I've been doing some research on billboards (aka Outdoor Advertising Signs), and I'm having a hard time finding anyone who maintains a list of exactly how many we have, where they're located and who operates them.
I'm specifically interested in "legal non-conforming" billboards that would be illegal under the current zoning code, but were grandfathered in years ago. For instance, every time I drive downtown on the BA, I pass the two side-by-side billboards that are not in compliance with the spacing requirements. (One shows the current value of the Powerball Lottery, and the other one is for a bank, with a Hasty Bake ad beneath.)
The TMAPC says that the BOA should know b/c they "verify" spacing between signs whenever a new one goes up. The BOA said that they don't maintain a complete list (just the list of applications for verification), but suggested contacting the Sign Advisory Board folks... (I'm trying to contact them, and waiting for a return phone call. I think today's a furlough day, so I shouldn't complain.)
I did find the minutes to a 1984 TMAPC meeting in which it was stated that there were over 350 non-conforming billboards, and over 1,000 "unused, illegal, or non-conforming" signs in Tulsa. I find it odd that someone had this data in 1984, and with all of today's computer and GPS technology, we don't have this info at our fingertips.
One interesting note from the 1984 TMAPC meeting: how many local sign companies used to exist in Tulsa. At least back then our blight was supporting some local folks. Today it's all going to Lamar Media Corporation...and a comparative handful to Whistler (which is local).
Whistler has a couple engaging mottos that appear on its website (I am not making this up!) "Intrusively reach up to 100,000 motorists every single day!" and "Intrusively reach the masses!"
Nice.
What's your interest in the billboards? If signs are permitted, which I'm assuming there is a permit process in Tulsa, there has to be a list at the city in some department.
At one point, Tulsa was dominated by Stokely and Donrey (Don Reynolds Media). There were a few smaller companies here and there, but I'm guessing 90% of the signs belonged to Stokely or Donrey. in the early 1990's.
If you can make any of them go away, I'd appreciate it.
Our zoning code sets arbitrary spacing requirements and setbacks, but noboby looks at the big picture. If nobody knows how many there are, where they're located...how can you debate the merits of the current standards? (Except to argue that you FEEL there are too many, or not enough? Or you like them or you hate them...)
It seems like a good idea to start with actual facts.
Also, when billboard companies continuously ask for variances to allow them to place billboards in locations not allowed by the zoning code, it would be nice to say: "Look, we've already got 600 that don't meet the zoning requirements. Let's not allow any more non-conforming signs until those are gone."
Or if a particular billboard company does not maintain their signs, wouldn't you want to know before granting them more permits?
Perhaps there's a correlation between density of billboards and traffic accidents. How can you prove or disprove it without some basic info?
Perhaps there are some safety/maintenance issues. How do you inspect signs if you don't know where they are located, and when they were erected?
Perhaps there are some signs that were never permited? How can you determine this without a list/map of legitimate signs?
Ponder, I'm guessing you would have thought to check this already, but there should be a department at the city in charge of issuing sign permits. I don't know if it would be the same department that does building permits, but I'd be shocked if they haven't compiled a database of signs.
Try permits department at 596-9601.
I did manage to find the sign permit application on line, but it does not have return instructions so I can't tell you which department it came from for sure.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTLegacy/documents/SIGN.PDF
Another nitty-gritty question about billboards...
I noticed that our zoning code states:
No outdoor advertising sign shall contain more than two (2) sides and only one (1) side shall be included in the computation of display surface area. The two (2) sides shall face in opposite directions. "Opposite" shall, in addition to its ordinary meaning, include V-shaped signs when the angle of separation of the display surfaces does not exceed thirty degrees (30°).
Why, then, do we have several "triangular" billboards in town? (One pole, three sides, three signs.) Is this something that recently changed in our zoning ordinances?
Quote from: PonderInc on October 22, 2009, 06:24:29 PM
Another nitty-gritty question about billboards...
I noticed that our zoning code states:
No outdoor advertising sign shall contain more than two (2) sides and only one (1) side shall be included in the computation of display surface area. The two (2) sides shall face in opposite directions. "Opposite" shall, in addition to its ordinary meaning, include V-shaped signs when the angle of separation of the display surfaces does not exceed thirty degrees (30°).
Why, then, do we have several "triangular" billboards in town? (One pole, three sides, three signs.) Is this something that recently changed in our zoning ordinances?
Location? I don't think I've ever seen a three-sided sign anywhere in town.
