City of Delta COUNCIL REPORT F.17 Regular Meeting

To: Mayor and Council Files. No. ENQ02415 and FIN19-023 From: Community Planning & Development Department

Date: October 10,2019

Proposed Digital Advertising Sign at 8100 Nordel Way

The following report has been reviewed and endorsed by the City Manager.

• RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. THAT Council receive the results of the public consultation as information.

B. THAT the City of Delta enter into a lease agreement with the proponent, Outfront Media Canada LP, for the proposed digital advertising sign at 8100 Nordel Way subject to:

a. Receiving confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that Provincial requirements have been satisfied;

b. The proponent undertaking all necessary approvals for sign installation, including obtaining a development variance permit in relation to "Delta Sign Bylaw No. 5860, 2000"; and

C. THAT the proposed digital advertising sign details be referred to the Mayor's Public Safety Committee and Delta Police for comment.

• PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to present for Council's consideration the results of the public consultation for the proposed digital advertising sign at 8100 Nordel Way and further recommendations.

• BACKGROUND:

Council directed staff to undertake a public consultation process to receive comments on the proposed digital advertising sign at 8100 Nordel Way, the location of the new City of Delta Works Yard. Public comments from the consultation are to be considered prior to a decision to enter into a lease agreement with the proponent, Outfront Media Canada LP. Page 2 of 5 Digital Advertising Sign at 8100 Nordel Way ENQ02415 and FIN19-023 October 10, 2019

• DISCUSSION:

Details of Proposed Digital Advertising Sign: The proposed digital advertising sign would be double-sided, approximately 14.6 m (48 ft) wide by 4.3 m (14 ft) in height, and would be oriented to vehicles traveling north and south along Highway 91 (Attachment A). Only static images (no video) would be displayed, with the length of each message being approximately eight seconds. The digital advertising sign would be required to meet all Provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure requirements.

Public Consultation Results: The public consultation involved sending a letter to approximately 600 surrounding properties and residents within the notification area as shown in the location map (Attachment 8) on August 20, 2019, publishing full page newspaper ads in the August 29, September 5 and September 12, 2019 editions of the North Delta Reporter and Delta Optimist, posts on social media (Facebook and Twitter), and a post on the City of Delta website. The consultation period ended on September 13, 2019.

A total of 54 individual responses were received with all respondents in opposition to the proposed digital advertising sign. Of the 54 responses, 40 responses came from residents of Delta (39 in North Delta, 1 in Ladner), 1 from a Delta business, 1 from a resident of Surrey and 12 who did not provide an address. The following table provides a summary of the number of comments received. A map of responses is provided as Attachment C.

#of Comments Responses Concerns with impacts on distracted driving and driver safety 40

Concerns with the design and location (ouf of context, too big, find 14 the design unappealing, too close to highway, etc.)

Potential revenue doesn't justify the risk / question the benefits to 13 Delta residents and the purpose of the sign

The sign would negatively impact views from homes and enjoyment 12 of the natural environment

The sign would produce light pollution in the area 12

Do not need more advertisements and signs 7

The sign would be a poor representation of the City of Delta 3

Expressed concerns with the consultation process, notice should 2 have been sent to all properties in North Delta

The sign should be located elsewhere in Delta 1 Page 3 of 5 Digital Advertising Sign at 8100 Nordel Way ENQ02415 and FIN19-023 October 10,2019

Provincial Requirements: British Columbia does not have regulations or guidelines dealing specifically with electronic billboards; however, there are regulations relating to signage in general which may be applicable. The Motor Vehicle Act does not permit a sign or other advertising device to be erected within 300 m (984 ft) of a highway right-of-way without the approval of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The Transportation Act provides the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with the authority to require remedial action if there is a sign or other device that in the Minister's opinion is a nuisance that might distract the operator of a vehicle or impair the operator's ability to drive safely, whether or not the sign is near Provincial property.

Permits are not issued for signs on private property; however, under the Provincial Public Undertakings Regulation (BC REG. 513/2004), the placement of a sign must meet the Provincial building/structural setback requirement of 4.5 m (15 ft) from a property line fronting an arterial highway. While the exact location of the proposed sign is not known at this time, a setback permit can be applied for a structure within the setback but would be subject to review, rationale, future right-of-way requirements, sight lines, etc. Over the past several years, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has approved several digital billboards similar to the proposed sign in Delta in other neighbouring municipalities, including Surrey, New Westminster and Abbotsford.

Over the past several years the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has approved several digital billboards similar to the proposed sign in Delta in other neighbouring municipalities, including Surrey, New Westminster and Abbotsford.

Should Council decide to proceed, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's Development Services Team would review the sign proposal to address possible distractions for motorists prior to any final approval from Delta.

