percent by Event Type for the Nighttime Exploratory Study.
7.00
. Mean Number of Glances (to any location) During an Event I
~
b.~t5
I
6.00 r--
i
1.00
5.3"3--
III
~ 5.00
c
ClS
C) 4.00
-
o
~ 3.00
,g
g 2.00 -
z
Baseline
Comparison
Digital Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 29. Overall Glance Frequency by Event Type for the Nighttime Exploratory Study.
The mean glance duration for glances in the direction of an event also showed higher values for
digital billboards and comparison events; however, in this case, the comparison sites appeared to
have longer glance times than did the digital billboards (Figure 30). The mean number of
glances in the direction of an event again showed digital billboards and comparison events as
having higher values than either baseline events or conventional billboards, as shown in Figure
31. Taken together, these four findings indicate that digital billboards and comparison events
65
may result in more active glance patterns overall, as well as more frequent and longer glances
towards the digital billboards and comparison events.
1.0
0.8
l/l 0.6
't:l
c:
0
(.)
Q) 0.4
en
0.2
0.0
. Mean Single Glance Duration in Direction of Events
0.86
Baseline
Comparison
Conventional
Billboard
Digital Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 30. Mean Glance Time for Glances in the Direction of an Event for the Nighttime
Exploratory Study.
2.4
2.0
l/l
Q)
(.) 1.6 I
c:
ell
C)
- 1.2
0
~
Q)
..c
E 0.8
~
z
0.4
0.0
. Mean Number of Glances in Direction of El.€nt
Baseline
Comparison
Conventional
Billboard
Digital Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 31. Mean Number of Glances in the Direction of an Event for the Nighttime
Exploratory Study.
66
Speed maintenance. Figure 32 shows that the standard deviation of speed appeared to be higher
in the presence of both conventional and digital billboards than for baseline and comparison
events. If this effect is related to the event type, it may be due to the attempt to read the copy of
these signs at night while driving. If this is true, the higher value shown for conventional
billboards may indicate that these signs are more difficult to read at night than are the digital
billboards.
0.8
. Standard Deviation of Speed
0.6
0.69
:J:
a.. 0.4-
~
0.2
0.0
Baseline
Com parison
Digital
Billboard
Conventional
Billboard
Event Type
Figure 32. Speed Maintenance as Measured by the Standard Deviation of Speed by Event
for the Nighttime Exploratory Study.
Lane keeping. Lane keeping also showed a trend towards greater lane deviations in the presence
of both digital billboards and conventional billboards as shown in Figure 33. As was true for
speed maintenance, conventional billboards showed higher values than did digital billboards.
Again, this may be an indication of the difficulty of reading these signs at night.
67
. Standard De'IAation of Lane Position I
20.43
21.29
25
E 20
o II)
~ (1)
.....r.
o
S ,:: 15
~ Q)
'S: c::
(1) ~ 10
OS
(1) c::
c:: (1)
j () 5
o
Comparison LED Billboard Static Billboard
Event Type
Figure 33. Lane Keeping as Measured by the Standard Deviation of Lane Position by Event
for the Nighttime Exploratory Study.
Baseline
Nighttime Luminance Measures
The luminance was measured with a Radiant Imaging Charge-Coupled Device (CCD)
photometer with a 300 mm lens. The CCD photometer provided a method of capturing the
luminance of an entire scene at one time. Luminance represents the amount of light that is
projected off a surface in a given direction. For this investigation, the direction of interest was
towards the driver. Luminance is measured in candelas per meter squared.
The photometer was located in the experimental vehicle as close to the driver's position as
possible (Figures 34 and 35). The experimental vehicle was then driven to the sign location and
stopped on the side of the road. Images of the sign were then acquired. For multiple face signs
such as the digital and the tri-visions signs, each of the presented messages was imaged. Using
the software provided with the system, the average luminance of the sign and each message was
measured. The photometer was connected to a laptop computer in the back seat that stored the
data as the images were acquired. All measurements were taken at night. Figure 36 shows the
average luminance measures for each of the four event types measured in candelas per meter
squared. Note that the digital billboards had noticeably higher luminance values than any of the
other event types, even though their luminance was automatically reduced at night. This
probably explains some of the driver performance findings in the presence of the digital
billboards. The overall ranking of luminance by event (digital billboards were the highest,
followed in order by comparison events, conventional billboards, and baseline events) closely
mirrors the rankings of many of the performance measures for both daytime and nighttime,
including eyeglance, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. Altogether, there were 74
measurements (17 for comparison events, 36 for digital billboards, 6 for conventional billboards,
and 15 for baseline events). More readings were taken for the digital billboards because each
message was measured individually.
68
Figure 34. Bracket for Radiant Imaging CCD Photometer.
Figure 35. Radiant Imaging CCD Photometer in Position for Measurements, with
Experimenter Making Final Adjustments.
69
50 . Average Luminance J
~~~--------
43.6
40
-
N
E
:c 30
~
Q)
u
C
III 20
c
"e
;]
....I
10
0
Baseline Comparison Digital Billboard Conventional
Billboard
Eve nt Type
Figure 36. Average Luminance of the Four Event Types, in Candelas per Meter Squared.
70
COMPARISONS TO THE CHARLOTTE STUDY
There were several similarities and several differences between this study and the study
conducted in Charlotte, NC. The original intent was to make the studies as similar as possible,
and this was achieved to the degree possible, as demonstrated by the following items:
. Both were conducted in mid-sized cities (Charlotte population: 540,828; Cleveland
population: 478,403; both figures taken from US Census 2000).
. Both were conducted in areas with similar terrain (fairly flat, with a few rolling hills;
Charlotte elevation: 650 feet; Cleveland elevation: 581 feet).
. Both studies included conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline
events.
. Both studies showed similar results when conventional billboards were compared to
baseline and comparison sites (very few differences in eyeglance measures, speed
maintenance, or lane keeping for conventional billboards as compared to baseline
events and comparison events).
. Both studies used 36 participants who performed the experiment in the daytime,
equally divided into four age by gender cells (nine older males, nine older females,
nine younger males, and nine younger females).
. Both included participants who lived and worked in the area and were familiar with at
least some parts of the route.
. Both studies were conducted during similar times of day (between rush hours, from
about 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.).
. Both studies included surface streets and interstates.
. Both studies used the same make and model of vehicle, and similar instrumentation.
. Both studies used the same basic protocols and questionnaires.
. The data were reduced and analyzed in a similar fashion using the same software
tools.
. Both studies were sponsored by a foundation with strong ties to the outdoor
advertising industry. Thus, in each study every effort was made to remove sources of
potential bias. These efforts included:
o Final selection of route and events were made by VTTI project staff;
o Data collection and reduction was as automated as possible (speed and lane
keeping data were totally automated, and involved no human intervention or
interpretation); and
o In the case of eye glance data reduction, where human intervention and
interpretation were necessary, data reductionists knew very little about the project,
its focus, or its sponsor. They evaluated each event according to a number code,
with no knowledge about whether the number represented a digital billboard,
conventional billboard, comparison event, or baseline event.
o In addition, the participants themselves did not know the true purpose of the
study.
71
Differences between the two studies included the following items; these were motivated
primarily by the difference in focus between the two studies:
. The focus of the Charlotte study was driver performance in relation to conventional
billboards, while the focus of the Cleveland study was driver performance in relation
to digital billboards.
. The comparison events in each study were chosen to be comparable to the events of
interest. In the Charlotte study, the comparison events were chosen prior to data
collection and were considered by the experimenters to be visually similar to
conventional billboards. In the Cleveland study, the comparison events were again
chosen prior to data collection and were considered by the experimenters to be
visually similar to digital billboards.
. The Cleveland route was longer (50 miles, versus 35 miles for the Charlotte study;
this was due to the need to include as many digital billboards as possible).
. The Cleveland subject pool was not as representative of the demographics of
Cleveland as was the Charlotte subject pool (in terms of race and ethnicity). For
example, Cleveland is approximately 41 % Caucasian, while 97% of the participants
were Caucasian. Charlotte is 58% Caucasian and 61 % of the participants in that
study were Caucasian.
. The Charlotte study examined the 7 seconds preceding each event, while the
Cleveland study used 8 seconds (to increase the chances of capturing data for a
message change for the digital billboards).
. The Cleveland study included digital billboards, which were not present in the
Charlotte study.
. The Cleveland study included an exploratory nighttime study using 12 of the daytime
participants.
. Luminance measures were obtained for the Cleveland study as part of the nighttime
exploratory study.
. The Charlotte study included some US highway type roads that were not available in
the Cleveland study.
. Because the digital billboards were all located on the interstate segments of the route,
the road type and event type were confounded, unlike in the Charlotte study. To get
around this, some of the analyses examined only events occurring on interstates.
. Because most of the drivers were more familiar with the interstate segments than with
the surface streets, road type and familiarity were also confounded to a greater degree
than in the Charlotte study. However, this interaction was not a primary focus ofthe
current study.
. The Cleveland study was conducted in late fall and early winter, while the Charlotte
study was conducted in late spring.
72
CONCLUSIONS
As with all studies, especially those conducted in real-world environments, the research design
demonstrated both limitations and strengths. The study was designed to be as similar as possible
to the study previously conducted in Charlotte, NC, with the major exception of the focus of the
study (conventional billboards for Charlotte and digital billboards for Cleveland). The studies
were similar in many important aspects with the exception of the location of the digital
billboards. In the Charlotte study, billboards were present on all road types, while in Cleveland,
all of the digital billboards were located along interstate highways. Thus, no conclusions can be
made regarding the potential impact of digital billboards located on surface streets on driver
behavior or performance. Despite this one flaw, necessitated by the real-world constraints of the
digital billboard locations, the overall findings of this study were consistent and compelling.
The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is
that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and
baseline sites (as shown by a greater number of spontaneous comments regarding the digital
billboards and by longer glances in the direction of the billboards). The comparison events, 25%
of which included signs with digital components, showed very similar results to the digital
billboards. Thus, there appears to be some aspect of the digital billboards and on-premises signs
that holds the driver's attention once the driver has glanced in that direction. This is most likely
the result of the intrinsic lighting of these signs, which is noticeable even during the daytime.
Drivers may also have maintained longer glances towards the digital billboards in the hopes of
catching the next message (knowing that the message changed periodically), although an
analysis of longer glances did not bear this out.
