Council to ponder regulations on digital billboards
Photo
JANESVILLE Six seconds, 10 seconds or 30 seconds.
Those are the intervals between image changes on electronic billboards various interests are recommending to the city council as members consider regulations for the signs.
Lamar Outdoor Advertising installed six digital displays on existing billboards in July.
Because of what was then cited as aesthetic and safety concerns, the council put a moratorium on additional electronic billboards until staff could research the technology.
City staff recommends ads change in intervals of no less than 30 seconds.
The plan commission recommends 10 seconds.
Sign company representatives are requesting six-second intervals.
Ads on the signs now change every six seconds, which is the minimum permitted by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
“The proposed ordinance is designed … to balance the variety of interests and issues including community aesthetics and values; public safety and the desire of the outdoor advertising media and sign companies to utilize technology,” Gale Price, building and development services manager, wrote in a memo.
Brad Yarmark, vice president and general manger of Lamar Outdoor Advertising, cites a study in Ohio that found electronic billboards cause no hazard.
But Price said that study was done on signs along an Interstate rather than urban streets. Price relied on research from the American Planning Association.
“When looking at an urban environment, the study identifies the average viewer reaction time for all signs within a typical urban, multi-lane streetscape as 11 seconds,” Price said. “It appears that the infinite changing of messages every six seconds would significantly compete with the driving public and potentially cause a traffic hazard.”
Yarmark disagrees.
“I would contend that the (the Ohio study is) relative because it was done on the same technology, and the fact that they’re on the Interstate is really not an issue when considering traffic on the Interstate is going much faster (with) less reaction time.”
Yarmark said six-second intervals have been set as the norm in Wisconsin.
And the city uses six seconds in its current ordinance to regulate billboards with mechanically rotated images, while electronic message signs at businesses are regulated at four seconds.
“The city is saying those can change every four seconds, but it’s not a safety issue,” Yarmark said. “Their safety argument is really weak.”
Staff is recommending that the interval for billboards with mechanically rotated images be changed to 30 seconds, too, Price said.
And he defended the four-second interval allowed for electronic message signs at businesses, saying they are smaller than billboards and display less information.
Price said billboards can be profitable with longer changing intervals, noting that Illinois law regulates ads at 10-second intervals. At 10-second intervals, Price figured 8,640 displays per day compared to 14,400 displays at six-second intervals.
Price admits any sign ordinance includes a “level of arbitrariness, and it’s really focused on community values,” he said. “What is the value and mind sight of the community, and how is that articulated?”
Staff also recommends:
-- The new ordinance apply to the six existing electronic billboards. Yarmark believes those should be grandfathered in.
-- Electronic billboards be separated by 1,500 feet as compared to the 750 feet that separates traditional billboards.
-- The display face of an electronic message sign be at least 1,200 feet from residentially or agriculturally-zoned land unless OK’d by the plan commission.
-- Two existing digital billboards be removed. The traditional billboards that were changed to electronic billboards had been nonconforming, so they could remain only if the structures were unaltered. Price said the company altered the framing to install the digital billboard. The city would allow the company to revert the billboard to a standard billboard, Price said.
THE NEXT STEP
A public hearing on an ordinance regulating electronic billboards is scheduled during the Janesville City Council meeting on Monday, which begins at 7 p.m. in City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St.

Feb 29, 2008 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
cuz they're fast
Feb 29, 2008 at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Me and Kramer: Afraid of clowns.
Feb 29, 2008 at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marsupials scare me.
Feb 26, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
If it doesn't matter, why do you seem to be so concerned?
Feb 25, 2008 at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Is this a joke? Why are we so worried about how many messages or how long it takes a sign to change its message. 6, 10, 30, whatever it is. So mr/mrs city council member, if these signs changed every 10 seconds, would you be wanting to change them to 15 or 45 seconds? Who will get the last word. Im in favor of the signs. As a matter of fact, they (Lamar) are helping you (the city) in trying to capture felons. Thank you Lamar. Hey, I think the yellow traffic light should be 5 seconds so I can make it through safe. Lets vote on that.