Driver Safety: The majority of public responses referred to concerns over driver safety and distracted .driving in relation to the proposed sign. The proponent has provided a technical memorandum produced for the City of (Attachment D) that looked at the impact of static electronic signs along highways in the Toronto context. The study found no evidence of such signs having any impacts on road safety along highways in both daylight and dark conditions. Should Council give further consideration to the lease, it is also recommended that comments on the proposal be sought from the Delta Police and Mayors' Public Safety Committee, in addition to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Impact on Views and Property: A number of residents have expressed concerns over the impact the proposed sign would have on the views from their properties in North Delta. It is noted that the nearest distance to residential properties on Wiltshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Drive is approximately 470 m (1,542 ft) from the approximate location of the sign. Mature trees and thick vegetation are also located along and below the top of bank, at the rear (west side) of the properties located on the hill east of 8100 Nordel Way. Nonetheless, the Page 4 of 5 Digital Advertising Sign at 8100 Nordel Way ENQ02415 and FIN19-023 October 10, 2019 sign may be visible from some residential properties that overlook the site. A number of photos taken from different points in the residential neighbourhood are provided in Attachment E. Concerns were also expressed about possible light pollution from the proposed sign. A lighting impact study (Attachment F) provided by the proponent determined that the lighting levels are within acceptable ranges relative to residential properties and would be equivalent to the natural illumination from the moon.

Benefits to Delta: In addition to potential revenue from annual lease payments of approximately $450,000 per year, for a total of $14,413,636 over the proposed 25-year term, the proposed digital advertising sign would also provide dedicated time to display community messaging, including but not limited to amber alerts, community events and notices.

Next Steps: Since Delta was only seeking comment on a preliminary proposal, additional details would need to be provided if Council decides to proceed with entering into a lease agreement. The proponent would have to complete a detailed design of the proposed sign, including specific information such as a survey showing the exact location of the sign and a visual impact study to determine the effect on views from different points in the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. The detailed proposal would then need approval or approval-in-principle from the Provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure prior to an application for a development variance permit from Delta to allow the proposed digital advertising sign. The proposed digital advertising sign would also be referred to the Mayor's Public Safety Committee and Delta Police for comments as part of the review process.

"Delta Sign Bylaw No. 5860, 2000" does not permit digital advertising signs nor does it permit the size of sign being proposed; therefore, variances would be required. Notification for the development variance permit application would be provided in accordance with "Delta Development Application Procedures Bylaw No. 4918, 1992". A Public Hearing is not required; however, Council has the discretion to refer a variance application to a Public Hearing.

Implications: Financial Implications - Delta has the potential to realize annual guaranteed revenue of approximately $450,000 per year for a total of $14,413,636 over the proposed 25-year term of the lease agreement for 8100 Nordel Way. Should Council approve the lease agreement, use of the associated revenue would be brought forward for discussion at a later date.

Intergovernmental Implications - The exact location and details of the proposed digital advertising sign would be reviewed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's Development Services Team to confirm all Provincial requirements have been satisfied. Page 5 of 5 Digital Advertising Sign at 8100 Nordel Way ENQ02415 and FIN19-023 October 10, 2019

• CONCLUSION:

The consultation period for the proposed digital advertising sign at 8100 Nordel Way has ended with a total of 54 responses received from the public, all in opposition to the sign. A formal application for a development variance permit including a separate consultation process would be required in order to proceed. It is recommended that the City of Delta enter into a lease agreement with the proponent, Outfront Media Canada LP, subject to: satisfying all Provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure requirements; and obtaining a development variance permit from Delta.

Marcy San Director of Community Planning & Development

Department submission prepared by: Jimmy Ho, Planner JH/cd This report has been prepared in consultation with the following listed departments.

Departments Name Signature

Engineering Steven Lan

Finance Karl Preuss

Parks, Recreation & Culture Ken Kuntz

• ATTACHMENTS:

A. Renderings of Proposed Sign B. Location Map C. Map of Public Reponses D. City of Toronto Technical Memorandum on Safety Impacts of Static Electronic Signs E. Photos from Residential Properties Located East of the Subject Property F. Lighting Impact Study PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC HIGHWAY9! D/F "V Shape" DIGITAL BILLBOARD aT 19 ·0030 14' x 48' (Nominal) lED Digital Screen In Static mode 07702 ·2

J 0000

\ An\",ollit)utnoot

1J(~I"