Although exploratory in nature, the nighttime results were very similar to the daytime results,
with degraded eye glance performance for digital billboards and comparison events. The digital
billboards were also found to have much higher luminance at nighttime than any of the other
event types.
These particular LED billboards were considered safety-neutral in their design and operation
from a human factors perspective: they changed only once every eight seconds, they changed
instantaneously with no special effects or video, they looked very much like conventional
billboards, and their luminance was attenuated at night. It is thus quite likely that digital signs
with video, movement, higher luminance, shorter on-message duration, longer transition times,
and special effects would also be related to differences in driver behavior and performance.
Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate
safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the
presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated
with everyday driving, such as the on-premises signs located at businesses. Conventional
billboards were shown both in the current study and in the Charlotte study to be very similar to
baseline and comparison events in terms of driver behavior and performance; thus, the design of
digital billboards should be kept as similar as possible to conventional billboards.
73
REFERENCES
AIm, H. & Nilsson, L. (1994). Changes in driver behaviour as a function of hands free mobile
phones-a simulator study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26 (4),441-451.
Andreassen, D.C. (1985). Technical Note No.1: Traffic accidents and advertising signs.
Australian Road Research Board, 15(2), 103-105.
Beijer, D. D., Smiley, A., & Eizenman, M. (2004). Observed driver glance behavior at roadside
advertising. Transportation Research Record, No. 1899, 96-103.
Brown, 1. D., Tickner, A. H., & Simmonds, D. C. V. (1969). Interference between concurrent
tasks of driving and telephoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53 (5), 419-424.
Crundall, D., Van Loon, E., & Underwood, G.(2006). Attraction and distraction of attention
with roadside advertisements. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38 (4), 671-677.
Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S. G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A.,
Hankey, 1., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, c., Doerzaph, Z. R., Jermeland, J., and Knipling,
R.R. (2006). The 1 OO-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase II - Results of the 100-Car
Field Experiment. (Report No. DOT HS 810 593). Washington, D.C.: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
Farber, E., Blanco, M., Foley, 1., Curry, R., Greenberg, J. A., & Serafin, C. P. (2000). Surrogate
measures of visual demand while driving. Dearborn, MI: Ford Motor Company-Scientific
Research Laboratory.
Farbry, J., Wochinger, K., Shafer, T., Owens, N, and Nedzesky, A. (2001). Research review of
potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction (Final
Report). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Garvey, P. M., Thompson-Kuhn, B. and Pietrucha, M. T. (1995). Sign visibility literature
review. United States Sign Council (USSC) Research Project, Final Report.
Gellatly, A. W., & Kleiss, J. A. (2000). Visual attention demand evaluation of conventional and
multifunction in-vehicle information systems. In Proceedings of the lEA 2000/HFES 2000
Congress, 3, 282-285. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
GES. (2002). National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES)
Analytical User's Manual 1988-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Glaze, A. L., and Ellis, J. M. (2003). Pilot study of distracted drivers. Transportation Safety
Training Center for Public Policy. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.
Hanowski R .1., Wierwille W. W., and Dingus T. A. (2003). An on-road study to investigate
fatigue in 10caVshort haul trucking. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(2), 153-160.
Horrey, W. J., and Wickens, C. D. (2007). In-vehicle glance duration: Distributions, tails and a
model of crash risk. Proceedings of the 2007 Transportation Research Board Meeting.
Washington, DC: TRB.
74
Lee, S. E., Olsen, E. C. B., and DeHart, M. C. (2004). Driving performance in the Presence and
absence of billboards. Report commissioned by the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising
Research and Education.
Kurokawa, K., & Wierwille, W. W. (1990). Validation of a driving simulation facility for
instrument panel task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual
Meeting, 1299-1303.
McMonagle, J. C. (1951). Accident analysis - Telegraph Road 1947-1948. Highway Research
Board Bulletin, 30, 29-41.
Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1970). Mapping eye-movement patterns to the visual scene
in driving: An exploratory study. Human Factors, 12(1),81-87. Santa Monica, CA: Human
Factors Society.
Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced
drivers. Human Factors, 14(4),325-335. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Mourant, R. R., Rockwell, T. H., & Rackoff, N. J. (1969). Drivers' eye movements and visual
workload. Highway Research Record, 292, 1-10. Washington, D. c.: National Research
Council.
Nagata, M., & Kuriyama, H. (1985). Drivers' visual behavior with door andfender mirror
systems (SAE Paper No. 850330). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Parkes, A. M, Ward, N. J., & Vaughan, G. (2001). A human factors evaluation ofa novel display
and control concept for in-vehicle audio systems: a case study. International Journal of
Vehicle Design, 25 (4), p. 339-352.
Rockwell, T. H. (1988). Spare Visual Capacity in Driving-Revisited (New Empirical Results for
an Old Idea). In Proceeding of Vision in Vehicles II (pp. 31 7-324). A G Gale et al.
(Editors). Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland).
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.
Salvucci, D. D. (2002).Modeling driver distraction from cognitive tasks. In Proceedings of the
24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 792-797). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Accessed 9 October 2003 from
http://hmil. cs.drexel.edu/papers/CSC02. pdf.
Serafin, C., Wen, C., Pae1ke, P., & Green, P. (1993). Car phone usability: A human factors
laboratory test. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
(pp. 220-224). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Tantala, M. W. & Tantala, P. J. (2005). An examination of the relationship between advertising
signs and traffic safety. In Proceedings of the 2005 Transportation Research Board Meeting.
Washington, DC: TRB.
Taoka, G., T. (1990). Duration of drivers' glances at mirrors and displays. Institute of
Transportation Engineers Journal, October, 60(10), 35-39.
75
Tessmer, 1. M. (2002). Fatal Accident Reporting System Analytic Reference Guide, 1975-2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
Tijerina, L., Kiger, S. M., Rockwell, T. H., & Tornow, C. (1995). Workload assessment of in-
cab text message system and cellular phone use by heavy vehicle drivers on the road. In
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 1117-
1121). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Tijerina, L., Palmer, E. B., & Goodman, M. J. (1999). Individual differences and in-vehicle
distraction while driving: a test track study and psychometric evaluation. In Proceedings of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting. pp. 982-986. Santa
Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Wachtel, 1. and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and environmental design considerations in the use
of commercial electronic variable-message signage (Final Report). Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Waugh, J. D., Glumm, M. M., Kilduff, P. W., Tauson, R. A., Smyth, C. C., & Pillalamarri, R. S.
(2000). Cognitive workload while driving and talking on a cellular phone or to a passenger.
In Proceedings of the lEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. 6,276-279. Santa Monica, CA:
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Wierwille, W. W. (1993). Visual and manual demands of in-car controls and displays. In B.
Peacock and W. Karwowski (Eds.), Automotive Ergonomics (pp. 299-320). Washington,
D.C.: Taylor & Francis.
Wierwille, W. W., Antin, J. F., Dingus, T. A., & Hulse, M. C. (1988). Visual attentional demand
of an in-car navigation display system. In A. G. Gale, M. H. Freeman, C. M. Haslegrave, P.
Smith, & S. P. Taylor (Eds.), Vision in Vehicles II (pp. 307-316). Amsterdam: North Holland
Press.
Zwahlen, H. T., Adams, C.C., & DeBald, D. P. (1988). Safety Aspects of CRT touch panel
controls in automobiles. In A.G. Gale, Freeman, M. H., Has1egrave, C. M. Smith,P., &
Taylor, S. P. (eds.). Vision in Vehicles II (335-344). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
76
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial Participant Telephone Screening Form
FOARE Cleveland Participant Screening Script
Note to Researcher:
Initial contact between participants and researchers may take place over the phone. If this is the
case, read the following Introductory Statement, followed by the questionnaire. Regardless of
how contact is made, this questionnaire must be administered verbally before a decision is made
regarding suitability for this study.
Introductory Statement:
After prospective participant calls or you call him/her, use the following script as a guideline in
the screening interview.
Hello. My name is Melinda McElheny and I'm a researcher with the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute in Blacksburg, Virginia. The project involves participation in a driving
study to help researchers understand how people drive.
This study involves coming to a meeting room at the Residence Inn bv Marriott in Independence,
OH, just south of Cleveland on 1-77 one time for approximately 2 hours. During this session you
would help us by driving one of our vehicles along a pre-selected route for about 50 miles. The
vehicle will be equipped with data collection equipment. Does this sound interesting to you?
Next, I would like to ask you several questions to see if you are eligible to participate.
Questions
1. Do you have a valid driver's license?
Yes
No
2. How often do you drive each week?
Every day _ At least 2 times a week_ Less than 2 times a week_
3. How old are you?
(stop ifnot 18-35 years old or 50-75 years old.)
4. What type of vehicle do you usually drive?
5. Have you previously participated in any experiments at the Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute? If so, can you briefly describe the study?
Yes
No
77
6. How long have you held your drivers' license?
7. Are you able to drive an automatic transmission without assistive devices or special
equipment? Yes _ No
8. Do you have a history of any of the following? If yes, please explain.
Stroke
Brain tumor
Head injury
Epileptic seizures
Respiratory disorders
Motion sickness
Inner ear problems
Dizziness, vertigo, or other balance problems
Diabetes
Migraine, tension headaches
9. (Females only, of course) Are you currently pregnant?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes No _ (If "yes" then read the following statement to the
participant: "It is not recommended that pregnant women participate in this study. However,
female participants who are pregnant and wish to participate must first consult with their
personal physician for advice and guidance regarding participation in a study where risks,
although minimal, include the possibility of collision and airbag deployment. ")
1 O. Are you currently taking any medications on a regular basis? If yes, please list them.
Yes
No
11. Do you have normal or corrected to normal hearing and vision? If no, please explain.
Yes
No
12. Have you ever had radial keratotomy, LASIK, or other eye surgeries? If yes, please specify.
Yes
No
78
I would like to take your name, phone number or phone numbers, and/or email where you can be
reached and hours/days when it's best to reach you.
Name
Male/F emale
Phone Numbers
Age:
Best Time to Call
Email
When contacting participants for scheduling purposes, the following statement must be included
in the conversation. "We ask that all participants refrain from drinking alcohol and taking any
substances that will impair their ability to drive prior to participating in our study."
