Public Meeting Notice for the Washington County Planning Commission Charles D

Home , Diagrammatic sign, Tatler, The Oregonian

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING 155 N. FIRST AVENUE, HILLSBORO, OR 97124

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2014 PUBLIC WORK SESSION 6:30 PM SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM PUBLIC MEETING 7:00 PM, SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM

Public Work Session Prior to the regular public meeting, the Planning Commission meets for a general public work session the Shirley Huffman Auditorium. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Commission an opportunity to conduct informal communications with each other, review the agenda, and identify questions they may ask before taking action on the agenda items during the public meeting. The public is welcome to observe. Deliberations by the Commission on agenda items occur during the regular meeting, not during work session.

Public Meeting The public meeting is the time during which the Planning Commission considers items published in their agenda, including scheduled public hearing items. The public is welcome to speak.

If you need a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, or a language interpreter, please call (503) 846-8611 (or 7-1-1 for Telecommunications Relay Service) at least 48 hours prior to this event.

The County will also upon request endeavor to arrange for the following services to be provided:

. Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and

. Qualified bilingual interpreters.

Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the County of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the meeting date (same phone numbers as listed above: (503)-846-8611 or (503)-846-4598).

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

ROOM 140, CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING

The Planning Commission welcomes your attendance at the Public Work Session and the Public Meeting. If you wish to speak on a public hearing agenda item or during oral communications during the public meeting portion of the agenda, please feel free to do so. Time is generally limited to 5 minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for an authorized representative of a Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). The Chair may adjust the actual time limits. However, in fairness to others, we respectfully ask your cooperation on the following:

. Please follow sign-in procedures located on the table by the entrance to the auditorium.

. When your name is announced, please be seated at the table in front and state your name and home or business address for the record.

. Groups or organizations wishing to make a presentation are asked to designate one spokesperson in the interest of time and to avoid repetition.

. When more than one citizen is heard on any matter, please avoid repetition in your comments. Careful attention to the previous speakers’ remarks will be helpful in this regard.

. If you plan to present written testimony at the hearing, please bring 15 copies for distribution to Commission members and staff.

PUBLIC MEETING DATES

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSIONS

8:30 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 1:30 p.m. 1st Wednesday

2:00 p.m. 4th Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS

10 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 2:00 p.m. 1st Wednesday

6:30 p.m. 4th Tuesday 7:00 p.m. 3rd Wednesday

Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to cancel or add a meeting date.

PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES D. CAMERON PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 20, 2014 6:30 PM

AGENDA

CHAIR: A. RICHARD VIAL VICE-CHAIR: JEFF PETRILLO COMMISSIONERS: ED BARTHOLEMY, LILES GARCIA, MARY MANSEAU, MATT WELLNER, ANTHONY MILLS, ERIC URSTADT, TEGAN ENLOE

PUBLIC WORK SESSION (SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM)

1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:30 PM

2. ROLL CALL

3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

4. WORK SESSION  Discussion of Work Session and Meeting Time

PUBLIC MEETING (SHIRLEY HUFFMAN AUDITORIUM)

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – 7:00 PM

6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES  July 16, 2014

7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 789 An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area as Related to the North Bethany Subarea Plan (North Bethany West Community Park), the Transportation Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan as Relates to the West Community Park and Area of Special Concern 11

8. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 790 An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area as Related to the North Bethany Subarea Plan including the North Bethany Road P2 Alignment, the Transportation Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Bethany Community Plan

9. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 791 An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Digital Billboards

10. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 792 An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code Relating to Standards for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Repealing Ordinance 781, a Temporary Moratorium on the Business or Sale of Medical Marijuana

11. ADJOURN

Department of Land Use & Transportation  Planning and Development Services Division Long Range Planning 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-3519 · fax: (503) 846-4412 · TTY: (503) 846-4598 · www.co.washington.or.us

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2014

ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE RECORDED

1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:34 P.M. Shirley Huffman Auditorium, Public Services Building

The meeting was called to order by Chair Vial.

Chair Vial asked for a motion to approve the agenda as published.