\ Ut'jI!t11UdIUOJlll \ ! ! I =- I. M ~f -'IHI~II~

JdliUrll't ?Ytli, IO~9

IUd

PLAN VIEW ' SCiJle: 3/32' ,.. 1-0' III .In

..., :"-'l~~ ".-::-..r-n. ' < "" ,

. -' - - • - -'.- " ~.. ~ - •. -'. .J • .• . - -"- •.• --~'~J;" Del&'! _ .-.----"-...... logo IIlurI1m aled hy projector -0» Sl)~ <.eSl) -.--"---...... CD () ~ Pri n telluluminulll -lo.::r dOC OIittivo pallol o 3 ....,CD f'V~ »

ELEVATION' Sc~/rI 3132" :II: 1'-0' SIDE ELEVATION· S• .,[n: 3iJ2" - 1'·0' Attachment A Page 2 of 2

Visualizations of Proposed Digital Sign Board

Highway 91 looking South

Highway 91 looking North Subject Property

Delta Nature Reserve

PUBLIC "1)> NOTIFICATION m~ Burns Bog Ecological co m AREA CD () Conservancy Area (BBECA) 3" o 500m -l.3 ~ ,------, c====J CD L--J L--J o -l.-t,:J ...... CD Subject Property

I­ (J) ~o • X Correspondence received in 59 AVE Opposition (North Delta I­ properties only) (J) N *One correspondent received from Ladner ..... not shown on map Attachment 0 Page 1 of 16

City of Toronto

SAFETY IMPACTS AND REGULATIONS OF ELECTRONIC STATIC ROADSIDE ADVERTISING SIGNS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2B - BEFORE/AFTER COLLISION ANALYSIS AT MID-BLOCK LOCATIONS

FINAL REPORT

Partners in excellence

3027 Harvester Road, Suite 400 Burlington L7N 3G7 Tel.: 289 288-0287 Fax: 289 288-0285

Contract 47016890

Project No: 8000203-3

17/09/2013 Attachment 0 Page 2 of 16

Table of Contents

Introduction ______

2 Treatment and Comparison Sites ______2 2.1 Treatment Sites 2 2.2 Comparison Sites 6

3 Study Approach ______8 3.1 Calculation of the Change in Collision Frequencies 9 3.2 Statistical Assessment 10 3.3 Natural Light Conditions Analysis 10

4 Results of the Before and After Analysis ______10 4.1 Overall Safety Impact 11 4.2 Natural Light Conditions Analysis 12

5 Conclusions ______14

Tables

Table 1: Electronic Static Roadside Advertising Sign ______2 Table 2: List of Treatment Sites 4 Table 4: Collision Frequency of Comparison Sites 7 Table 5: Collision Notations 9 Table 6: Estimation of the Change in Collision Frequencies 9 Table 7: Collision Average in 'Before' and 'After' Periods 11 Table 8: Safety Effectiveness Results 11 Table 9: Collision Average in 'Before' and 'After' Periods - Daylight Conditions 12 Table 10: Safety Effectiveness Results - Daylight Conditions 12 Table 11: Collision Average in 'Before' and 'After' Periods - Dark Conditions 13 Table 12: Safety Effectiveness Results - Dark Conditions 13

Figures

Figure 1: Electronic static roadside advertising sign - ______2 Figure 2: Electronic static roadside advertising sign - Highway 27 2 Figure 3: Location of Signs along the F.G. Gardiner Expressway 3 Figure 4: Location of Signs along Highway 27 3 Figure 5: Influence Zone 4 Figure 6: Comparison Sites on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway 7 Figure 7: Comparison Sites on Highway 27 8

CITY OF TORONTO Attachment 0 Page 3 of 16

1 Introduction Like many other industries, the outdoor advertising industry is embracing and applying new technologies. As technology continues to advance, the industry is taking advantage of electronic signs, some of which are Static Electronic Signs (SES). SES are electronic, or digital signs that use an LED display and have the ability to automatically change the message shown on the sign at regular intervals. The ability to show multiple advertisement copies on a single sign, along with their brightness, high-resolution capacities and attention-grabbing potential is appealing to the outdoor advertising industry. These signs are usually contro.lled remotely and some can even display full­ motion videos. For the purpose of this study, only electronic signs showing static copies are being considered, and video advertising signs are not included.

The advertising industry is, by nature, seeking people's attention and roadside SES can be highly conspicuous and compete for drivers' attention. While studies have proven that electronic advertising displays have impacts on driver distraction, the actual effects of this sign technology on collision experience have been difficult to prove conclusively. As a result, many government agencies are adopting guidelines or regulations for SES in response to an ever-increasing number of installation requests. The objective of these guidelines is to control aspects of the placement and operation of these signs, such as brightness, message duration, and message change intervals, which can have impacts on the surrounding environment and traffic.