Criteria for Participation:
1. Must hold a valid driver's license.
2. Must be 18-35 or 50-75 years ofage.
3. Must drive at least 2 times a week.
4. Must have normal (or corrected to normal) hearing and vision.
5. Must be able to drive an automatic transmission without special equipment.
6. Cannot have lingering effects of brain damage from stroke, tumor, head injury, recent
concussion, or infection. Cannot have had epileptic seizures within 12 months,
respiratory disorders, motion sickness, inner ear problems, dizziness, vertigo, balance
problems, diabetes for which insulin is required, chronic migraine or tension
headaches.
7. Cannot currently be taking any substances that may interfere with driving ability
(cause drowsiness or impair motor abilities).
8. No history of radial keratotomy, LASIK eye surgery, or any other ophthalmic surgery.
9. Must be willing to drive without sunglasses or tinted lenses.
1 O. Must live or work in the Cleveland area.
A total of 2 hours of time will be needed. What days and times would you be able to participate?
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30 9:30
11 :45 11 :45 11 :45 11 :45 11 :45 11 :45 11 :45
2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00
Thank you for your time. I will contact you to schedule a session if you are selected as a
participant.
79
Participant #
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Informed Consent for Participants
of Investigative Projects
Title of Proiect: Influence of driver characteristics on driving performance
Investigators:
Dr. Suzanne E. Lee, Research Scientist, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.
Dr. Ronald B. Gibbons, Research Scientist, Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute.
Melinda J. McElheny, Senior Research Specialist, Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute.
I. The Purpose of this Research Project
This study will collect driver performance data to help understand the way people drive in a
natural environment (with no experimenter present). The goal of this study is improve the
understanding of how people drive.
II. Procedures
For this study you will be asked to drive on a loop-route on freeways and highways in Cleveland,
Ohio. We want you to drive as you normally would on any roadway, following the typical laws
and regulations of the road. The session is expected to last about two hours, including this
orientation. You will then be paid for your participation.
This vehicle contains sensors and data processing equipment that will capture aspects of your
driving behavior. Small video cameras are also mounted in the vehicle. One of these cameras
will be directed toward your face while you are driving. The equipment has been installed in
such a way that you will hardly be able to notice its presence. It will not interfere with your
driving, and there is nothing special that you will need to do in regard to the equipment.
This experiment will consist of five experimental stages:
1. Introductory stage
This stage consists of preliminaries. You will be asked to read the informed consent form. Once
you have signed this form, we will also ask to see your driver's license, and an eye exam will be
administered. Finally, we will have you complete a medical questionnaire. Once you have
completed this stage we will go on to stage 2.
2. Familiarization with the test vehicle
While the instrumented vehicle is parked you will be shown how to operate the vehicle (for
example, lights, mirror adjustments, windshield wipers, etc.) as this may be different from your
80
Participant #
personal vehicle. You will then be asked to set each control to the best level for your comfort
and driving performance. You will then take a short drive with the experimenter riding along in
the passenger's seat to become familiar with the vehicle. This stage should take approximately
15 minutes.
3. Preparation for loop route
The experimenter will then review the loop-route with you. You will be given a map and written
directions that the experimenter will review with you.
4. Driving the loop route
You will then drive the instrumented vehicle for approximately 1.5 hours over the pre-planned
loop route of approximately 50 miles. You are expected to follow the posted speed limit and to
wear your seatbelt. Also, please stay in the right-hand lane to the extent possible during the
drive. The loop route is to be completed in one session if possible.
5. Debriefing and Payment
After completing the experiment, you will return here for a short debriefing session. You will
then be paid for your participation. It is expected that the complete session will last
approximately 2 hours, including orientation, loop-route, and debriefing.
III. Risks
The experiment is believed to be minimal risk. There are risks or discomforts to which you are
exposed in volunteering for this research. The risks in this study are the same as the risks
normally associated with driving on public roadways. The risks involved include the following:
1) The risks normally associated with driving on commonly encountered roadway segments at
freeway speeds, and if you are participating in the nighttime driving study, the risks include
those normally associated with driving on similar roadway segments at night.
2) Possible fatigue due to the length of the experiment. However, the route will be selected to
minimize the amount of driving required. You will be instructed to exit the roadway to take
a break if you feel the need to do so at any time during the experimental session.
3) Cameras will videotape you as you drive the vehicle; therefore, we will ask you not to wear
sunglasses. However, you should feel free to put on your sunglasses if this request at any
time impairs your ability to drive the vehicle safely.
The following precautions will be taken to ensure minimal risk to you:
1) The experimenter will monitor you during the orientation drive and help you become familiar
with the experimental vehicle. However, as long as the you are driving the research vehicle,
it remains your responsibility to drive in a safe, legal manner.
2) You will be required to wear the lap and shoulder belt restraint system while in the car. The
vehicle is also equipped with a driver's side airbag supplemental restraint system.
3) If an accident does occur, you will be instructed to call appropriate emergency services via a
cell phone in the glove compartment, and then to call the experimenter. If a visit to a medical
facility is required, you would be required to undergo examination by medical personnel.
81
Participant #
4) A cell phone (stored in the glove compartment) will be made available for you to call the
experimenter for any reason. You will be instructed to call only while the vehicle is in a safe
location, and while the vehicle is not in motion.
5) All data collection equipment will be mounted such that, to the greatest extent possible, it
does not pose a hazard to you in any foreseeable case.
6) None of the data collection equipment or the display technology interferes with any part of
your normal field of view present in the automobile.
IV. Benefits ofthis Research Project
The information collected from this project will provide new information on how people tend to
drive in a natural setting. This information will be used to improve roadway and vehicle design,
so that roadside and in-vehicle devices can be better designed to fit in with what people expect.
While there are no direct benefits of participating in this study, you may find the experiment
interesting. No guarantee of benefits has been made to encourage you to participate. However,
to avoid biasing other potential participants, you are requested not to discuss this study with
anyone for at least 8 months after participation.
V. Extent of Anonymity and Confidentiality
The results obtained from this study will be kept completely anonymous. Your name will not
appear on data derived from your session. Only a number will differentiate your data from
others who take part in the study. This number, and not your name, will also be used in
subsequent data analyses and reports.
As indicated, video will be recorded while you are driving. The video includes an image of your
face, so that we can determine where you are normally looking. The video will be treated with
confidentiality and kept secure. It will be shared only with other qualified researchers, and not
published except as noted in the following paragraph.
If at a later time we wish to use the video information for other than research purposes, say, for
public education, or if we wish to publish (for research or for other purposes) your likeness or
other information from the study that identifies you either directly or indirectly, we will only do
so after we have contacted you again and obtained your explicit permission.
VI. Compensation
You will be paid $20 per hour for the time you actually spend in the experiment. It is estimated
that the entire session, including orientation, driving, and debriefing will be 2 hours. Payment
will be made in cash immediately after you have finished your participation.
VII. Freedom to Withdraw
You are free to withdraw at any time without penalty. If you choose to withdraw from this study
you will be compensated for your time up until that point.
VIII. Medical Treatment and Insurance
If you should become injured in an accident, the medical treatment available to you would be
that provided to any driver or passenger by emergency medical services in the vicinity where the
accident occurs. The vehicle you will be driving is insured for automobile liability and
82
Participant #
collision/comprehensive through Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is
medical coverage for you under this policy. The total policy amount per occurrence is
$2,000,000. This coverage would apply in case of an accident, except as noted below.
Under certain circumstances, you may be deemed to be driving in the course of your
employment, and your employer's worker's compensation provisions may apply in lieu of the
Virginia Tech and Commonwealth of Virginia insurance provisions, in case of an accident. The
particular circumstances under which worker's compensation would apply are specified in
Virginia law. If worker's compensation provisions do not apply in a particular situation, the
Virginia Tech and Commonwealth of Virginia insurance provisions will provide coverage.
Briefly, worker's compensation would apply if your driving for this research can be considered
as part of the duties you perform in your regular job. If it is not considered as part of your
regular job, then the insurance policy would apply.
IX. Approval of Research
You should know that this research project has been approved, as required by the Institutional
Review Board for Research Involving Human Participants at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institution.
X. Participant's Responsibilities
I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I have the following responsibilities:
I) I should not participate in this study if I do not have a valid driver's license or if I am
not in good health.
2) I should notify the experimenter if at any time I do not want to continue my
participation.
3) I should operate the instrumented vehicle in a safe and responsible manner.
4) I should answer all questions truthfully.
XI. Participant's Permission
Check one of the following:
o I have not had an eye injury/eye surgery (including, but not limited to, LASIK, Radial
Keratotomy, and cataract surgery.)
o I have had an eye injury/eye surgery and I've have been informed of the possible risks to
participants who have had eye surgery. I choose to accept this possible risk to participate
in this study.
83
Participant #
I have read and understand the Informed Consent and conditions of this project. I have had all
my questions answered. I hereby acknowledge the above and give my voluntary consent for
participation in this project.
If I participate, I may withdraw at any time without penalty. I agree to abide by the rules of this
project.
Signature
Date
Should I have any questions about this research project or its conduct, I may contact:
Dr. Suzanne E. Lee, Principal Investigator (540) 231-1511
Melinda J . McElheny, Senior Research Specialist (540) 231-1557
David Moore, Chair of the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (540) 231-4991
Participants must be given a complete copy (or duplicate original) of the signed Informed
Consent.
84
Participant #
Appendix C: Health Screening Questionnaire
Health Screening Questionnaire
I. Are you in good general health?
Yes No
If no, list any health-related conditions you are experiencing or have experienced in the
recent past.
2. Have you, in the last 24 hours, experienced any of the following conditions?
Inadequate sleep Yes No
Hangover Yes No
Headache Yes No
Cold symptoms Yes No
Depression Yes No
Allergies Yes No
Emotional upset Yes No
3. Do you have a history of any of the following?
Visual Impairment Yes No
(If yes, please describe.)
Seizures or other lapses of
conSCIOusness
Yes No
(If yes, please describe.)
Any disorders similar to the
above or that would impair
your driving ability
Yes No
(If yes, please describe.)
85
Participant #
4. List any prescription or non-prescription drugs you are currently taking or have taken in the
last 24 hours.
5. List the approximate amount of alcohol (beer, wine, fortified wine, or liquor) you have
consumed in the last 24 hours.