Soon, we'll have heads-up displays on our windshield that recognize chroma-keyed billboards and project a google-researched targeted marketing message.
Personally, I'd rather there weren't any billboards anywhere.
Quote from: Hoss on October 22, 2009, 06:43:04 PM
Location? I don't think I've ever seen a three-sided sign anywhere in town.
There used to be one on the SE side of the BA and Memorial but we took it down in the late '90s. Another one was above the Funeral home on Harvard at the BA. Can't remember others at the moment.
When I worked for Donrey in the '90s and we erected a new sign. We would go back a few weeks after the final inspection and extend it 2 to 4 feet more. Guess managment knew the city wouldn't come back and check the size again and Donrey could charge more for the bigger ad space.
Quote from: Hoss on October 22, 2009, 06:43:04 PM
Location? I don't think I've ever seen a three-sided sign anywhere in town.
Just driving around for an hour the other day, I noticed one at Harvard & the BA (Next to Moore's Funeral Home), and one next to Border's on 21st. (The third side looks like it was an afterthought...it was squeezed into the small side of the triangle. It faces the on-ramp traffic, and a residential neighborhood.)
Quote from: MDepr2007 on October 23, 2009, 06:39:01 PM
When I worked for Donrey in the '90s and we erected a new sign. We would go back a few weeks after the final inspection and extend it 2 to 4 feet more. Guess managment knew the city wouldn't come back and check the size again and Donrey could charge more for the bigger ad space.
Nice. >:(
Stay on 'em Ponder. For a lesson on what NOT to do visit Joplin Missouri!
More U.S. communities banning 'television on a stick'
March 28, 2010 By Larry Copeland http://www.physorg.com/news189008417.html
As the United States cracks down on texting while driving, more than a dozen cities around the nation have banned what some consider a growing external driving distraction: digital billboards.
Digital billboards change images every four to 10 seconds, flashing multiple messages from one or more advertisers on the same sign. Opponents such as John Regesnbogen of Scenic Missouri deride them as "television on a stick."
Several communities have banned digital billboards outright, the most recent being Denver earlier this month. Other places have put a moratorium on them pending a federal study on whether they distract drivers. At least one other city and two states are studying moratoriums.
"The digital billboards are a distraction," says Fred Wessels, an alderman in St. Louis, which just approved a one-year moratorium on such signs.
"If they weren't distracting, they wouldn't be doing their job," says Max Ashburn, spokesman for Scenic America, a national nonprofit group that seeks to limit billboards.
Research on the issue is mixed. A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study in 2007, financed by the billboard industry, found that they aren't distracting. A review of studies completed last year for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, however, concluded that they "attract drivers' eyes away from the road for extended, demonstrably unsafe periods of time."
Digital billboards are a fast-growing segment of the outdoor advertising market. Since a federal rule against them was eased in 2007, the number of digital billboards has more than doubled to about 1,800 of 450,000 total billboards. At least 39 states allow them. They cost an average $200,000 to $300,000 apiece, according to the industry group Outdoor Advertising Association of America.
In 2007, the Federal Highway Administration relaxed a rule against digital billboards, saying they don't violate the 1965 Highway Beautification Act's ban on "intermittent," "flashing" or "moving" lights. FHWA is researching the signs, using eye-trackers inside volunteers' vehicles to determine whether drivers look at the billboards and for how long. The study is to be completed this summer.
The Department of Transportation, which is leading a national push against texting while driving, says that 5,870 people were killed in distracted-driving crashes in 2008. The department has not determined how many of those deaths involved an electronic device, another distraction such as eating or tuning the radio, or something outside the vehicle such as a digital billboard.
You can call the sign companies (I think there are only 3 or 4 that offer billboards any more) and get a map and listing.
I used to do this at least once a year, so I would know where to purchase ad space. They'll send you a map and a list in Excel that shows sign locations and traffic count. Just tell them that you are doing market research. They are typically happy to help.
Each billboard typically has $1,500 to $5,000 in billable space per month (not sure about the LED signs). Multiple signs make significantly more. If you are pushing for limits, be aware that billboards generate a good deal of ongoing tax revenue for a city.
Quote from: inteller on March 30, 2010, 10:51:01 PM
geez what kind of logic is that? "let's encourage visual pollution because it makes us tax money"....w t f
I didn't say that. I did say that it would be something to "be aware of" when mounting an attack.