In order to gain a better understanding of the safety impacts of SES the City directed CIMA to undertake a 3-part review of electronic static advertising signs, which included the following components:

1) Review of current research literature;

2) Before/after collision analysis of existing electronic signs, including:

a) Transit shelter scrolling advertising signs

b) Electronic signs at mid-block locations (expressways and arterial roads)

c) Electronic signs at signalized intersections;

3) Review of best practice guidelines and regulations in other jurisdictions.

This technical memo addresses component 2b) , a before/after collision analysis of the impact of electronic static advertising signs at mid-block locations along expressways and arterial roads. The methodology used is the "comparison-group safety effectiveness evaluation method" outlined in the

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM), 1st Edition. In the sections that follow, this memorandum discusses the treatment and comparison sites analyzed, explains the analysis methodology and presents the results. In addition, Sections 3.3 and 4.2 discuss the results of an analysis of the collision data separated by natural light conditions, to determine if these signs have any different impacts on road safety during darkness.

CITY OF TORONTO 1 Attachment 0 Page 4 of 16

2 Treatment and Comparison Sites 2.1 Treatment Sites The City identified seven electronic static advertising signs along the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and three signs along Highway 27, which were all installed between 2009 and 2010, for analysis. It should be noted that Highway 27 is deemed a major arterial road under the City's official road classification system. The location of the ten signs is presented in Table 1. This table also provides the side of the highway on which the sign is installed and its orientation (direction that the sign is facing).

Table 1: Electronic Static Roadside Advertising Sign

South West & East

North East

South East

North & East

North West & East

West West & East

East North

East North & South

West North & South and 350 m North of Vulcan Street

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show example signs located along the F.G. Gardiner Expressway and Highway 27, respectively.

Figure 1 : Electronic static roadside Figure 2: Electronic static roadside advertising sign - Gardiner Expressway advertising sign - Highway 27

CITY OF TORONTO 2 Attachment 0 Page 5 of 16

Figure 3 shows the location of the studied signs along the F.G. Gardiner Expressway, and Figure 4 shows the location of the studied signs along Highway 27.

" I' \ ...... ,~ •. a.=':t ...... t \ >~, -; ... ~\

------Figure 3: Location of Signs along the F.G. Gardiner Expressway

-...... "i .l ...... -" .. .l \ .,."... ,i' ", . ~ / / 1.0 Marm) c Drive \ ~, " ~ "l $"".~_ .l .. y ' ... ._" I " 11' -~..., " -- ~""''''

Figure 4: Location of Signs along Highway 27

CITY OF TORONTO 3 Attachment 0 Page 6 of 16

Each of the above electronic signs has a specific influence zone that can be defined as the area in which drivers heading towards the sign face can potentially see the sign and consequently be distracted by it (Figure 5) . To determine the influence zone, the furthest distance from the sign at which the sign face is visible to oncoming drivers, was assessed through field visits conducted on June 14 and 15, 2013. Therefore, for this analysis, the influence zone for each sign was considered the treatment site.

~------.--~ -~~ ~-~

-- -- ~ ------

------~~ Legend

e\ Electronic sign -7 Distance from which the sign is vis ible

Influence zone

Figure 5: Influence Zone

Because some of the above signs were located close to each other, the influence zones of some signs were overlapping. Therefore, these sites were grouped and considered as one treatment site, as shown in Table 2. Considering the direction of travel and the grouping of sites, in total eight treatment sites were selected. Table 2 shows the eight treatment sites selected and the start and end of each influence zone.

Table 2: List of Treatment Sites

i I I fl d Influence Zone ' I n uence l oca tIon D' t' I Irec Ion From To i o Oakville Sub 670 m east of 2480 m east of Gardiner Expressway and Park Lawn Rd Eastbound Gardiner & Islington Gardiner & Islington 2150 Lakeshore Boulevard West Gardiner E lP~SSW~~~L~=ar...:..:.k _=La_=..;w..:..;..n'_'_R..:...:d'______r_-----_+--- in- t-e-rc-_h_a._n_g_e ___-+ ___ in_ te_r_c_ha_n_g_e_------i o Oakville Sub 4570 m west of Gardiner Expressway and Park Lawn Rd Westbound Gardiner & Jameson 2150 Lakeshore Boulevard West Gardiner Expressway and Park Lawn Rd interchange

