Tri-vision billboards are an even greater traffic hazard than traditional static billboards. There have not been any empirical or field studies of the impact of billboards or tri-vision signs on traffic safety in more than twenty years.  However, given tri-vision signs' proven abilities to distract drivers, regulators should be guided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declaration that:

"No empirical studies are necessary for reasonable people to conclude that billboards pose a traffic hazard, since by their very nature they are designed to distract drivers and their passengers from maintaining their view of the road."

-- Major Media of the Southeast v. City of Raleigh, 621 F.Supp.1446, 1451 aff'd 792 F.2d 1269 (4th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 107 S.Ct. 1334 (1987).

• Tri-vision billboards contribute to light pollution
• Tri-vision billboards tend to be more brightly and more persistently-lit than regular billboards, thereby increasing billboards' contribution to local light pollution.
• Tri-vision billboards are expensive to remove
• Tri-vision billboards tend to be more expensive than regular billboards to build and thus, in places which prohibit amortization of billboards, they are more expensive to remove.
• Tri-vision billboards damage scenic quality
• Tri-vision billboards, because of their size, the lighting required, and their substantially greater bulk, can be even more devastating to scenic quality than ordinary billboards.
  

Tri-vision billboards are dangerous

Finally, again because of their size and greater bulk, the structures of tri-vision billboards are more dangerous than ordinary signs.  In fact, on July 29, 2002, a 35,000-pound tri-vision billboard under construction in Snellville, Georgia, collapsed, killing three workers and seriously injuring a fourth.

What are Tri-vision Billboards?

Tri-vision billboards, also known as variable message signs, are mechanical advertising displays with three or more separate faces that can be programmed to move in several ways at different time intervals (Kagan's, 2000).  Tri-vision billboards use small, low-wattage motors powered by the same connections to utility lines that ordinary billboards use for illumination.  Like all billboards, tri-vision signs clutter the natural landscape, obscure city skylines, and devalue residential property values.

Why Do Billboard Companies Like Tri-Vision?

Despite the more expensive and more highly skilled construction processes required, from a billboard operator's perspective, tri-vision signs possess certain advantages.  Ad for ad, tri-vision billboards are more efficient.  They use less space and material than ordinary billboards.

Tri-vision billboards are also more cost-effective.  For each lease of property, support structure, utility connection, permit, and marketing campaign, the operator gets three or more ads instead of one.

As a result of this efficiency, billboard companies are able to charge less to advertise on tri-vision signs than on regular billboards.  For example, the cost to advertise on tri-vision billboards (18'x48' and 10'x32') provided by Stokely, an outdoor advertising company in Tulsa, OK, is $1,500 -- $1,800 per face, per month (i.e. $4,500 -- $5,400 for the entire sign).  The cost to advertise on the ordinary billboards of the same size provided by the same company is $1,500 -- $2,000 per month.

Tri-vision billboards are very effective at taking more drivers' vision off the road and onto the ads.  According to a survey published in 2000 in The Business of Outdoor & Out-of-Home Advertising, 91 percent of respondents claimed to have noticed tri-vision billboards versus only 18 percent noticing static, one-faced displays.

Why Should Scenic Conservationists Be Concerned About Tri-Vision?

Scenic conservationists have five primary objections to tri-vision billboards:

• If static billboards are a traffic safety hazard, tri-vision billboards are even more so.  There have not been any empirical or field studies of the impact of billboards or tri-vision signs on traffic safety in more than twenty years.  However, given tri-vision signs' proven abilities to distract drivers, regulators should be guided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declaration that:  "No empirical studies are necessary for reasonable people to conclude that billboards pose a traffic hazard, since by their very nature they are designed to distract drivers and their passengers from maintaining their view of the road."  -- Major Media of the Southeast v. City of Raleigh, 621 F.Supp.1446, 1451 aff'd 792 F.2d 1269 (4th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 107 S.Ct. 1334 (1987).

• Tri-vision billboards tend to be more brightly and more persistently-lit than regular billboards, thereby increasing billboards' contribution to local light pollution.