6. Are you taking any drugs of any kind other than those listed in 4 or 5 above?
Yes No
Signature Date
86
Participant #
Appendix D: Post Drive-Questionnaire
Thank you for participating in this driving study. We appreciate your responses to the following
items. All information will remain confidential.
1. Please check either "Familiar" (driven at least once a week) or "Not Familiar" (driven less
than one time a week) for the following roadway sections:
1-480between 1-77 and 150th
W.130th -Bellaire-W.ll ih
1-90 between 9th and 185th
Carnegie St.
1-77 between 1-90 and Rockside
Familiar
Familiar
Familiar
Familiar
Familiar
Not Familiar
Not Familiar
Not Familiar
Not Familiar
Not Familiar
2. For the following systems, please check what you liked or disliked:
Seating like neutral dislike
Air conditioning like neutral dislike
Engine power like neutral dislike
Visibility like neutral dislike
Steering like neutral dislike
3. Please check the top five items that most caught your attention during your drive:
_Surrounding traffic
Other drivers
Construction areas
-
_Road/street signs
_Emergency vehicles
_Buildings
Landmarks
-
Walls
_Landscaping/scenery
Gas Stations
Restaurants
Motels/Hotels
Billboards
Towers
_Highway/Exit Signs
Smoke Stacks
_ Apartmentslhousing
Other
87
4. Did you experience any problems while following the written directions? _Yes No
If yes, please describe:
5. What was most memorable about the drive? For example, where there any objects that stood
out?
6. What other activities do you typically engage in while driving?
7. Does anything about other drivers bother you? If so, please briefly describe:
8. Please provide any other input about this study:
9. In what city do you live?
10. In what city do you work?
11. What level of education have you completed?
_Elementary/Secondary
_Junior High School
_High School degree
_ 2-yr Associate degree
_Bachelor's degree
_Master's degree
_Doctoral/Professional degree
12. Please indicate your marital status:
_single
married widowed
divorced
_separated
13. Which of the following groups best represent your ethnicity?
African American
_Hispanic (Latino)
Asian
_Native American (American Indian)
_European (Caucasian, White)
Multi-racial
Participant #
14. Which of the following best represents your annual household income?
_$0-$24,999
_$25,000-$49,999
_$50,000-$74,999
_$75,000-$99,999
> $100,000
15. What was the purpose of this study?
89
Arbitron Digital Billboard
Report: Cleveland Case Study
Presented by:
Diane Williams
Senior Analyst
Custom Research
Arbitron Inc.
142 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
(212) 887-1461
diane.williams@arbitron.com
ARBITRON
. custom resedrch
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
1
Introduction
Welcome to Arbitron's evaluation of digital highway billboards. This survey is designed to measure
travelers' awareness and attitudes towards digital billboards on major highways and to gauge their
level of engagement with billboard advertising messages.
Some significant findings of the research include:
* More than half of all Cleveland travelers notice digital billboards and the more a person
commutes, the more likely they are to be aware of the displays.
* Public reaction to digital signage is positive. The billboard's ability to display timely news,
traffic, weather advisories and AMBER Alert notices makes the vast maj ority of commuters (over
80%) feel the digital signs provide an important community service.
* Digital billboards are an effective advertising platform. Over eight out of 10 travelers could
successfully recall at least one of the ads running during the survey period and the majority of
commuters agree digital billboards are a "cool way to advertise."
Description of Methodology
This case study focuses on seven digital billboards operating in Cleveland, OR. The digital displays
are located on four interstate highways in the Cleveland, OR, area: 1-77,1-90,1-271 and 1-480.
Arbitron Inc. conducted random digit dial (RDD) interviews between November 27 and December 3,
2007, with 402 persons 18 years of age and older in the Cleveland, OR, Arbitron-defined Metro. To
qualify for the survey, respondents had to have traveled in a vehicle (car, truck, bus or taxi) on 1-77, 1-
90,1-271 or 1-480 in the 30 days preceding the survey period.
The study was designed and conducted by Arbitron Inc. on behalf ofthe Outdoor Advertising
Association of America. Data were weighed to reflect census figures and factored in the likelihood of
each demographic group qualifying for the survey based on the above mentioned "roads traveled"
screening criteria.
Digital Billboard Locations
1. 1-271: west side, 125 feet south of Solon Road (facing north)
2. 1-480: south side, 2 miles east ofI-71 (facing east)
3. 1-90 (Innerbelt Freeway): south side, 100 feet east of West 3rd Street (facing south)
4. 1-77: west side, 0.3 miles south of Pershing Avenue (facing north)
5. 1-90: south side, 70 feet east of West 55th Street (facing west)
6. 1-90: south side, 0.5 miles west of Eddy Road (facing east)
7. 1-480: north side, 0.5 miles east of Broadway (facing east)
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBiTRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
2
Key Findings
I. Digital Billboard Viewership and Engagement
More Than Half of Cleveland Highway Travelers Noticed Digital Billboards in
the Past Month
"One specific type of billboard is called digital billboards. These digital roadside billboards
repeatedly change advertising messages electronically every eight seconds. "
"Have you noticed any digital "Do you recall ever seeing digital
billboards in the Cleveland area billboards on any of the following
in the past 30 days?" highways?"
100%
73%
75%
43%
50%
25%
0%
All Travelers Mega- 1-480 1-90 1-271 1-77
Travelers 25-54 Milers*
Base: Persons /8 years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-27/ or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
* Mega-milers are those heavy commuters who travel 200 miles or more per week; they represent 30% of all Cleveland travelers.
More than half of Cleveland highway travelers noticed digital billboards in the past month.
Fifty-three percent of Cleveland Metro residents who traveled in a car, truck, bus or taxi on Interstate
77,271,480 or 90 in the past month noticed digital billboards on those roads. The core adult traveler
demographic of 25- to 54-year-olds showed an increased awareness of digital billboards, with six in
10 (60%) noticing one in the past month.
Awareness of digital billboards increased with frequency oftravel. Seventy-three percent of the
heaviest commuters, known as mega-milers, recalled seeing at least one of these electronic displays
during the past month.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
3
Nine Out of 10 Digital Billboard Viewers Notice the Advertising Some, Most or
Each Time They Pass a Board
"How often do you notice the advertising messages on digital billboards?"
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, ON, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-27 J or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
Nearly all travelers who notice digital billboards look at the advertising messages at least some
of the time. Ninety percent of respondents who notice digital billboards said they also note the
advertising messages on them either sometimes, most of the time or each time. Nearly one-quarter of
viewers say they notice the advertising message each time they see a digital billboard.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBlTRON
~.,
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
4
The Majority of Digital Billboard Viewers Find the Signs to Be Attractive and
Helpful to the Community
"Now using a 5-point scale where a '1' means you 'strongly disagree' and '5' means you
'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You
can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between."
Digital billboards...
...are attractive.
...help the community with
emergency information.
...make my commute
interesting.
0%
100%
Disagree or Strongly Disagree r:r:tNeutral or Don't Know \il1lliAgree or Strongly Agree
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77,1-90,1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
Viewers strongly find digital billboards helpful in providing information about community
emergencies. More than four out of five travelers (81 %) who notice digital billboards think the signs
help their community by providing important and timely emergency information, such as AMBER
Alerts. More than half of viewers (53%) think the digital billboards are attractive, and 38% think the
signs make their commute more interesting.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
5
Young Adult Breakout: 18-to 34-Year-Old Travelers Have an Especially
Positive Attitude Towards Digital Billboards
"Now using a 5-point scale where a '1' means you 'strongly disagree' and '5' means you
'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You
can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between."
Digital billboards...
...are attractive.
...help the community with
emergency information.
...make my commute
interesting.
0% 100%
Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral or Don't Know KK:Agree or Strongly Agree
Base: Persons 18 to 34 years old living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
Note: Totals subject to rounding.
Young adults 18-34 have especially positive feelings about digital billboards. Eighty-six percent
of young adults think digital billboards help their community with timely emergency information and
six in 10 (60%) think digital billboards are attractive. Digital billboards make commuting more
interesting for over half (51 %) of young adults.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
6
II. Digital Billboard Advertising Acceptance and Recall
Most Digital Billboard Viewers Have Positive Attitudes Toward the Advertising
Messages
"Now using a 5-point scale where a '1' means you 'strongly disagree' and '5' means you
'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You
can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between."
Digital billboards...
... are a good way to learn
about new products.
...are a cool way to advertise.
...have current and relevant
information.
...provide useful information.
0%
100%
Disagree or Strongly Disagree
Neutral or Don't Know III Agree or Strongly Agree
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-27 J or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
Nearly two out ofthree viewers think digital billboards are a "cool way to advertise." Sixty-four
percent of those who notice the digital billboards think the signs are a "cool way to advertise," More
than half (54%) of viewers think the signs display "current and relevant information," and 46% think
they "provide useful information." Forty-four percent of travelers feel digital billboards are a "good
way to learn about new products."
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBlTRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
7
Young Adult Breakout: 18-to 34-Year-Old Travelers Have Especially Positive
Attitudes Toward Advertising Messages on Digital Billboards
"Now using a 5-point scale where a '1' means you 'strongly disagree' and '5' means you
'strongly agree,' how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? You
can also use a 2, 3, or 4 if you feel somewhere in between."
Digital billboards...
... are a good way to learn
about new products.
...are a cool way to advertise.
...have current and relevant
information.
...provide useful information.
0% 100%
Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral or Don't Know F' Agree or Strongly Agree
Base: Persons 18 to 34 years old living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
Note: Totals subject to rounding.
More than three-quarters of young adults think digital billboards are "a cool way to advertise."
Seventy-seven percent of young adults 18-34 who notice the digital billboards feel the signs "are a
cool way to advertise." Sixty-nine percent of young adults think the signs display "current and
relevant information," and 67% think they "provide useful information." Fifty-eight percent of young
adults feel digital billboards are a "good way to learn about new products."
@ 20'08 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
8
The Local Radio Stations, a Local TV Channel and an Auto Dealership
Generated the Highest Brand-Aided Advertising Recall
"Do you remember seeing messages for any of the following on digital billboards?"