CITY OF TORONTO 4 Attachment 0 Page 7 of 16

. : Influenced . Influence Zone Location ; 0" t" I Iree Ion F m T : : ro I 0 1635 The Queensway Gardiner Expressway westbound exit for Highway 27 I 2 Wickman Road (400 Evans Avenue) Gardiner Expressway and Wickman Road 350m east of 260 m east of 10 Wickman Road Eastbound Gardiner/Hwy 427 Gardiner & Kipling I1 Gardiner Expressway and Wickman Road '1 29 Algie Avenue : interchange interchange i Gardiner Expressway and Algie Avenue " I I 16 Arnold Street : ; L_ q~ES!Lr:' _~!__ I::: _ )(J?~~'§_~~?Y_?.!l~L~_r.!l_?..Ld_ $..!!~_~_! ------l------J-______------L --- ______~ i 1635 The Queensway 1 I Gardiner Expressway westbound exit for Highway 27 t 2 Wickman Road (400 Evans Avenue) I Gardiner Expressway and Wickman Road 1650 m west of 10 Wickman Road Gardiner & Islington Westbound Gardiner & Kipling Gardiner Expressway and Wickman Road interchange interchange 1 29 Algie Avenue I Gardiner Expressway and Algie Avenue I 16 Arnold Street r!=~~3~t::~~~nd~~~Or--r- i7~~~~~u~~oi -! 1 15 City View Drive -----"--l---~- ~~---~-- : 500 m south of i 390 m north of Dixon ! ~ Highway 27 and Di xon Road i 0 oun j Dixon Rd I Rd i I-CNRaii------j -~-~hb ---~--;- 102 m south of ! T70- m- north-or------: I Hlghway27 a"d 350 m North of Vulea" SUeet : 0 oun _:. Belfield Rd Belfield Rd CN Rail l Southbound : 315 m south of 1350 m south of l __~..h~~3.~~~~ _?_~~__ ~ort~ _~L~~~~~!~~~~ _____ .L ______t Rexdale Road Rexdale Rd

To determine the frequency of collisions that occurred within each influence zone, the collision data obtained from the City were analyzed to determine the direction of travel of the driver at-fault and mapped using Geographical Information System (GIS) software so that only collisions involving vehicles heading towards the sign face and within the influence zone were included in the analysis. In assessing the direction of travel of the at-fault driver, two collision fields were reviewed: "Apparent Driver Action" and "Initial Direction of Travel". If a driver had an attribute different than "Driving Properly" for the collision field "Apparent Driver Action", it was identified as the at-fault driver and its direction of travel was used.

The before and after periods were determined based on the installation year of signs. Table 3 summarizes the study period considered for each treatment site and the number of collisions in the corresponding before and after periods.

Collisions at interchanges on the Gardiner Expressway and at the signalized intersections at both ends of the arterial road sections on Highway 27, were excluded from the analysis. It was determined that the electronic signs being studied were remote enough from these locations that they were unlikely related.

CITY OF TORONTO 5 Attachment 0 Page 8 of 16

Table 3: Study Period and Collision Frequency of Treatment Sites

Before period After period WB 180 89 1635 The EB Queensway 230 118 2 Wickman Road (400 Evans Before period After period Avenue) WB 10 Wickman Road 318 276 29

Collision data for the period between 2006 and 2013 were provided for all sites located on the Gardiner Expressway. The 2013 collisions used are associated with the months of January, February, and March only. The installation of the electronic static roadside advertising signs took, place in 2010 for all treatment sites, with the exception of the signs between Highway 427 and , for which the installation occurred between 2009 and 2010.

2.2 Comparison Sites 11 comparison sites were included in this study, as shown in Table 4. Five are located along the Gardiner Expressway and six are along Highway 27. The before and after periods used for the comparison sites were as follows:

Road Before Period After Period

F. G. Gardiner Expressway Jan. 2006 - Dec. 2010 Jan. 2011 - Mar. 2013

Highway 27 Jan. 2007 - Dec. 2010 Jan. 2011 - Mar. 2013

Similar to the treatment sites, the collisions obtained for 2013 were not for the full year but rather for a period of three months (January to March). Table 4 summarizes the comparison sites included in this study and the number of collisions in the before and after periods.

CITY OF TORONTO 6 Attachment 0 Page 9 of 16

Table 4: Collision Frequency of Comparison Sites

Jameson ------2830 west Gardiner Jameson WB 250 125 of Jameson Gardiner Bathurst Spadina EB 179 125

Gardiner Yonge Cherry EB 166 103

Gardiner Cherry Yonge WB 103 67

Queen's Hwy 27 NB 20 13 Plate Dr

Hwy 27 Albion Rd NB 5 5 Royalcrest Hwy 27 Albion Rd SB 6 3 Rd

Figure 6 shows the comparison sites on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway, and Figure 7 shows the comparison sites on Highway 27.