Feb 25, 2008 at 2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
luvujvl, keep your eyes on the road and hands at 2 and 4 o'clock.
Feb 24, 2008 at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Personally I love the digital signs - Amber alerts, traffic info, weather info, all at the touch of a button. That makes good sense for public awareness. 6 second intervals will make the advertising commpany more money - what is wrong with that? They are the ones offering us the opportunity to post Amber alerts and other pertinent information. Good for them, let them cash in and go eat lobster. Who cares. They are helping us all, hats off to them and cash in where they may.
Feb 24, 2008 at 5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
The movie Blade Runner was prophetic.
Feb 24, 2008 at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Six seconds - ten seconds - what about 6 and three quarter seconds - or nine seconds? This is ridiculous for the city council to argue about time length for the digital billboards to change. This is just another instance of government trying to find anything and everything to tax or regulate. IF the billboards currently meet the size requirements what more regulations are the city council dream up to stop their use altogether.
Feb 24, 2008 at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Everyone should rest assured now that the issue is being put before the city's brain trust.
Feb 24, 2008 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
The city definitely has it out for Lamar and Babcock. Why else would they cry and whine about 6 seconds on those companies' signs but say it's OK for Kwik Trip when their signs change every 4 seconds?
Feb 23, 2008 at 10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
For those of you that wish all signs would come down, why are you not making more noise? Seems like the time to do it. Maybe you think the city council won’t listen to you. But the city council takes into consideration every comment and they would never act outside of what the majority thinks would be best. That’s why the hold public hearings.
Feb 23, 2008 at 10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
After going into convulsions from the reckless flickering of billboard signs I think the interval times are way to fast. Please Mr. Yarmark, have mercy on us drivers. Please city council save us from the evil billboards. We are only human and we can’t take the constant flickering!! I don’t know if I’m driving or at the circus. Yes this is all sarcastic. I can’t help it. Electronic Billboard interval times. I guess there are just some things we tolerate as Americans, and some things we don’t. Every night I sit down for dinner with my family and ask how their life was affected by the Electronic Billboard interval times. I’m sorry but someone on the city council doesn’t like Mr. Yarmark or his business. That is my opinion.
Feb 23, 2008 at 8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think that bikinis in public are a great idea, but I am not sure that everyone should wear them. And I hope that those wanted pictures do help catch some criminals. Those are some mean-looking hombres.
Feb 23, 2008 at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
you people that refer to other states or countries, if you are so satisfied with how they operate move there. The city has too much say in general already. When will it end? They choose where you smoke, what you can do on your own property, signs etc they next will tell you what you can wear on what days.
Feb 23, 2008 at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's amazing to me that 6 billboard which have presumably caused no accidents have everyone in a tizzy. Billboards have been around for many years - too late to ban all of them!
Do you know what distracts me? Children climbing around in cars without car seats. Kids walking through town later at night. The poor 'Statue of Liberty' people freezing outside that horrible tax place. I am THRILLED to see weather warnings, amber alerts and wanted faces on these electronic billboards. What a great modern use of resources! They could have prevented the interstate backup if local officials had actually cared it was going on. I don't want many more, but a few more would not hurt us and could definitely help. Pick an interval that's worked in other places and move on to more important issues!
Feb 23, 2008 at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
The billboards are just fine the way they are. Leave them alone. If you want to make the roads safe in the city the ban CELL PHONES. Everytime i go to drive somewhere i see cop, postal workers, semi truck divers and just about everybody else talking on their phones. Were talking about 4 billboards wow. Im talking about thousands of people. Which one would make the roads safer?!?!?!?!?
Feb 23, 2008 at 5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Billboards are an absolute blight on the landscape. Is there a reason we need to be bombarded with ads every moment of the day?
If this community had any standards there wouldn't be any billboards. Oregon state puts limits on their billboards and it makes a big difference. It's nice how big business dictates how and what we are exposed to, welcome to Amerika.
Feb 23, 2008 at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
The city "experts" should just accept the state limit of 6 seconds and acknowledge that the DOT knows more about this than they do. Insisting on 10 of 30 seconds just makes them look like their authority has gone to their heads.