Fox 8 TV
Local Radio Stations
Liberty Ford Auto Dealership
Petiti Garden Center
Fox Sports Network
Cleveland.com
The Musical "Wicked" at Playhouse Square
Kalahiri Waterpark
Qdoba Mexican Restaurant
0%
20%
40%
60%
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77,1-90,1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days,
Recall of specific brands of advertising on the digital billboards ranged from 50% to 11 %. One
out of two (50%) travelers who noticed digital billboards recalled seeing the specific ads for local
radio stations that were running in the market during the survey period, and 41 % remembered seeing
the ad for the local Fox TV affiliate. The recall across all nine advertisers averaged 29%.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
9
The Majority of Digital Billboard Viewers Recalled, on a Brand-Aided Basis, at
Least One Advertisement
"Do you remember seeing messages for any of the following on digital billboards?"
100%
83%
50%
75%
25%
0%
Recalled At Least Recalled At Least Recalled At Least Recalled Four Or
One Ad Two Ads Three Ads More Ads
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OH, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days.
More than eight out of 10 viewers recalled at least one of the advertisements currently running
on the digital billboards in Cleveland. Eighty-three percent of those who noticed the digital
billboards recalled, on a brand-aided basis, at least one of the nine advertisements currently running,
and 65% of viewers recalled at least two.
Something to Talk About
Nearly One in Five Viewers Discussed an Ad Seen on a Digital Billboard with
Other People
"Now I would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital
billboards. Have you ever seen something funny that you talked about with others that
day?"
Nineteen percent of travelers who recaIled.aspecific ad on the digital billboards said they talked abollt
the advertising message with their family, friends or coworkers that day.
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland; ON, Metro drea who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days andrecalled at
least one ad.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
10
More Than One-Third of Digital Billboard Viewers Learned About a TV Show or
Radio Station from the Signs
"Now I would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards.
Have you ever noted a. .. ?"
50%
40%
35%
0%
28%
30%
10%
20%
Radio station to listen to
TV program to watch
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, OR, Metro area who traveled on 1-77,1-90,1-271 or 1-480 in the past 30 days and noticed the digital
billboards.
Digital billboards can drive traffic to other media. Thirty-five percent of travelers who noticed
digital billboards noted a radio station message they saw on a digital billboard, and 28% of viewers
noted a television program to watch.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
11
Digital Billboards Drive Traffic to Local Businesses
"Now I would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards.
Have you ever learned about a... ?"
30%
20%
18%
0%
15%
10%
Store you later visited
Restaurant you later visited
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in the Cleveland, ON. Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1.480 in the past 30 days and noticed
the digital billboards.
Nearly one in five viewers were motivated to visit a store after seeing an advertisement for the
store on a digital billboard. Eighteen percent of travelers who noticed the digital billboards learned
about a store they later visited, and 15% of viewers learned about a restaurant they later visited.
Getting the Word Out on Special Events
Nearly Two of Five Viewers Learned About an Event They Were Interested in
Attending From a Digital Billboard
"Now I would like to ask you about some things you learn from seeing digital
billboards. Have you ever learned about an event you were interested in?"
Thirty-nine percent of travelers whptlotlced the digital billboards learned about an event that they
were interested in attending.
Base: Persons 18 years or older living in theeleveland, OR, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, 1-90, 1-271 or 1.480 in the past 30 days
and noticed the digital billboards.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
12
Digital Billboards Prompt Viewers to Learn More About a Brand Through
Phone Numbers and Web Addresses
"Now I would like to ask you about some things you learned from seeing digital billboards.
Have you ever noted a. .. ?"
50%
40%
30%
25%
0%
17%
20%
10%
Web address
Phone number
Base: Persons ]8 years or older living in the Cleveland, OR, Metro area who traveled on 1-77, ].90, ].27] or ]-480 in the past 30 days and noticed the digital
billboards.
One-quarter of viewers noted an advertiser's Web address displayed on a digital billboard.
Twenty-five percent of travelers who noticed digital billboards noted the Web site address of an
advertiser, and 17% noted an advertiser's phone number.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
13
Appendix A
Travel Habits of Cleveland Metro Residents
Cleveland highway travelers in the past week
. 87% drove themselves.
. 58% traveled in a car or truck as a passenger.
. 17% carpooled to or from work either as a driver or as a passenger.
. 10% took a bus.
. Average total miles traveled: 200 (median 105).
Cleveland work commuters
. Commuters traveled an average of 16 miles one way.
. Almost half (45%) traveled for 10 to 30 minutes one way, and 36% traveled over a half hour each
way.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
14
Appendix B
Demographic Profile of Cleveland Travelers
Cleveland Cleveland Highway Travelers Who Noticed
Residents 1 Travelers Digital Billboards
Men 48% 49%2 50%2
Women 52% 51% 50%
18-24 12% 13% 7%
25-34 16% 16% 18%
35-44 18% 19% 23%
45-54 20% 22% 24%
55-64 15% 14% 19%
65+ 19% 16% 9%
Employed full-time 47% 55% 65%
Employed part-time 18% 13% 11%
Retired 18% 19% 13%
Homemaker 8% 5% 4%
Unemployed 4% 5% 5%
Student 3% 3% 1%
$50K+ 49% 58% 54%
$75K+ 28% 33% 32%
White 86% 74% 76%
African-American 12% 18% 15%
Hispanic/Latino 3% 3% 3%
J Data in this column are from Scarborough I2-Month Survey (March '06-February '07).
J How to read: Forty-nine percent (49%) of the Cleveland residents who traveled on Cleveland highways in the past 30 days are male, and 50% of those
travelers who noticed digital billboards are male.
Note: Totals subject to rounding. All sections do not add up to IOO% because some respondents declined to answer certain demographic questions.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
15
Appendix C
Demographic Profile of Cleveland Travelers
by Miles Traveled in the Past Seven Days
Medium
Cleveland Light Travelers Travelers Mega-Miters
Highway (Fewer than 75 Miles) (75-200 Miles) (200+ Miles)
Travelers 33% of sample 34% of sample 30% of sample
Men 49%1 43%1 47% 59%
Women 51% 57% 53% 41%
18-24 13% 16% 11% 13%
25-34 16% 13% 17% 20%
35-44 19% 14% 18% 25%
45-54 22% 17% 26% 22%
55-64 14% 15% 15% 13%
65+ 16% 25% 14% 8%
Employed full-time 55% 34% 60% 77%
Employed part-time 13% 17% 13% 8%
Retired 19% 28% 18% 7%
Homemaker 5% 8% 4% 3%
Unemployed 5% 9% 3% 1%
Student 3% 3% 2% 4%
$50K+ HHI 58% 46% 60% 70%
$75K+ HHI 33% 20% 33% 48%
White 74% 69% 81% 77%
African-American 18% 23% 13% 16%
Hispanic/Latino 3% 4% 2% 2%
1 How to read: Forty-nine percent (49%) of the Cleveland residents who traveled on Cleveland highways in the past 30 days are male, and 43% of light
travelers are male.
Note: Totals subject to rounding. All sections do not add up to 100% because some respondents declined to answer certain demographic questions.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
Arbitron Digital Billboard Report: Cleveland Case Study
16
About Outdoor Advertising Association
of America (OAAA)
The Outdoor Advertising Association of America is the lead trade association representing the
outdoor advertising industry. Founded in 1891, OAAA is dedicated to uniting, promoting, protecting
and advancing outdoor advertising interests in the U.S. With nearly 1,100 member companies, OAAA
represents more than 90% of industry revenues.
'Information supplied by OAAA.
About Arbitron Inc.
Arbitron Inc. (NYSE: ARB) is an international media and marketing research firm serving the
media-radio, television, cable, online radio and out-of-home-as well as advertisers and advertising
agencies in the United States and Europe. Arbitron's core businesses are measuring network and local
market radio audiences across the United States; surveying the retail, media and product patterns of
local market consumers; and providing application software used for analyzing media audience and
marketing information data. The Company has developed the Portable People Meter™, a new
technology for media and marketing research, which has been selected as one of Time magazine's
"Best Inventions of2007."
Arbitron's marketing and business units are supported by a world-renowned research and technology
organization located in Columbia, Maryland. Arbitron has approximately 1,900 employees; its
executive offices are located in New York City.
Through its Scarborough Research joint venture with The Nielsen Company, Arbitron provides
additional media and marketing research services to the broadcast television, newspaper and online
industries.
Arbitron's Out-of-Home division provides training, consumer shopping data and audience profiles for
out-of-home media. Currently, more than 100 out-of-home plants/place-based media and thousands of
media industry clients-agencies, advertisers, stations, marketers and networks--utilize Arbitron and
Scarborough consumer behavior information and software.
Credible third-party measurement helps advertisers justify their investment in the medium. The
Company's 50+ years of audience measurement experience help sellers focus on selling the value of
their advertising rather than justifying the credibility of their measurement. Arbitron research studies
about cinema advertising, the outdoor industry and traditional and nontraditional media can be found
on the Company's Web site at www.arbitron.comandcan be downloaded free of charge.
Portable People Meter™ is a mark of Arbitron Inc.
@ 2008 Arbitron Inc.
ARBITRON
ARBITRON
New York
142 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019-3300
(212) 887-1300
Chicago
222 South Riverside Plaza
Suite 630
Chicago, IL 60606-6101
(312) 542-1900
Atlanta
9000 Central Porkway
Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30328-1639
(770) 668-5400
Los Angeles
10877 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4341
(310) 824-6600
Dallas
13355 Noel Rood
Suite 1120
Dallas, TX 75240-6646
(972) 385-5388
Washington/Baltimore
9705 Patuxent Woods Drive
Columbia, MD 21046-1572
(410) 312-8000
www.arbitron.com
@2008Arbitron Inc. Printed in the USA. CUS.08.01616 2/08
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ron Clark [ron@ronclark.com]
Monday, August 18, 200810:19 AM
Auseth, Angie
RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
image001.jpg; image002.jpg; parking, sign easement.pdf
Angie,
Here you go.
Thank you
ron
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:08 AM
To: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Ron,
Thank you for your email this morning, however, the easement agreement was not attached to the email. Could you
please resend the document when you have a chance.
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 20088:09 AM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Good morning Angie,
Attached is the Parking, Access and Utility Easement for the two parcels at Arboretum shopping center, e.g. the strip
center and the gas station. The monument sign easement is also in this agreement in article #9.
Please let me know if you need anything further.
Ron
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 20082:08 PM
To: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
1
Ron.
Could you please email me a copy of the easement agreement for the sign location on Lot 2, Block 1. I would like to
attach it to the staff report.