Commissioner Urstadt moved to approve the agenda as published. Commissioner Garcia seconded. Vote: 8-0, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote59:39 Bartholemy Yes Garcia Yes Enloe Yes Manseau Yes Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

Chair Vial stated that it should be clear to the public from the agenda when a given item might come up. He stated that the hearing times should say that public hearings could start as early as 1:45 p.m. for day meetings and 6:45 p.m. for night meetings. Discussion followed.

Ms. Saito-Moore said that she would have to investigate the Rules of Procedure.

2. ROLL CALL

Planning Commission (PC) members present: A. Richard Vial, Ed Bartholemy, Liles Garcia, Mary Manseau, Tegan Enloe, Matt Wellner, Anthony Mills, and Eric Urstadt. Jeff Petrillo was absent.

Staff present: Andy Back, Theresa Cherniak, Michelle Pimentel, Mike Dahlstrom, Stephen Shane, Brian Hanes, and Connie McCracken, Long Range Planning; Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel.

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning 155 N First Avenue, Ste. 350 MS 14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-3519 · fax: (503) 846-4412 · TTY: (503) 846-4598 · www.co.washington.or.us Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2014 Page 2 of 7

3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT – Andy Back, Planning & Development Services Manager

Mr. Back detailed upcoming meeting topics:

August 6 (day meeting)  Ordinance No. 786 – Community Business District (CBD) Standards  Ordinance No. 787 – Public Transportation Facilities / Article VII Minor Changes  Ordinance No. 788 – General Update and Housekeeping

4. WORK SESSION

Chair Vial requested that the PC review proposed meeting agendas prior to publishing so they may add items they wish to discuss.

Commissioner Manseau stated that she thought the ordinance season was impractical and abolishing it would allow the PC to be more thoughtful in its recommendations with less of a time constraint. Chair Vial invited a motion.

Commission Manseau moved that the PC forward a recommendation to the Board that they include a change to the ordinance season as part of the charter changes. Commissioner Urstadt seconded. Vote: 7-1, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy No Garcia Yes Enloe Yes Manseau Yes Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

None.

6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

 June 18, 2014

Commissioner Manseau stated that Ordinance No. 783 is shown as a first hearing when it was a continuance. Staff had already made this change and included it in the copy given to Chair Vial to sign.

Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2014 Page 3 of 7

Commissioner Mills said that he had left the June 18 meeting prior to the vote on the May 21, 2014 minutes. He stated that the June 18 minutes should be changed to reflect that. Commissioner Mills moved that the minutes be approved with that change. Commissioner Garcia seconded. Vote: 8-0, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote59:39 Bartholemy Yes Garcia Yes Enloe Yes Manseau Yes Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

7. Proposed Ordinance No. 784 - Farmers Markets

Summary

Mr. Dahlstrom gave the PC a staff report and PowerPoint presentation on Ordinance No. 784, which proposes to expand the allowable locations, reduce permit costs, and simplify the application process for farmers markets to encourage these markets in non-residential urban and rural land use designations. The Community Development Code (CDC) currently allows farmers markets only in the General Commercial and North Bethany Neighborhood Corner Commercial districts and requires a Type II application process.

The ordinance proposes that applications for farmers markets, including mini-farmers markets, be processed as Type I Temporary Use permits good for one year and renewable annually. Farmers markets would be subject to a number of requirements outlined in the proposed ordinance.

Staff Recommendations

 Conduct the public hearing; recommend approval of Ordinance No. 784 with the attached proposed engrossments to the Board

Documents Submitted

 Letter of testimony in opposition received from Rod and Barbara Hales, 20140 SW Edy Road, Sherwood, Oregon 97140

Testimony expressing concerns with Ordinance No. 784

 Dina Gross, Manager of Cedar Mill Farmers Market, 14290 NW Spruceridge Lane, Portland, Oregon, 97229

Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2014 Page 4 of 7

PC Discussion

 Questions about the need for a start time – is the issue already covered by the Noise Ordinance?  Questions about noise mitigation  Questions about the need for requiring a percentage of farm products, particularly as new markets get established and early in the growing season  Questions about defining and enforcing that percentage  Questions about the difference between a mini farmers market and a farmers market  Concerns that farm stands could be considered in conflict with farmers market regulations in EFU zones  Questions about why no markets are allowed in high density Transit Oriented residential zones  Questions about the mix of offerings including baked goods, tamales, pottery, crafts, and jewelry sales and their value in supporting a vital farmers market  Concerns about who is responsible for monitoring market restrictions  Discussion about omitting hours and mix of products – let managers handle  Discussion about requiring managers to be members of Oregon Farmers Market Association  Discussion about recommending this ordinance and adjusting it later if needed  Discussion about averaging percentage of farm products over the growing season because there is little to sell at the start of the season