An Illinois consumer group's white paper on digital billboards:
http://www.illinoislighting.org/billboards.html
Driven to Distraction
Digital Billboards, Diversions Drivers Can't Escape
Fabrizio Costantini for The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/technology/02billboard.html?pagewanted=all
Safety advocates who worry about the dangers of distracted driving have a new concern beyond cellphones and gadget-laden dashboards: digital roadside billboards.
These high-tech billboards marry the glow of Times Square with the immediacy of the Internet. Images change every six to eight seconds, so advertisers can flash timely messages — like the latest headlines, coffee deals at dawn, a cheeseburger at lunchtime or even the song playing on a radio station at that moment.
The billboard industry asserts there is no research indicating they cause crashes, and notes that the signs do not use video or animation.
But to critics, these ever-changing, bright billboards are "television on a stick" and give drivers, many of them already calling and texting, yet another reason to take their eyes off the road.
Abby Dart, executive director of Scenic Michigan, a nonprofit group trying to block construction of new digital billboards in the state, calls the signs "weapons of mass distraction" and says they can be more dangerous than phones.
"You can turn off your phone," she said. "The billboard gets your attention whether you want to give it or not."
Last Thursday, Michigan lawmakers held hearings on legislation, the first of its kind, that would impose a two-year moratorium on the construction of new billboards. Minnesota's legislature is scheduled to hold hearings this month on a similar moratorium. As digital billboards begin to pop up around the country, questions about whether to regulate the emerging technology are being asked in other states as well, and by federal officials.
The Federal Highway Administration has been conducting a study, which it says will be completed this summer, that uses eye-trackers inside cars to see whether drivers who have volunteered for the study look at the digital billboards, and for how long. The agency also has organized a tour this spring to take researchers to various cities around the world to study how other nations are regulating digital billboards.
In the United States, only about 2,000 of the nation's 450,000 billboards are digitized, but the industry expects there to be tens of thousands of them, as many as 15 percent of its overall inventory.
The signs are typically used in busy traffic areas, where advertisers are willing to pay a premium for them. A digital billboard costs $250,000 to $300,000, roughly half what it did five years ago, but much more than the $5,000 to $50,000 for a traditional billboard.
Space on the digital signs fetches a premium in part because up to six advertisers can share a single location. Traditional billboards fetch a wide range of monthly rents (from $1,000 to $5,000 depending on location and audience) and the digital versions cost the same or a bit more, but the industry benefits by selling that space at that price to more than one advertiser.
Rather than settling the matter, existing research about digital billboards leaves room for debate on the danger.
One 2007 study, from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which used in-car cameras to study motorists, found that digital billboards did not change driver behavior more than ordinary billboards.
But critics note that the study was financed by the billboard industry and that it was found to be biased by reviewers who rejected it for publication in 2008 by the Transportation Research Board, a Congressionally chartered agency.
Even the researcher who led the Virginia Tech institute project, Suzanne Lee, while defending her science as sound, said that the potential for drivers to be distracted by the new billboards — and digital signs that use video and animation — should be investigated further.
"If we don't study this, and get on top of it right now while the capabilities are expanding, every roadway will be filled with flashing lights and video," said Ms. Lee.
For decades, the Federal Highway Administration has provided regulations to states governing free-standing billboards that prohibit them from having "flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights."
But in 2007, the agency ruled that the free-standing digital billboards did not violate the rule and recommended, among other guidelines, that ads on those billboards stay in place at least four seconds and that they not be "unreasonably bright."
Last week, the Georgetown Institute for Public Representation, a public interest law group, filed a petition with the highway administration asking it to reverse the earlier decision, which would have the effect of banning new digital billboards that include flashing, intermittent or moving lights, and requiring the dismantling of existing ones.
The billboard industry argues that the new signs are part of a larger technological and economic shift to a paperless society (no more crews hoisting and removing ads from billboards) and that they give advertisers more flexibility.
Marketing materials published last year by Clear Channel, one of the nation's biggest billboard companies, say the digital billboards are, among other things, ideal for posting game scores by advertisers like radio stations and sports bars. News organizations can also use them — "as the Web site headline changes, so does the digital billboard," the materials say.
"It's a very flexible, very responsible medium and very impactful," said Ron Cooper, chief executive of Clear Channel Outdoor, which has 450 digital billboards and plans to add 150 more this year. Big corporations that have used them include ABC, AT&T, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, General Mills, Ford and Verizon. "Consumers report seeing it, remembering the brand, remembering the advertisers."