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
emaH: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 20087:31 AM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shoppiflg Center
You are welcome Angie. Likewise, let me know if you need anything further.
Ron
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 20083:52 PM
To: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Thank you, Ron. I appreciate you getting back to me; I didn't want to misinterpret your intensions regarding the sign.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
2
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13,20083:48 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Cc: Bryan Monahan; Jim Abrahamson
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hello Angie,
Jim asked me to respond and provide you answers to your questions below regarding the proposed LED sign.
We do not have a written agreement with Amstar gas, but if they want to advertise on the LED sign we will offer them
advertising time. The monument sign is owned by our strip center and we are paying entirely for the new LED sign, e.g.
Amstar is not participating in that cost. The intent is to offer advertising time to the tenants in our strip center and to
Amstar if they choose to advertise. Once we know the cost to maintain and operate the LED sign we will allocate an
equitable cost for usage of the sign.
Thank you for your help with this application process.
Ron Clark
Ronclark@ Ronclark.com
Ron Clark Construction & Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 Minnesota Business Ethics A ward
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Cc: Bryan Monahan; Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Angie,
I have attached the existing sign photo and Bryan or Ron will have to answer your question about advertising.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
3
D
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12,200811:13 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
Will the Amstar gas station be able to advertise on this sign or is it strictly for the strip center along W 78th 5t? The
reason I ask is because, I recalled that one of objectives (from a staff's point of view) of the LED sign is to eliminate the
temporary signage along Hwy 5. Being that the sign is not owned by the gas station (property owner), I would like to
verify this information. Does North Coast Partners and Century Gas have an agreement, if so may I get a copy of it.
Also, can you send me a photo of the existing sign to demonstrate the before and after effects of the amendment?
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 20083:16 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Angie,
See Ron Clarks comment below and let me know.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
4
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson; Bryan Monahan
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
We have a permanent easement for our monument sign so I would not think the city needs approval from the gas station.
I can get a copy of the sign easement. Please let us know if that works for the city.
Thanks
Ron
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:12 PM
To: Bryan Monahan
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Sounds like they still need a signature.
Jim Abrahamson
Sales I Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
5
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Bryan Monahan [mailto:BryanM@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:53 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Does it matter if we have an easement for the square of land for the sign? Or do you still need the owner of the land
regardless of the easement?
Thanks
Bryan
Bryan Monahan
Director of Property Management
Commercial Division
Ron Clark Construction
Direct: 952.947.3051
Cell: 612.363.7593
Fax: 952.947.3052
brvanm @ ronclark.com
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11,200811:58 AM
To: Bryan Monahan
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Bryan,
I will need one favor to ask of you or Ron and that is to ask the building owner of the gas station to sign off on this form.
The fees have been paid all we need is the signature of the property that the sign sits on.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
6
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us)
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
Have you received the signature of the property owner of 7755 Century Blvd (lot 2 Block 1 ) for the PUD amendment
application? Please send me a copy of the signed Development Review Application as the sign is located on that parcel.
You can fax it, if that would be easiest 952-227-1110.
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
7
PARKING, ACCESS AND IJTILITY EASEMENT
TI-IIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into
as of the -L~l day of May, 2004, by and between Arboretum Exchange LLC
("Arboretum"), a Minnesota limited liability company, and Minnstar Builders, Inc.
("Minnstar"), a Minnesota Corporation.
Recitals
WHEREAS, Arboretum owns the parcel of land legally described on Exhibit A
and made a part hereof and shown as "Lot 1" on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a
pan hereof;
WHEREAS, Minnstar owns tbe parcel ofland legally described on Exhibit A-I
attached hereto and made a part hereof and shown as "Lot 2" on Exhibit B;
WHEREAS, Lots 1 and 2 are herein individually referred to as a "Lot" and
collectively referred to as the "Entire Premises"; and
WHEREAS, Arboretum and Minnstar desire to establish certain easements in
respect to Lots 1 and 2 and to the Entire Premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties hereto agree as follc)\vs:
AGREEMENT
1. Recitals. The above Recitals are incorporated herein by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
2. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the term "party" shall refer to any
present or future owner or owners of legal or equitable title to a]) or any portion of the
Lots or the Entire Premises, and any mortgagee of the Lots or the Entire Premises, and
their respective successors and assigns during any period of ownership. As of the
effecti \,ie date of this Agreement, the Ovvner of Lot 1 is Arboretum Exchange, LLC and
the Owner of Lot 2 is Minnstar Builders, Inc.
3. Ingress and Egress. Each party to this Agreement hereby grants and
conveys to the other party, for their use and the use by their respective agents, employees,
tenants, contractors, customers and invitees, a non-exclusive easement appurtenant to and
for the benefit of each Lot for the ingress and egress by vehicular and pedestrian traffic
upon, over and across the parking areas, driveways, curb cuts and sidewalks (collectively,
the "Parking and Access Facilities") located on the respective Lots; provided, however,
that no material changes, closing or relocation shall occur on the Parking and Access
Facilities as depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof without the
prior consent of all parties hereto; provided further, that no fence or other barrier which
would unreasonably prevent or obstruct the passage of pedestrian or vehicular travel for
purposes herein permitted shall be erected or permitted within or across Parking and
Access Facilities.
4. Parking. Each party to this Agreement hereby grants and conveys to
the other party, for their use and the use by their agents, employees, tenants, contractors,
customers and invitees, a non-exclusive easement for vehicular parking on that portion of
the Parking and Access Facilities to be developed for parking purposes as shown on the
attached Exhibit C, such easement to be appurtenant to and for the benefit of each Lot;
provided, however, Minnstar hereby grants and conveys to Arboretum an exclusive
easement for employee parking in the fourteen spaces located on the west side of the car
wash on Lot 2 and shown cross-hatched on Exhibit C.
5. Indemnification and Insuraf!ce
51 Indemnification. Each Owner benefited by any easement or
license granted herein shall hold harmless and indemnify the burdened party, its
agents, and their respective employees, successors and assigns, from and against
all loss, costs, damage, actions, suits, judgments and expense, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or due to, the use by such benefited
Owner or its employees, agents, contractors, invitees or permittees, of the
easement or license, except to the extent due to or a result of, the negligence or
willful misconduct of the burdened Owner or its employees, agents, contractors,
invitees or permittees.
5.2 Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain comprehensive general
liability insurance against claims for bodily injury, death and property damage
OCCUlTing in or upon such Ovmer's propc11y and appurtenant easements, including
contractual liability coverage for claims made pursuant to the indemnity
provisions of this Agreement, in such amounts as may be carried from time to
time by prudent owners of similar properties in the Iv1inneapolis!St. Paul
metropolitan area, but in all events to affOrd protection for limits of not less than
$2,000,000.00 combined single limit for bodily injury or propeliy damage. At the
request of an Owner from time to time, the other Owner shall provide the
requesting Owner a certificate of insurance evidencing that the coverages required
hereunder are in force. All polices used to provide the coverage required by this
Agreement shall (a) be endorsed to require the insurer to provide at least ten (10)
days notice to the other Owner prior to cancellation, substantial modification, or
non-renewal, and (b) be issued by financially sound companies having an A.1\1.'
Best Company rating of at least A:VIl. Each Owner shall name the other Owner
as additional insured under all such policies.
6. Maintenance. Except as provided in paragraph 7 below, each party shall,
at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Parking and Access Facilities on its Lot at all
times in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris.
Arboretum shall maintain the road located on the adjacent property (the "Adjacent
Drive") providing ingress and egress to West 78lh Street shown on Exhibit D in good
order, condition and repair, reasonably free of ice, snow and debris until such time a
building permit is issued for construction upon the adjacent property, at which time
maintenance for the Adjacent Drive shall revert to the owner of the adjacent property.
Minnstar shall be responsible for one-half W;) of the costs incurred by Arboretum in so
maintaining the Adjacent Drive, \vhich shall be payable within ten (J 0) days after receipt
of an invoice from Arboretum for the amount due.
7. Common Drive. Arboretum shall maintain the area depicted as the
"Common Drive" on Exhibit C in good order, condition and repair, reasonably free of
ice, S110W and debris. Minnstar shall be responsible for one-half (1,1;) of the costs incurred
by Arboretum in so maintaining the Common Drive, \vhich shall be payable within ten
(10) days after receipt of an invoice from Arboretum for the amount due.
8. Utilit\' Easement. Each party hereby grants and conveys to the other
party an easement for utility purposes over, on, across, under and through the Entire
Premises, together with the right of ingress to and egress from the Lots for the purpose of
inspecting, repairing and maintaining any and all utilities.
9. Monument Sign. Minnstar hereby grants and conveys to Arboretum
an easement on Lot 2 for the purpose of erecting and utilizing a monument sign (the
"Monument Sign") in a ] 0' by 20' area in the location depicted on the attached Exhibit C
(the "Sign Easement Area"). The Monument Sign shall be solely utilized, operated and
maintained by Arboretum. Arboretum may also use the Sign Easement Area for
installing and maintaining a "Retail Space for Lease" boulevard sign to be used as needed
and at the sole discretion of Arboretum.
10. Legal EIfe_g. Each of the easements and rights created by this Agreement
are perpetual (except as specifically stated herein) and are appurtenant to the Entire
Premises, and run \vith the land, and may not be transferred, assigned or encumbered
except as an appurtenance to such properties. Each covenant contained in this Agreement
constitutes a covenant running with the laneL Each Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2
covenants and agrees that on conveyance of all or any part of the fee ti tIe to either Lot 1
or Lot 2, the grantee, by accepting such conveyance, \vil! thereby become a new Owner
under, and be bound by, this Agreement. On such acceptance and deemed assumption by
a grantee, the conveying Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 will thereafter be released from
any obligation under this Agreement arising thereafter with respect (0 either Lot 1 or Lot
2 so conveyed. Each Owner of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 agrees, on written request of the
conveying Ovmer, to execute and deliver any appropriate documents or instruments to
evidence such release, but failure to obtain such document will not affect the
effectiveness of this release.
11. A.!l!.~ll1lJ).~nt. This Agreement and any provision herein contained may be
terminated, extended, modified or amended only with the express written consent of the
then current Owners of the Entire Premises. No amendment, modification, extension or
termination of this Agreement will affect the rights of the holder of any mortgage
constituting a lien on any of the Entire Premises unless such m011gagee consents to the
same. No tenant, licensee or other person having only a possessory interest in the
improvements on the Entire Premises will be required to join in execution of or consent
to any action taken from time to time by the Owners pursuant to this Agreement.