Feb 23, 2008 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
I Like the new billboards. They seem like they can show information that is more current. Also, I don't find them distracting at all. Certainly no more distracting than any other sign. I pay attention to the road wile I am driving and survey my surroundings... like any other normal person. Doesn't the city administration have better things to focus on that this?
Feb 23, 2008 at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
I personally don't like these new electronic billboards, mainly because of how fast they change. Yes, I do look at them when I drive, even though I know I shouldn't. I can't seem to help it! (it's like I'm a fly being drawn to light, lol) But when they change so fast I look at the sign for longer, trying to read what it says while it's still there. Meaning, my eyes are on the road less. I know, it's bad. But with the older billboards, I don't seem to have this problem. That's just my personal opinion.
Feb 23, 2008 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you think that watching a tv while driving is a good idea, then these giant screen roadside tvs are a great idea.
Feb 23, 2008 at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anyone who has traveled in Europe knows that the absence of billboards is one of the first things you'll notice and how much BETTER it is because they're not screaming for your attention nor blocking any view. Americans are bombarded by advertising 24/7 in every possible venue. It's time to remove billboards of all types.
Feb 23, 2008 at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
All types of signage should be banned including stop signs, yield signs, billboards, etc. They are all a distraction. Police lights and sirens are also distractions. Ban it all! People have more gadgets in thier cars that cause more of a distraction. Please save us from ourselves.
Feb 23, 2008 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
This seems to be another example of no matter what you do someone is going to complain about it. I too think the new digital signs are much nicer to look at. I think they can and do serve a great service to the community with the ability to post amber alerts and other public service announcements. As far as the time between changes, I think 10 seconds sounds like a good number, but then again, what do I know, lol. I know when I am driving I don't pay much attention to them. When I am a passanger I read them. I also get frustrated when I am trying to read them and they change to fast, but it isn't the end of the world for me. I soon forget about it after passing the sign.
I think there are much more important things in the world for people to worry about than how fast a sign changes.
Feb 23, 2008 at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think the main danger here is a quickly changing sign can be a distraction, especially at night. The eye is naturally drawn to light when it's dark out, and a changing light is even more compelling. A lot of drivers are overly distracted as it is -- how many times have you seen some clown with a cell phone stick in his ear go drifting out of his lane -- and the last thing we need is something else competing for their attention. Advertisers want the sign to change quickly because they're counting on you to be looking at the sign the entire time it's in your line of sight. That's good for their revenue, but bad for everybody else on the road. One change per 30 seconds should be plenty.
Feb 23, 2008 at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
I far prefer the digital billboards over the traditional ones. They just look better. I also really like the ability to display public information notices quickly - like weather warnings or Amber alerts. That could save a life. The 10-second interval seems like a fair enough compromise to me.
Feb 23, 2008 at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
With all due respect, the digital billboards have significantly more visual appeal than the sometimes faded (and occasionally dated) ads from the traditional billboards. I guess I don't understand the argument regarding aesthetics. Now, for the safety issue - honestly, I think a bikini-clad coed would be a much more likely distraction than a digital billboard. So, does that mean we need a municipal ordinance to prohibit bikinis in public?
Feb 23, 2008 at 5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
These signs have been up since, what, last summer? You'd think if they were such a safety hazard, we'd be hearing about accidents by now.
Feb 23, 2008 at 4:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't think the signs are by themselves a problem, but I wonder about placement. The Monterey Bridge sign is visible for a good long time (but you can't always read the text at that distance) -- but it's also a pretty dicey place to drive in the recent weather. Some of the other ones have pretty high rates of traffic entering the street within the sign's visibility range. The city may want to keep a close eye on the number of accidents for that reason.
*
On another note -- It may be too soon, but I'm curious whether the Janesville Police are having any success putting up their wanted posters on the signs.
Feb 23, 2008 at 12:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Quite frankly, I keep my eyes on the road when I drive. I must have drove right by these signs for over a month and never noticed them. I made it a point to look for them after reading about them and I must say they are no big deal, even at night. I'd advise advertisers to save your money. They're not worth it. No matter how often they change.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.