He and others in the industry say they have been careful to make the signs memorable but not distracting. They say the "television on a stick" label is an exaggeration.
"It's a slide projector — it shows one image after the next," said Bill Ripp, a vice president who oversees digital billboards for Lamar Advertising, another large billboard company. "We were as concerned as anybody. We wouldn't want to cause danger."
The industry has found an ally in some crime-fighting groups and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which use the new signs to broadcast images of fugitives or of abducted children.
"We've had moms grab their sons by the ear and drag them right down to the sheriff's office because they were embarrassed to see the son on the billboard," said Bart Dexter, coordinator of the Michigan Crime Stoppers organization, who opposes the Michigan moratorium.
Ms. Dart, from Scenic Michigan, said the potential driver distraction outweighs any help the signs may provide in catching fugitives.
Rebekah Warren, a Democratic state representative from Ann Arbor, who proposed the moratorium, said the bill reflected broader concerns that legislators around the country had about distracted driving. In December, the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation banning motorists from texting, something its Senate now is considering.
"We are moving so quickly into this digital age," said Ms. Warren. "We are being cautious in state legislatures around the country on how we keep drivers focused on the road."
Thank you for the wonderful information regarding bill boards. The more the better - I will be happy to take information to the TMAPC work session in July. The newspaper articles and white papers are very helpful.
Liz Wright
There's an effort in some states to have billboard companies take over the highway safety signs and sell advertising on them. These are the "CAUTION - DETOUR AHEAD" -type signs taxpayers paid for that are installed over roadways:
Pa. asking feds to allow ads on electronic highway signs
HARRISBURG — Electronic signs along state highways that warn drivers of accidents, traffic jams and construction could be pitching them products if state officials get their way.
Pennsylvania has joined California and Florida in asking the federal government to allow the sale of advertising on electronic highway signs to generate money to fix roads and bridges.
The states are asking the Federal Highway Administration to waive several regulations that bar advertisements on overhead and roadside changeable signs. States would contract with private companies to upgrade and maintain the electronic signs.
Safety organizations say the electronic signs are risky.
"They can be distracting," said Fairley Mahlum, a spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. "Most of the current concern centers around some of the new technology that is being used for signs, especially the ones that are big that use very bright LED lights that often change. Something like that could be very distracting."
Mary Tracy, president of the nonprofit Scenic America, which aims to preserve roadside scenery, said electronic message boards should be identified as a distraction like cell phones.
"There is a growing and sound body of scientific evidence that has confirmed the intuitive notion that a digital billboard, essentially a giant TV on a stick ... poses an unnecessary safety risk to drivers," Tracy wrote last fall.
Court of Appeals rules digital billboards illegal
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that digital billboards along state and federal highways are illegal because they violate the ban on intermittent light.
The case pitted Scenic Arizona and the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, Inc. against American Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AOA) and the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment over permits issued for electronic billboards. Scenic America filed an amicus brief in the case.
The ruling is significant in several ways, namely because the Court affirms the common definition of what intermittent lighting is. The argument for whether digital billboards are legal hinges on the fact that billboards with flashing, intermittent or moving lights are banned under the Federal Highway Beautification Act and many state laws, such as Arizona's own Highway Beautification Act.
American Outdoor argued that the lighting on the signs is constant and that the change of message constitutes a change in "copy." However, the Court said "What American Outdoor calls a change of 'copy' is actually a transition from one lighted image to the next lighted image."
"Because the combination of LEDs used to display each brightly lit image on the billboard changes every eight seconds, the billboard's lighting necessarily is intermittent," the ruling said.
http://scenic.org/blog/133-arizona-court-of-appeals-rules-digital-billboards-illegal
Quote from: patric on November 30, 2011, 10:25:17 AM
Court of Appeals rules digital billboards illegal
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that digital billboards along state and federal highways are illegal because they violate the ban on intermittent light.
So does that mean we'll start hearing the "government is getting too big" argument from the OK state reps taking money from sign company lobbyists? I never know where this stuff leads.
"Save our signs." "Freedom of digital speech in Oklahoma." "Arizona court of appeals is too liberal for Oklahoma."
Quote from: Townsend on November 30, 2011, 10:36:30 AM
So does that mean we'll start hearing the "government is getting too big" argument from the OK state reps taking money from sign company lobbyists? I never know where this stuff leads.