12: Condemnation. If the whole or any part of the Entire Premises is taken for
any public or quasi-public use under any governmental law, ordinance or regulation, or
by right of eminent domain, any Owner benefited by an easement or covenant created by
this Agreement will not share in any award, compensation or other payment made to the
Owner of the parcel that was taken by reason of the taking of the parcel or a portion of
the parcel which is subject to such easement or covenant and such award, compensation
or other payment will belong entirely to the Owner of the parcel or that portion of the
parcel to which is taken, and such Owner will have no further liability to any other
Owner for the loss of such easements or covenants, or a portion thereoL located on the
parcel (or the leasehold interest therein) so taken.
13. Def~lUlt: Remedies. If any O\vner defaults in any obligation requiring the
payment of money and fails to cure the default within fifteen (15) days after receiving
written notice thereof, or if any Owner defaults in any of its other obligations under any
provision hereof and fails to commence such action as is necessary to cure such default
within thirty (30) days after written notice of default is given by any nondefaulting
Ov.mer, or fails to proceed diligently thereafter to cure such default, the nondefaulting
Owner may enforce such obligations by an action at law or suit in equity, or may perform
or pay all or any part of such obligations and charge the cost of performing or the
payment made, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the defaulting Ov..'ner. The
nondefaulting Ovmer is hereby granted a right of entry onto the defaulting Owner's
property, \vith such personneL materials and equipment as may be necessary for purposes
of performing any obligation of the defaulting O\\'ner hereunder that has not been
performed within the time allowed. Notwithstanding al1y1hing to the contrary contained
in this Agreement, in the event of an emergency involving an imminent threat to human
hcalth or safety or the likelihood of substantial property damage, the foregoing right of
entry may be exercised with only such notice as is practical under the circumstances,
which may include notice given after the fact. All indebtedness of an Owner hereunder
shall bear interest from the date incurred at a rate per annum equal to 2% in excess of the
then reference rate as publicly announced from tirrle to time by U.S. Bank National
Association (or any successor national bank), and the indebtedness, interest, and all
reasonable costs of suit or collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
whether suit be brought or not, with interest on all such costs at the rate above set f0l1h,
shall be payable on demand of the creditor, and shall be enforceable by any remedy then
available at law or in equity. In addition, without the act or deed of any Owner, any such
indebtedness, interest and costs shall constitute a lien against the prope11y owned by the
defaulting Owner from and after the date the notice of SLlch lien is filed in the same office
in Carver County, Minnesota in which this Agreement is filed. Such lien shall be
enforceable in the same manner as a lien for labor and mater1als pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 514, as the same may be amended. Failure to enforce any covenants
hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.
14. Lien Stlbordinate to MortQ.aj;J:es. Any lien granted hereby to secure any
obligations of an Owner shall be subordinate to the lien of any mortgage now or hereafter
placed upon either Lot 1 or Lot 2; provided, however, that stIch subordination shall apply
only to the obligations which have become due and payable prior to a sale or transfer of
such property or leasehold interest pursuant to a decree of foreclosure, or any other
proceeding in lieu of foreclosure, and the expiration of any redelnption period. Such sale
or transfer shall hot relieve sllch property from liability for any obligations thereafter
becoming due, nor from any lien of any such subsequent obligations.
15. l'Jo Rigbt to Terminate Due to Breach. No breach of this Agreement will
entitle any Owner to cancel, rescind or otherwise terminate this Agreement provided that
the foregoing limitation will not affect, in any manner, any other right or remedy \vhich
any Owner might have by reason of any breach of this Agreement.
16. Miscellaneous.
16.1 Notices. All notices, communications, demands and requests permitted or
required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be
given when personally delivered, when delivered to a reliable and recognized overnight
courier or messenger service which provide receipts of delivery or when deposited in the
United States mail in a sealed envelope sent by registered or certified mail with postage
prepaid, addressed as fo]IO\\ls or to such other address as is set forth in a notice given in
ClccordClnce \vith this Section:
! r to Arboretum Exchange:
c/o Ron C ark
7500 West 78th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55439
Fax # 952.9473030
with copy to:
Foley &: Mansfield
250 lVfarquette A venue
Suite 1200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540 I
fax # 612.338.8788
11' to Minnstar Builders:
Ron Clark
7500 West 78th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55439
Fax # 952.947.3030
with copy to
Foley & Mansfield
250 Marquette Avenue
Suite 1200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Fax # 6] 2.338.8788
] 6.2 ~arate Mortgages. The Owners benefitted by any easement created
hereby and any Owner owning property subject to any easement created hereby shall
have the right separately to create mortgages, deeds of trust, or other liens upon their
separate estates, such estates being subject to and together with the easements and other
covenants created herein.
16.3 Estoppel Certificates: Each Owner shall, within 15 days aner receiving a
v;ri tten request from another Owner, which requests may be made from time to time but
no more than three times in any 12-month period, issue an estoppel certificate addressed
to such Owners as may be specified by the requesting Owner stating
(a) \-vhether the OW11cr to whom the request had been directed knows of any
default under this Agreement, and if there are knov.:n defaults, specifying the nature
thereof;
(b)\vhcther, to the Owner's knowledge, this Agreement has been nlodified or
amended in any y.,iay (and, if it has, identifying such amendments or morJifications)~
(c) that, to the Owner's k.rlovvledge, this Agreement is in full force and effect
as of the date of the estoppel certificate, or if not, then so stating;
(d) the nature and extent of any setoffs, claims or defenses then being asserted
or otherwise known by the Owner against enforcement of such Owner's obligations
herelmder;
(e) whether, and for what amount, the Owner executing such certificate is
then claiming a right to reimbursement from the Owner requesting such certificate; and
(f) such other matters as may reasonably be required.
Any such estoppel certificate shall act as a waiver of any claim by the Owner executing it
against the Owner or Owners to whom such certificate is addressed, to the extent such
claim is based upon facts contrary to those asserted in the celiificate and to the extent the
claim is asserted against a bona fide encumbrancer or purchaser for rent without
knowledge of facts contrary to those contained in the statement, who has acted in
reasonable reliance upon the certificate; however, such certificate shall in no event
subject the Owner furnishing it to any liability whatsoever, unless the ceIiificate was
given in bad faith.
16.4 No Dedication. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be a gift or
dedication of all or any portion of the easements herein granted, or any thereof, to or for
the general public, it being the Owners' intention that such easements be for the exclusive
benefit of the Owners.
16.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is, to any extent, declared
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement (or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than
those in respect of which the determination of invalidity or unenforceability was made)
will not be affected thereby and each provision of this Agreement will be valid and
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
16.6 Further Liability Limitation. Under this Agreement, the liability of and
their respective successors and assigns will be limited to their respective interests in the
Property and the Adjacent Property, respectively.
16.7 No Merger. If an Owner owns both the fee interest in the Property and the
Adjacent Property, then this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 Governing Laws. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with
the internal laws of the State of Minnesota.
16.9 Time is of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
16.10 COlmterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterpmts, any or all of which may contain the signature of only one of the Owners,
and all of which will be construed together as a single instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Arboretum Exchange, LLC and Minnstar Builders,
Inc. have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
ARBORETUM EXCHANGE, LL~
4 njC\ (iO'1/
By: ,1/ 0i,1..~ c-- LX.eJ.-Jf---
Name: RfJ/.f.AL.b 1:-:: Cc.:Atf!..,c
Its:
MINNSTAR BUILDERS, INC.
" jk;/iO L
By: / Ckit.JJ.~ C L-X,o/1.--<
Name: d' /VA Lt;:. E,- C t/)1<Ic
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) fndMaMtt..
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) A-\ leA1.
The fOIi"~oingw.strwnent was acknowle e before me this 2.7~y of
May, 2004, by eooa. k1V Lt1rK. , the of Arboretum
Exchange, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on beha ofthe company.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
~~- t Qill1 na,
Notary Public j
)~a_
) ss.
) A-1ltN\
Basilikoula E. Oetting
Allen County Resident
My GQmmission Expires April 2, 2011
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
TJf;;tJO.0g qent was acknowl-".dged before me this Z7r:Jly of
May, 2004, by b ctyK , the G.qO. . of Minns tar
Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
~~. n(J-I-ir~1Jf
Notary Public ~J
This instrument was drafted by:
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.
250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Basilikoula E. Oetting
Allen County Resident
My Commission Expires April 2, 2011
EXHIBIT A
Lot 1 Legal Description
Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota
EXHIBIT A-I
Lot 2 Legal Description
Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, Carver County, Minnesota
~
~ 1
i
~
~
~
G)
'/'~'~"
w
g;
(t.
~"<J~.g 0."%
lti ''''v,..;ro
f'Jlj>'1
jilt':. il.:.-.
g ~. .'. :Fl"~
~.' . "1.' "ll.:: .:!
~!I'i"..~
~rt~f'~
!'I'..hr -
'" g
'<
3'
"11.
3'.
.... \':'8
!J il~ . '2.-::- It
f ~?
f .t 0 ~! ~~
..
if ~;;- .. ff fi
Of
. ~-';;; g 0;0 !-'1
q ~,. 3 'f .
.. "'~ g ..
~l !~ 1 I ~
&... -< '"'
~1 '" ,.
0"'- f 0 '"
.~ ~ ~ :.
Ii 0.
~
..
5' 0.0:.3'
11 "'1
a:~l'
.... 0
!''' .
~! l',~!t
~'1"
~llJ
oo!if
l:~rl
. ~.!-
!l&.
:fJ
ill
I f'!;!
: L 10 fft..
.1 . - B
I 1 '",
L.. - i
'<
r
3
..
rl -
I _
I 0
r- \0
I
~ ~ g _ I~ i g
~
"-
"-
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f i ~
:t;.
'.i
n~
."
'".
:;:
. l~
.-.
:1:
:i:
;c.
.',
','
"0 ()
~ 2
EXHIBIt B
.
.:,,' '.\" '(-'.o' '-..,'.' ....' ,",_ ~........ '.. .... .... _d.". ;~'.,,'.. ". ,.. _.': '.. . '. " "' ,., .