Commissioner Manseau moved to recommend Board approval of Ordinance No. 784 with language changes recommended by staff, language change stating “no intent to impact allowed farm stands in rural areas,” strike the 75 percent limitation, and to strike hours of operation limitation. Commissioner Enloe seconded.

Commissioner Wellner moved to make a “friendly amendment” to Commissioner Manseau’s motion, changing the 75 percent farm product requirement to 50 percent, and changing the start time from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. as applied to mini farmers markets. Commissioner Garcia seconded. Vote: 8-0, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Yes Garcia Yes Enloe Yes Manseau Yes Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

Commissioner Wellner made a second “friendly amendment,” adding the requirement that farmers market managers be Oregon Farmers Market Association members.

Mr. Back asked Chair Vial to restate the motion for clarity.

Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2014 Page 5 of 7

Chair Vial stated that Commissioner Manseau’s motion was to include the changes recommended by staff when the PC first heard the staff report, to include the language regarding the exclusion of farm stands in rural zones, to strike the 75 percent requirement, to strike the hours of operations requirement, except with respect to the mini farmers markets, which would be restricted to 50/50 on farm products and 6:00 a.m. start time, and to add the requirement that all managers of a farmers market be members of the Oregon Farmers Market Association. Commissioner Enloe seconded. Vote: 8-0, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote55:53 Bartholemy Yes Garcia Yes Enloe Yes Manseau Yes Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

8. Proposed Ordinance No. 785 – Urban/Rural Reserves

Stephen Shane gave the PC a staff report and PowerPoint presentation on Ordinance No. 785. Ordinance No. 785 incorporates required text and map amendments to the county's Comprehensive Plan made necessary when House Bill (HB) 4078 passed the Oregon Senate in March 2014 and was signed into law the following month. This bill finalized the county's Urban Reserve, Rural Reserve and Undesignated land areas and made administrative changes to state statute.

Ordinance No. 785  Amends the county’s Urban and Rural Reserve Map to align with urban and rural reserve boundary changes specified in HB 4078  Provides text and map changes to the county’s Rural/Natural Resource Plan, the Urban Framework Plan, and applicable Community Plans  Applies the FD-20 land use designation to those areas added to the UGB and not yet annexed  Adds a new Area of Special Concern to the East Hillsboro Community Plan to recognize the area as a Regionally Significant Industrial Area

Reserves – Staff Recommendations

 Conduct the public hearing; recommend approval of proposed Ordinance No. 785 to Board of Commissioners

Documents submitted in opposition of Ordinance No. 785

 Letter of testimony from 1000 Friends of Oregon Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2014 Page 6 of 7

 Letter of testimony from Save Helvetia  Letter, petition, and maps from Joseph Auth (see Exhibit 1)  Maps provided by Matt Heinrich (see Exhibit 2)

Testimony opposing Ordinance No. 785  Joseph Auth – 325 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR  Marcia Moore – 85 NW 336th Av, Hillsboro, OR  Matt Heinrich – 430 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR  Sarah Jackson – 150 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR  Karl Jackson – 150 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR  John and Dorothy Sahlfeld – 240 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR  Mary and Mike Zoucha – 440 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR  Linda Older – 165 NW 334th Av, Hillsboro, OR

Ellen Anthony, 385 NW 336th Av, Hillsboro OR, signed up to testify but did not testify.

Testimony centered on residents’ concerns at being added to the UGB under HB 4078 without public notice or due process by the Legislature. Residents of the NW 334th Avenue area felt their concerns were being ignored. Other issues centered on the desire to maintain their rural agricultural lifestyle and concerns that FD-20 would limit future agricultural activities.

