Pennsylvania, California and Florida are asking the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) for authority to run advertising on official highway signs that are currently used to give directions and promote safety. The proposals are opposed by safety and beautification organizations.
The three states are requesting exemptions to current highway regulations which prohibit such advertising.
In its application, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation says the signs could generate $150 million for much needed road and bridge repairs.
Competition with Commercial Media
However, in addition to safety and scenic considerations, the proposal raises these questions:
- Since companies have limited budgets for advertising, how much of that $150 million will be diverted from tax-paying commercial ad media?
- How far should government go in competing with commercial media?
- If the signs attract driver attention as little as some studies indicate, will the ads deliver their intended messages?
In other words, can the signs be effective without being distracting to drivers? They could be more effective with vehicle passengers.
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Study
The three states advocating the highway advertising point to a 2007 study that indicates digital signs attract driver attention for about one second. The study was conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.
However, safety organizations say the electronic signs could distract drivers.
According to the Associated Press, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is concerned about some of the new digital sign technology. AAA Foundation spokesman Fairley Mahlum referred specifically to “the ones that are big that use very bright LED lights that often change. Something like that could be very distracting.”
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission already takes in about a half million dollars per year from advertising on tollbooth windows and ticket machines. Those ads are not considered safety risks.
Scenic America Objects
When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger first proposed the advertising in 2008, Scenic America responded with this statement:
“This proposal is patently illegal, extraordinarily dangerous, and threatens not only the safety of the motoring public, but fundamentally undermines federal, state, and local sign control efforts, including the Highway Beautification Act and the core federal highway statute governing the appropriate use of the right of way. It is a reckless and unconscionable plan with far-reaching national implications, and it should be immediately and unequivocally rejected by federal and state authorities.”
Scenic America is a nonprofit national organization dedicated “to preserving and enhancing the visual character of America's communities and countryside.”
Growing Debate Over Digital Signs
The three-state proposal has intensified the growing debate over digital signs along highways.
In March 2010, the New York Times published a series of articles titled “Driven to Distraction” in which it highlighted risks associated with roadside digital billboards. In one article, Abby Dart, executive director of Scenic Michigan called the signs "weapons of mass distraction."
Rich Kirkpatrick, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, said the agency would test the safety of the signs with a 50-sign pilot program. He told the Associated Press that safety" is the paramount issue that must be addressed before this initiative can move forward."
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reported that states would hire private firms to install and maintain the electronic signs,
References:
- "Pennsylania asking feds to allow ads on highway signs," The Lebanon Daily News, July 3, 2010
- "Driven to Distraction," by Matt Richtel, the New York Times, March 1, 2010
- Anniversary of Highway Beautification Act
- Outdoor ban increases digital advertising in Sal Paulo
Join the Conversation