."' ." ........, ..~," ..,~""... ~, .,. ,..,.....~...,.,..,~., '.i........'.,~
..f
::1
" ;e.
;e. '..
'..
"i ",
'...
..f
;e.
..f
,',
,.-.
..f
:,:
,,'
:..
...
...
,..
..i
'.'
~t;,
.',
, :E
,..
:~. I
..
I
I
I
N:f;t !iI
']I." !! :z: t;
~:E:.iT:.H~.:'
'"-.
:~ .:: :..:t.::..... ,u, ~~ ~:'
~
(;
I
~c~;~t~~~~,;;,...'f\':4~: ~.c1i"
_..' L,,~: ~[f~.y(~fc, 'i, 14.\: 1~1'! I
. . . "...... . ~j~,~ I . '.; .it-~( . 'Crii;/l)'t...... ~ I i
""~~~ ',' r... : 'Cl '60" ::I I '.
'f"" :'~ i~: 'I'~'.'~ ~~ ? \: ..~.;.'.fi..:.
I 1 . \rg ~. g ~ : ~
!II I 1 . '0 '" I' 'N
'-'. ~. I I I'; I ,--
,'.. .~~ 1 If /' '?=
- ',' t:: :::.~ I\) : : .~ Iii;:!
~. ud r _ Ii'
~.,:_.' ~I I~ li~
~:::I I'"' '-;,"
: :... I g
I ! ',' I ~
l : i I
1 I I
I I I
I I I :"~
I I I g:.,:
"'"" I 1 \ 'U;'~.
1 . ~
I 151;22 1 '"
~--~..~..-;:..~:-~~.77!. . .
...;
"'II>
N"N
. ."(()
I ~~
I ~
M
I
I
Nl
.....:...::.\',
.-,"<\
..........'
','
'.... /:\:; ~~~: ~~ :v: ::', :\~
r 'i g.;tl
g:.c .~ -
..3 ~ ::T
ST -<(;l -fA
rta ;r O-~
. ,() J: \ 0 II IiI
I: G) /1.... II \
> J: "m lJ
~. ~ ~>
>~,~
~ (Jl ; ~
~~>
,. (') I -i
5: fTI I rrt
Z ~::o
z
1Tl~
(1)-<
om
~o
c
i' I
lTI
~
~
c
~ -... r) ~
~ ~ 9 ~
'. . _ "i
~ ~ :: ~-
~ tJq ~ ~
~ ;:;- ~ 5"
2 E: J"~
~ ~.
~
/1
m
\ \
I
I
\
II
II
'I
; , \
I \ I
\ ' II
~
~~
-~
EXHIBIT C
II II II i II
I ~ II I
(( I! I
51' \
-_.~-=.~
-~
~
~=-
~--.
CENTURY BOULEVARD
-I
'"
c:
z
'"
::t:
~
z
9
'"
1
~
m
en
-I
...
~
en
il
a I
I \ I
\
I
-.
Auseth. Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ron Clark [ron@ronclark.comJ
Thursday, August 14, 2008 7:31 AM
Auseth, Angie .
RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
image001.jpg; image002.jpg
You are welcome Angie. Likewise, let me know if you need anything further.
Ron
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13,20083:52 PM
To: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Thank you, Ron. I appreciate you getting back to me; I didn't want to misinterpret your intensions regarding the sign.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 20083:48 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Cc: Bryan Monahan; Jim Abrahamson
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hello Angie,
Jim asked me to respond and provide you answers to your questions below regarding the proposed LED sign.
We do not have a written agreement with Amstar gas, but if they want to advertise on the LED sign we will offer them
advertising time. The monument sign is owned by our strip center and we are paying entirely for the new LED sign, e.g.
Amstar is not participating in that cost. The intent is to offer advertising time to the tenants in our strip center and to
Amstar if they choose to advertise. Once we know the cost to maintain and operate the LED sign we will allocate an
equitable cost for usage of the sign.
Thank you for your help with this application process.
Ron Clark
Ronclark@Ronclark.com
1
Ron Clark Construction & Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 Minnesota Business Ethics Award
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Cc: Bryan Monahan; Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Angie,
I have attached the existing sign photo and Bryan or Ron will have to answer your question about advertising.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn,us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12,2008 11:13 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
Will the Amstar gas station be able to advertise on this sign or is it strictly for the strip center along W 78th St? The
reason I ask is because, I recalled that one of objectives (from a staffs point of view) of the LED sign is to eliminate the
2
temporary signage along Hwy 5. Being that the sign is not owned by the gas station (property owner), I would like to
verify this information. Does North Coast Partners and Century Gas have an agreement, if so may I get a copy of it.
Also, can you send me a photo of the existing sign to demonstrate the before and after effects of the amendment?
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 20083:16 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Angie,
See Ron Clarks comment below and let me know.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
3
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson; Bryan Monahan
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
We have a permanent easement for our monument sign so I would not think the city needs approval from the gas station.
I can get a copy of the sign easement. Please let us know if that works for the city.
Thanks
Ron
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:12 PM
To: Bryan Monahan
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Sounds like they still need a signature.
Jim Abrahamson
Sales I Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Bryan Monahan [mailto:BryanM@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:53 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson
4
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Does it matter if we have an easement for the square of land for the sign? Or do you still need the owner of the land
regardless of the easement?
Thanks
Bryan
Bryan Monahan
Director of Property Management
Commercial Division
Ron Clark Construction
Direct: 952.947.3051
Cell: 612.363.7593
Fax: 952.947.3052
brvanm @ronclark.com
From: Jim Abrahamson (mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Bryan Monahan
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Bryan,
I will need one favor to ask of you or Ron and that is to ask the building owner of the gas station to sign off on this form.
The fees have been paid all we need is the signature of the property that the sign sits on.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
5
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
Have you received the signature of the property owner of 7755 Century Blvd (Lot 2 Block 1 ) for the PUD amendment
application? Please send me a copy of the signed Development Review Application as the sign is located on that parcel.
You can fax it, ifthat would be easiest 952-227-1110.
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
6
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Auseth, Angie
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11 :13 AM
'Jim Abrahamson'
RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Jim,
Will the Amstar gas station be able to advertise on this sign or is it strictly for the strip center along W 78th 5t? The
reason I ask is because, I recalled that one of objectives (from a staff's point of view) of the LED sign is to eliminate the
temporary signage along Hwy 5. Being that the sign is not owned by the gas station (property ownerL I would like to
verify this information. Does North Coast Partners and Century Gas have an agreement, if so may I get a copy of it.
Also, can you send me a photo of the existing sign to demonstrate the before and after effects of the amendment?
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:J;mA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 20083:16 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Angie,
See Ron Clarks comment below and let me know.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales I Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
1
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Ron Clark [mailto:ron@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 20083:08 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson; Bryan Monahan
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
We have a permanent easement for our monument sign so I would not think the city needs approval from the gas station.
I can get a copy of the sign easement. Please fet us know if that works for the city.
Thanks
Ron
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 1:12 PM
To: Bryan Monahan
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Sounds like they still need a signature.
Jim Abrahamson
Sales I Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
2
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Bryan Monahan [mailto:BryanM@ronclark.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:53 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: RE: Arboretum Shopping Center
Does it matter if we have an easement for the square of land for the sign? Or do you still need the owner of the land
regardless of the easement?
Thanks
Bryan
Bryan Monahan
Director of Property Management
Commercial Division
Ron Clark Construction
Direct: 952.947.3051
Cell: 612.363.7593
Fax: 952.947.3052
brvanm @ronclark.com
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Bryan Monahan
Cc: Ron Clark
Subject: FW: Arboretum Shopping Center
Hi Bryan,
I will need one favor to ask of you or Ron and that is to ask the building owner of the gas station to sign off on this form.
The fees have been paid all we need is the signature of the property that the sign sits on.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
3
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.siqn-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
justinas@sign-source.com
D
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center
Jim,
Have you received the signature of the property owner of 7755 Century Blvd (Lot 2 Block 1 ) for the PUD amendment
application? Please send me a copy ofthe signed Development Review Application as the sign is located on that parcel.
You can fax it, ifthat would be easiest 952-227-1110.
Thank you,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
4
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Auseth, Angie
Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM
'Jim Abrahamson'
Century Plaza
Good morning Jim,
I have a couple of questions regarding the application for Century Plaza PUD Amendment. First, our records show the
owner to be Century Gas LLC, and the application shows Northcoast... Can you please verify the owner. The owner
must also sign the Development Review application; a faxed signed copy would be fine. Second, we had discussed a
new check in the amount of $300, I just wanted to check on the status of that, has it been mailed? We will then return
the other check upon receipt of the new one.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth@cLchanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.cLchanhassen.mn.us
1
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Auseth, Angie
Tuesday, July 29, 20082:26 PM
'Jim Abrahamson'
RE: Century Plaza
Thanks Jim,
I have you down for the August 19th Planning Commission meeting and the ,September 8th City
Council meeting agendas, pending Friday's submittal. Please let me know if this changes.
Best regards,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
n00 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth~ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Cc: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst
Subject: RE: Century Plaza
Hi Angie,
Thanks for the reply and I will send it over asap if the customer is ready.
Bryan do you want to move forward with this? If so I will need a signed drawing and should
get a down payment to get this to the city for approval.
Thanks, Jim
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
1
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.sign-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
iustinas~sign-source.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Auseth, Angie [mailto:aauseth@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: RE: Century Plaza
Jim,
The sign looks good. The height will not change, correct? Other than that, you will need to
get a conditional use permit for the LED portion of the sign.
Please let me know what I can help you with; the next submittal deadline is this Friday,
August 1, 2008.
Best regards,
Angie
Angie Auseth
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: aauseth~ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Abrahamson [mailto:JimA@sign-source.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:13 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Cc: Bryan Monahan; Dan Herbst
Subject: FW: Century Plaza
Hi Angie,
Please review the attached drawing for the revamp of the existing sign at Century Plaza and
let me know if the city staff will support this request.
Thanks, Jim
2
Jim Abrahamson
Sales / Project Management
7660 Quattro Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Direct: 952-908-9106
Cell: 612-964-5165
efax: 952-908-9146
fax:952-975-9209
www.sign-source.com
Assistant: Justina Sleeper
952-908-9125
iustinas~sign-source.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Korey McDermott
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:05 PM
To: Jim Abrahamson
Subject: Century Plaza
Jim,
Here is the proof for Century.
K
3