PC Discussion

 Concern about the clarity and accuracy of the maps - can these be modified to more clearly show the boundaries?  Questions about mapping inconsistencies and status of potential legislative fixes  Questions about the impact of leaving the current land use designations in place until the area is planned by or annexed to a city  Concern about natural resource protection of Rock Creek  Recognition that the County’s hands are tied - the UGB was adopted by the Legislature and at this time we cannot change it

Commissioner Bartholemy moved to recommend Board adoption of Proposed Ordinance No. 785. Commissioner Wellner seconded. Vote: 6-2, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Yes Garcia Yes Enloe No Manseau No Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2014 Page 7 of 7

7. ADJOURN: 9:20 P.M.

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Bartholemy moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Garcia seconded. Vote: 8-0, motion passed.

Commissioner Vote Bartholemy Yes Garcia Yes Enloe Yes Manseau Yes Mills Yes Urstadt Yes Wellner Yes Vial Yes

A. Richard Vial Andrew Singelakis Chairman, Washington County Secretary, Washington County Planning Commission Planning Commission

Minutes approved this ______day of ______, 2014

Submitted by Long Range Planning Staff

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 2 of 13

On May 14, 2014, West Hills representatives and the Director of Planning for Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) met with Long Range Planning staff to discuss West Hills’ request.

West Hills representatives noted the presence of a jurisdictional wetland to the west of the West Community Park. They cited their anticipated difficulty in obtaining the necessary state and federal permits for development of the wetland area to the west of the park as their primary reason for requesting reconfiguration of the West Community Park and removal and realignment of planned road alignments in the park’s vicinity.

The filed ordinance proposes changes to the West Community Park and street layout in the vicinity that are based on West Hills’ request, and reflect feedback obtained from Washington County staff, THPRD, CPO 7 and area property owners prior to the July 1, 2014 filing date. The park and street layout changes include:

 A revised West Community Park configuration and a reduction in its mapped size (with proposed text amendments that would provide the opportunity for the park size to increase to its originally adopted size by future addition of adjacent wetland area);  Removal of the segments of Primary Streets P4, P6 and P7 that were planned to abut the West Community Park;  Removal of the segment of Primary Street P1 that is located between the north-south segment of Brugger Road (future extension of Joss Avenue) and the West Community Park; and  Addition of a new Primary Street, P20, along the east edge of the powerline / trail corridor and between Primary Street P4 and NW Brugger Road.

This proposal is being processed as a legislative amendment because it entails amendments to the text of the Bethany Community Plan (in addition to amendments of several maps within the Bethany Community Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, and the Transportation System Plan). County Counsel staff have indicated that text amendments are generally required to be legislative.

Ordinance No. 790, an ordinance proposing an amendment to the alignment of a segment of Primary Street P2, is also based upon a request from West Hills. The Context Diagram prepared by West Hills illustrates the location of that request in relation to the amendments in and around the West Community Park that are proposed in this ordinance (Attachment A).

Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 789 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on July 15, 2014. A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in The Oregonian and Hillsboro Argus newspapers onAugust 1, 2014. Individual Notice 2014-10 describing proposed Ordinance No. 789 was mailed to 434 people on the General Notification List on August 6, 2014. A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 3 of 13

IV. ANALYSIS

Ordinance No. 789 amends maps in the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP), the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and the Bethany Community Plan, Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan. Map amendments include modification of the size and configuration of the West Community Park and removal, realignment and addition of Primary Streets in the vicinity of the West Community Park.

The ordinance also modifies text in Bethany Community Plan, Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan. Text amendments include changes for consistency with the map changes described above, descriptions of ultimate design intent for the West Community Park and wetland area west of the park, street frontage requirements for the park to accommodate vehicle parking, an east-west trail connection between NW Joss Avenue and the West Community Park, and a proposed new Primary Street and north-south pedestrian/bicycle accessway on the adjacent property to the east.

Wetland Information West Hills representatives have cited their anticipated difficulty in obtaining necessary state and federal permits for development of the wetland area to the west of the park as a primary reason for requesting the West Community Park reconfiguration and removal and realignment of planned road alignments in the park’s vicinity.