\ ~ ,

l ~' ___ -'-_ -" .~ /

Figure 6: Comparison Sites on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway

CITY OF TORONTO 7 Attachment 0 Page 10 of 16

... T RoyakrestRoad '\ o£:-" ~ • """'" "' ~ lbion Road \,~... . :;:...- ¢...... -

"';:'t \ .. \

Figure 7: Comparison Sites on Highway 27

3 Study Approach To evaluate the safety impacts ·of the SES, a before/after study with comparison groups was conducted. In before/after studies with comparison groups, the observed collisions frequencies in the after period is compared with the predicted collision frequencies in the same period if the treatment had not been implemented. The predicted frequencies in the after period are estimated using the observed number of collisions at the treated sites, as well as the collision frequencies observed at the comparison sites. By doing so, the changes in collision frequency from the before period to the after period associated with the exposure effect (traffic volume) and the trend effect (e.g. traffic composition, drivers composition, law enforcement and weather condition) are taken into account 1.

The notation used to refer to the number of collisions that occurred in the before and after periods at the treatment and comparison sites are shown in Table 5.

1 Transportation Safety Council. BEFORE-AND-AFTER STUDY TECHNICAL BRIEF. 2009.

CITY OF TORONTO 8 Attachment 0 Page 11 of 16

Table 5: Collision Notations

Period Treatment Site Comparison Site

Before K M

After L N

A before/after study with comparison group is composed of two main steps. The calculation of the changes in collisions between the before and after conditions is first performed; then, a statistical test is conducted to evaluate whether the change in collision frequency is statistically different. These two steps are further explained below.

3.1 Calculation of the Change in Collision Frequencies The procedure for estimating the change in collision frequencies is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Estimation of the Change in Collision Frequencies

Variable Equation 1. Estimate the expected number of collisions in the 'after' period: l=L 2. Calculate the ratio of the expected collision counts for the treatment and comparison ie = iT = (; )/(1+ ~ J groups: 3. Predict the expected number of collisions in the 'after' period had the treatment not been ft= rTK applied:

4. Calculate variance of 1: var( 1) = L

5. Calculate var (PT ) / pi : Var" ("rT )/,,2rT 0' _+_+1 1 Var"() OJ M N

6. Calculate variance of fc: var(Jt) = fc2 (1/ K + var( rT )/ pi)

7. Estimate e: o= ( 1/ fc ) / ( 1 + Var ( fc ) / fc2 )

2 8. Estimate variance of e : var (0) = 0 X [ ( var (1) / 12 ) + ( var ( fc) / fc2 ) ]

9. Calculate change in collision frequencies: E = 100 x ( 0 - 1)

CITY OF TORONTO 9 Attachment 0 Page 12of16

2 var( E) = 100 xVar( e)

3.2 Statistical Assessment In order to determine whether the change in safety is different between the before and after period, it is appropriate to use Student's two-tailed T -test. In this case, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the average collisions frequencies in the after period with the predicted collision frequencies in the same period if the treatment had not been implemented. This is represented mathematically as follows.

Equation 1

Equation 2

Then, the t statistic can be calculated and compared to the Student's t table value with (n-2) degree of freedom where n is number of observations in the treatment group. If the calculated value of t exceeds that for the 5% level (t=O.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. In other words, it can be concluded that the change in collision frequency is statistically different between the before and after periods with a confidence level of 95%. Otherwise, if the calculated t statistic is smaller than the table value at the 5% level (t=O.05) , there is no statistical change in collision frequency.

3.3 Natural Light Conditions Analysis In order to determine if there is any safety impact from the SES relating specifically to the natural lighting conditions (daylight vs dark), the same type of before/after methodology was carried out but using the following collision data subsets:

• Collisions that occurred during daylight conditions; and,

• Collisions that occurred during dark conditions.

The same treatment and comparison sites were used for the natural light conditions analysis. To determine whether the collisions occurred during daylight or dark conditions, the collision field "LIGHT" was used.

4 Results of the Before and After Analysis This section presents the results of the before and after analysis that evaluates the overall impact of the SES on collision experience, which used all collisions that occurred within the study period. This section also includes the results of the natural light conditions analysis.

CITY OF TORONTO 10 Attachment 0 Page 13 of 16

4.1 Overall Safety Impact The results of the before/after study are summarized in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7 provides the yearly average collision frequencies in the before and after periods for both the treatment and comparison sites. Table 8 presents the overall safety effectiveness of installing electronic static roadside advertising signs along Highway 27 and the Gardiner Expressway.

Table 7: Collision Average in 'Before' and 'After' Periods

Treatment Group Comparison Group Period Collision Frequency Collision Frequency per Year per Year

Before 312.3 336.6

After 302.7 340.0

Table 8: Safety Effectiveness Results

Parameter Values i Expected number of accidents in the 'after' 302.67 period

Ratio of the expected collision counts for the 1.01 treatment and comparison groups

Expected collision frequency in the 'after' 314.49 period had the treatment not been applied

Change in collision frequencies 11.82

Percentage change in collision frequencies 4%

Significant (at 5% confidence level) No

The results show that there was a 4% decrease in the number of collisions after installing electronic static roadside advertising signs and that the reduction is statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level. In other words, there is not enough evidence to suggest that these signs have any impact on safety.