"Save our signs." "Freedom of digital speech in Oklahoma." "Arizona court of appeals is too liberal for Oklahoma."
more likely new legislation will be brought by in pocket congress that will attempt to alter the existing laws to be more amenable to the sign companies.
Quote from: carltonplace on November 30, 2011, 10:56:47 AM
more likely new legislation will be brought by in pocket congress that will attempt to alter the existing laws to be more amenable to the sign companies.
+1
The ruling: http://scenic.org/storage/documents/CV090489.pdf
Speaking of overly bright, obnoxious signs, has anyone else seen all the signs up and down memorial?
WAY too bright! On a rainy night they make it hard to see out your windshield. I can't even read them, but somehow having them brighter than the sun makes me more aware of the businesses that advertise on them.
Quote from: ZYX on November 30, 2011, 06:27:09 PM
Speaking of overly bright, obnoxious signs, has anyone else seen all the signs up and down memorial?
WAY too bright! On a rainy night they make it hard to see out your windshield. I can't even read them, but somehow having them brighter than the sun makes me more aware of the businesses that advertise on them.
Ive actually turned some of those in to the MAC. They get corrected for a few months and then they go back to being almost indistinguishable from emergency vehicle lights. The net result is people get conditioned to ignore the rapidly flashing lights and dont get out of the way of ambulances.
Quote from: ZYX on November 30, 2011, 06:27:09 PM
Speaking of overly bright, obnoxious signs, has anyone else seen all the signs up and down memorial?
WAY too bright! On a rainy night they make it hard to see out your windshield. I can't even read them, but somehow having them brighter than the sun makes me more aware of the businesses that advertise on them.
And it makes me want to not patronize them.
Quote from: ZYX on November 30, 2011, 06:27:09 PM
Speaking of overly bright, obnoxious signs, has anyone else seen all the signs up and down memorial?
WAY too bright! On a rainy night they make it hard to see out your windshield. I can't even read them, but somehow having them brighter than the sun makes me more aware of the businesses that advertise on them.
Makes me very aware of the advertiser and make a point never to do business with them.
Red,....common ground! How about that?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 02, 2011, 12:48:35 PM
Makes me very aware of the advertiser and make a point never to do business with them.
Red,....common ground! How about that?
It happens occasionally, except in politics. I'll need to be more careful about what I write.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 02, 2011, 03:19:02 PM
It happens occasionally, except in politics. I'll need to be more careful about what I write.
Yeah, I've been meaning to talk to you about that...
Noticed a billboard this morning with two bright white pin holes ruining an otherwise TV quality message. Upon closer inspection it looks like someone shot at the board and those were two broken lights. I think you can expect more of that.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 05, 2011, 09:37:50 AM
Noticed a billboard this morning with two bright white pin holes ruining an otherwise TV quality message. Upon closer inspection it looks like someone shot at the board and those were two broken lights. I think you can expect more of that.
The one off of BA (I think by Dollar) had one of it's rotations of ads come up saying "Smile, your on camera" or something to that effect. Apparently that one was getting shot up on a regular basis, so they installed a camera to catch the person responsible. No idea if they succeeded or not.
Quote from: custosnox on December 05, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
The one off of BA (I think by Dollar) had one of it's rotations of ads come up saying "Smile, your on camera" or something to that effect. Apparently that one was getting shot up on a regular basis, so they installed a camera to catch the person responsible. No idea if they succeeded or not.
Same with the one by the old Safeway on Denver.
That one popped up right after the rules were changed. It made some folks in the neighborhood across the highway very angry. Their view of the skyline went from nice to not nice.
Mcdonald's billboard shows they have no class:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mcdonald-debuts-light-version-french-fries-chicago-a-laser-light-billboard-resembles-york-9-11-memo-article-1.986788
Quote from: Townsend on December 05, 2011, 10:04:05 AM
Same with the one by the old Safeway on Denver.
That one popped up right after the rules were changed. It made some folks in the neighborhood across the highway very angry. Their view of the skyline went from nice to not nice.
You can thank a couple of former city councilors for that, they over-ruled the recommendations they were given and decided that billboards needed to be a lot brighter, more numerous and flash more often.
Meanwhile, Mcdonalds shows they have no class:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mcdonald-debuts-light-version-french-fries-chicago-a-laser-light-billboard-resembles-york-9-11-memo-article-1.986788
(http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mcdonalds-giant-fries-billboard-light.jpg)