• Tri-vision billboards tend to be more expensive than regular billboards to build and thus, in places which prohibit amortization of billboards, they are more expensive to remove.

• Tri-vision billboards, because of their size, the lighting required, and their substantially greater bulk, can be even more devastating to scenic quality than ordinary billboards.

• Finally, again because of their size and greater bulk, the structures of tri-vision billboards are more dangerous than ordinary signs.  In fact, on July 29, 2002, a 35,000-pound tri-vision billboard under construction in Snellville, Georgia, collapsed, killing three workers and seriously injuring a fourth.

How do States Regulate Tri-Vision?

As is often the case, technology has outpaced regulation in the billboard game, particularly where tri-vision signs are concerned.  In 2001, the Federal Highway Administration used a literature review to assess the impact of tri-vision on traffic safety.  The results were inconclusive.

Approaches to regulating tri-vision vary from state to state.  Some prohibit them.  For example:

Delaware:  "The following directional signs are prohibited: ...... (f) Signs which move or have any animated or moving parts."  (CDR 85-200-001 (2002)).

New Mexico:  "No sign may be erected or maintained which ... 10.6 Moves or has any animated or moving parts."  (18 NMAC 21.5.10 (2002)).

New York:  "Signs prohibited ...... (7) signs which move or have animated or moving parts, except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information;..." (17 NYCRR § 150.4 (2002)).

Other states control how fast the signs change.  For instance:

Arkansas:  " ... (1) The slat twirl time shall be two (2) seconds or less.  (2) The slat dwell time shall be eight (8) seconds or more.  ...." (001 00 CARR 005 (2002)); and

Florida:  "A permit shall be granted for an automatic changeable facing provided: (a) the static display time for each message is a minimum of six seconds; (b) the time to completely change from one message to the next is a maximum of two seconds; (c) the change of message occurs simultaneously for the entire sign face...."  (14-10.004, F.A.C).

Finally, still other states include specifications concerning glare and an increase in permit fees to reflect the number of faces, rather than the more billboard industry-friendly number of structures.  For example:

Nevada:  "A commercial electronic variable message sign, including, without limitation, a tri-vision sign, may be approved ... if the sign does not contain flashing, intermittent or moving lights, does not cause a glare on the roadway and the following conditions are met:  ... (c) A tri-vision sign must contain a mechanism that will stop the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs...."  (NAC 410.350 (2002)).

Iowa:  "The annual renewal fee for each permit, ...is as follows:    ... For tri-vision signs, the area shall be calculated by multiplying the area of the face by three."  (761 IAC 117.6(306C) (2002)).

How Should States Regulate Tri-vision Billboards?

Ideally, along with all other billboards, states and municipalities should prohibit new construction.  Where political realities dictate otherwise, Scenic America recommends the following measures:

• Place tight restrictions on lighting of tri-vision and other electronic signs

• Minimize the number of ad changes per minute.  Since the greater the number of changes, the more distracting the sign, no more than five changes per minute should be permitted.

• In places with cap-and-replace ordinances, require that at least three signs as large or larger than a standard tri-vision sign be taken down for every new tri-vision sign.

• The FHWA and state departments of transportation should fund field and other empirical studies.  The FHWA's literature review on the impact of tri-vision on traffic safety is not based on current empirical data.

Conclusion

The regulation of tri-vision and other electronic billboards is neither a simple issue nor one which most communities have yet had to face.  In fact, some rural states such as Wyoming and North Dakota don't have any tri-vision or electronic billboards despite allowing them.  Recent literature reviews show neither a good statistical database nor anything resembling consensus on regulatory approaches.  Scenic America concurs with the FHWA that more research must be done on the issue, particularly on the impact of tri-vision on traffic safety and scenic landscapes.  Regardless, we believe that strict regulation is appropriate.

Scenic America strongly recommends that all communities ban construction of all new billboards, including tri-vision signs.  This is the only measure proven to control all forms of billboard blight in more than 750 communities nationwide.