CITY OF TORONTO 11 Attachment 0 Page 14of16

4.2 Natural Light Conditions Analysis

Daylight Conditions The results of the before/after study using collisions that occurred under daylight conditions are summarized in Table 9 and Table 10. Table 9 provides the yearly average number of collisions that occurred under daylight conditions in the before and after periods for both the treatment and comparison sites. Table 10 presents the overall safety effectiveness of installing SES under daylight conditions along Highway 27 and the Gardiner Expressway.

Table 9: Collision Average in 'Before' and 'After' Periods - Daylight Conditions

Treatment Group Comparison Group Period Collision Frequency Collision Frequency per Year per Year

Before 220.7 230.1

After 220.4 241.8

Table 10: Safety Effectiveness Results - Daylight Conditions

Parameter Values

Expected number of accidents in the 'after' 220.44 period

Ratio of the expected collision counts for the 1.05 treatment and comparison groups

Expected collision frequency in the 'after' 230.88 period had the treatment not been applied

Change in collision frequencies 10.43

Percentage change in collision frequencies 5%

Significant (at 5% confidence level) No

The results show that under daylight conditions there was a 5% decrease in the number of collisions after installing electronic static roadside advertising signs and that the reduction is statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level. In other words, there is not enough evidence to suggest that these signs have any impact on safety.

CITY OF TORONTO 12 Attachment 0 Page 15 of 16

Dark Conditions The results of the before/after study using collisions that occurred under dark conditions are summarized in Table 11 and Table 12. Table 11 provides the yearly average number of collisions that occurred under dark conditions in the before and after periods for both the treatment and comparison sites. Table 12 presents the overall safety effectiveness of installing SES under dark conditions along Highway 27 and the Gardiner Expressway.

Table 11: Collision Average in 'Before' and 'After' Periods - Dark Conditions

Treatment Group Comparison Group Period Collision Frequency Collision Frequency per Year per Year

Before 99.3 116.5

After 84.4 102.2

Table 12: Safety Effectiveness Results - Dark Conditions

Parameters Values

Expected number of accidents in the 'after' 84.44 period

Ratio of the expected collision counts for the 0.87 treatment and comparison groups

Expected collision frequency in the 'after' 86.35 period had the treatment not been applied

Change in collision frequencies 1.90

Percentage change in collision frequencies 4%

Significant (at 5% confidence level) No

The results show that under dark conditions there was a 4% decrease in the number of collisions after installing SES and that the reduction is statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level. In other words, there is not enough evidence to suggest that these signs have any impact on road safety.

CITY OF TORONTO 13 Attachment 0 Page 16of16

5 Conclusions A before/after study with comparison group was performed to evaluate impacts of SES on collisions. A total of ten sites where SES were installed in 2010 and 2011 along the Gardiner Expressway and Highway 27 were identified by the City for study. The before period corresponded to three or four years, while the after period corresponded to two years and three months (from January 2011 to March 2013). Treatment sites consisted of the "influence zone" upstream of a sign, which is the area between the furthest point where the sign is visible to drivers to the location of the sign. A few of the signs that were installed close together were grouped as one treatment site. As a result, the treatment group included 8 sites. Besides the treatment sites, a total of eleven comparison sites, five along the Gardiner Expressway and six along Highway 27, were used for this before/after analysis.

The results of the before/after study show that there is not enough evidence to suggest that the electronic static roadside advertising signs have any impacts on road safety along the adjacent mid­ block sections of Highway 27 and Gardiner Expressway, with 95% confidence.

Additionally, the safety impacts from the SES relating specifically to the natural light conditions (daylight vs dark conditions) were assessed. It was found that the collision frequency under daylight and dark conditions is not statistically different before and after installing SES.

CITY OF TORONTO 14 Attachment E Page 1 of 1

Photos from Residential Properties Located East of the Subject Property Attachment F Page 1 of 6 1-800-667-4554 1387 Cornwall Rd. diaresources Oakville, ON L6J 7T5 Solutions for the sign industry. mediaresources.com

Oct 18,2019

Description of Brightness and Lighting Impact for Digital Outdoor Advertising Delta RFP

To whom it may concern,

Media Resources Inc. has been engaged by All Vision to review and assess the lighting impact of the proposed digital billboard installation in response to the Delta BC RFP. This document will describe the lighting impacts of our 14'x48' digital billboards during day, night and times in transition.

Background on lighting impact

Lighting impact is typically considered with two metrics: luminance, and illumination. Luminance, measured in Candelas/m2 or NITs, is the measure of surface brightness of a light emitting surface. Excessive luminance can give rise to visual glare when disproportionately higher than the luminance of other objects in the visual field. Illuminance, measured in Lux, is the measure of the amount of light passing through an area, and can give rise to "light trespass". Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between the glare (excessive luminance) and light trespass (excessive illuminance).

Figure I. On left, very high luminance in the street lamp causes a glare effect to cameras. On right, light from the adjacent street lamp is poorly controlled and causing excessive illuminance at the window of the dwelling.

Day time, in-between, and night time During the day-time, under sunny conditions, common experience from digital billboards instructs us that the billboards cause neither a problem with glare nor light trespass. A Attachment F Page 2 of 6 1-800-667 -4554 1387 Cornwall Rd. diaresources Oakville, ON L6J 7T5 Solutions for the sign industry. mediaresources.com

typical clear blue sky will have a luminance itself of around 7000 NITs, with white clouds having luminance around 10000 NITs. Digital billboards are physically limited to a maximum luminance output of 7000-10000 NITs, and, in the case of Delta, will be locked into a common 5000 NITs day-time limit through programming. Because the luminance is in line with the typical visual scene, digital billboards do not produce glare during the day. The situation with illumination is even simpler, with solar illumination reaching up to 100,000 lux or more on the ground, whereas a 14'x48' digital billboard at maximum power can only produce approximately 75-100 lux of illumination at distances of 80m or more. Therefore, illumination is also a non-issue during daylight hours.

During dusk, dawn, or cloudy days, the operation of the digital display according to ambient light readings is the ideal way to maintain a glare-free image while minimizing light trespass. Digital billboards are equipped with factory-mounted dual photocell sensors that are capable of reading ambient brightness. This provides good readability on the display while keeping in line with the brightness of the overall visual context.

2 Attachment F Page 3 of 6 1-800-667-4554 1387 Cornwall Rd. diaresources Oakville, ON L6J 7TS Solutions for the sign industry. mediaresources.com

During night-time, brightness control is critical as the digital billboards must be operated at a small percentage of its maximum brightness in order to avoid glare or light trespass. The proposed digital billboards are well equipped with modern brightness controls that prevent digital billboards from operating at high brightness levels at night.

Additionally, the Media Resources Network Operations Centre can monitor brightness and recall brightness history for traceability. See Figure 3 and Figure 4 below on our internal control system for configuring brightness and recalling brightness history.

Figure 3. Media Resources web portal showing brightness configuration and history of the current day

3 Attachment F Page 4 of 6 1-800-667-4554 1387 Cornwall Rd. diaresources Oakville, ON L6J 7T5 Solutions for the sign industry. mediaresources.com

Figure 4. Media Resources web portal showing brightness history of any selected previous date. Brightness history data is logged indefinitely on Media Resources servers.

4 Attachment F Page 5 of 6 1-800-667-4554 1387 Cornwall Rd . diaresources Oakville, ON L6J 7T5 Solutions for the sign industry. mediaresources.com

Site specific analysis Based on Media Resources understanding of the proposed site in the Delta RFP, we have calculated using our computerized numerical model that accounts for illumination contribution of each individual LED module with individual vertical and horizontal geometries, and with LED light output patterns considered. This is the our most accurate way to estimate area illumination. For- each site we established the distance and orientation of the nearest residential and calculated the maximum possible illuminance resulting from the digital billboard at night. We assumed the digital to run at the maximum 300 NITs allowable night-time brightness with all-white content. These analyses also do not account for sight lines and likely visual obstruction from foliage, and thus represent strictly worst-case scenarios for light trespass. In all cases the illumination levels are well below 0.1 lux. We consider these levels to be within acceptable ranges relative to residential properties. By way of practical comparison, the lux levels can be compared to the natural illumination of the moon. The following figure outlines the digital billboard structure's location in relation to the nearest residential property, the lux level, and its' equivalent comparison to the natural illumination from the moon.

"""le'l!If" "6'1.30_ Cir

Figure 5. Nordel Way - Maximum potential resulting illumination at the marked location is 0.0615 lux, comparable to the natural illumination from the Moon at half occlusion. Foliage and a building potentially obstruct the view as well.

5 Attachment F Page 6 of 6 1-800-667 -4554 1387 Cornwall Rd. diaresources Oakville, ON L6J 7T5 Solutions for the sig n industry. mediaresources.com

Media Resources is committed to the responsible application of LED digital technology and are happy to engage with regulatory stakeholders at any time. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Media Resources Inc. (905) 586- 1064 [email protected]

6