West Hills’ Context Diagram (Attachment A) shows the wetland’s location over three contiguous properties in the vicinity of the park: the Rutto property (Map 1N1 17B Tax Lot 500), the Miller property (Map 1N1 17B Tax Lot 600), and the Diegel property (Map 1N1 17B Tax Lot 400). The wetland limits shown are based on delineations by West Hills’ wetland consultant. The estimated size of the wetland, plus a 50-foot buffer around the wetland as required by Clean Water Services regulations, is 9.58 acres.

The wetland delineation for the Rutto property was approved by the Division of State Lands (DSL) on February 20, 2009; it expired in February 2014 but is currently being renewed as allowed by DSL. West Hills indicated that the field work for the wetland delineations of the Diegel and Miller properties was completed earlier this year, and the delineations are in the process of being submitted to DSL for review and approval.

The county’s North Bethany Local Wetland Inventory (LWI), approved by DSL in 2012, identified a wetland on these three properties in the same general location shown on West Hills’ Context Diagram. The LWI can be viewed on the county’s website at http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/PlanningProjects/Bethany/concept-planning-documents- and-maps.cfm. The LWI identified this wetland as jurisdictional, meaning that DSL and possibly federal approvals would be required for proposed development within the wetland limits. The LWI concluded that this wetland was not a significant Goal 5 wetland, so the wetland was not identified as Density Restricted Land or as a Significant Natural Resource on the North Bethany Subarea Plan maps. Staff concludes that sufficient information exists to Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 4 of 13

substantiate the presence of wetland on the three properties to the west of the West Community Park.

Staff believes there may be challenges to obtaining DSL approval for residential and road development within the wetland, based on phone conversations with DSL staff about the state’s permit requirements. DSL representatives have noted that if a project is compliant with the local comprehensive plan, DSL and the Corps of Engineers will consider the application. However, the applicant must show avoidance and minimization of impacts to all jurisdictional wetlands and waters, support the need for remaining impacts, and provide compensatory mitigation for proposed impacts. Usually mitigation must be completed within the same watershed as the development, so the resource functions and values are retained within the watershed.

The modifications to the West Community Park and nearby streets proposed in this ordinance appear to be warranted, based on the information noted above. Staff acknowledges that some uncertainty remains about the location of the Miller and Diegel properties’ wetland limits to the west of the reconfigured park, since DSL has not yet approved those delineations. There is the possibility that DSL could determine the wetland limits are located further east, potentially impacting the reconfigured park.

West Hills’ wetland consultant states that DSL’s determination is unlikely to differ from the submitted delineation. If DSL’s determination does differ, it is unlikely to differ by more than five feet from the West Hills delineation. That degree of difference would not impact the reconfigured West Community Park, because the west edge of the park is separated from the east edge of the delineated wetland by fifty feet of buffer to address Clean Water Services’ buffer requirements.

The wetland consultant notes that DSL review of wetland delineations can take between two to four months, so DSL’s decision on the wetland delineation for the Miller and Diegel properties is unlikely to be issued by the time the Board is anticipated to act on this ordinance.

Request for Density Restricted Land designation West Hills has requested that the wetland area identified on their Context Diagram be designated as Density Restricted Land on the North Bethany Subarea Plan’s Density Restricted Lands Map. Currently, the wetland area is not designated as Density Restricted Land, so the required minimum residential densities for the properties are based on their entire area, including any wetland portion. If the wetland area is not developable due to state or federal permitting requirements, minimum residential density for the properties would still have to be met by relocating some or all of the required density from the wetland onto the remainder of the properties. This would result in increased residential densities on the non-wetland portions of the properties, potentially requiring higher-density dwelling types and layouts.

There are issues that must be considered in determining whether application of a Density Restricted Land designation is appropriate for this wetland area. One issue is the fact that North Bethany’s Density Restricted Lands designation was intended to correspond with specific land Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 5 of 13

categories that are excluded from the Metro Functional Plan definition of ‘net acre.’ The Metro Functional Plan defines ‘net acre’ as an area measuring 43,560 square feet that excludes:  “Environmentally constrained areas, including any open water areas, floodplains, natural resource areas protected under statewide planning Goal 5 in the comprehensive plans of cities and counties in the region, slopes in excess of 25 percent and wetlands requiring a Federal fill and removal permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These excluded areas do not include lands for which the local zoning code provides a density bonus or other mechanism which allows the transfer of the allowable density or use to another area or to development elsewhere on the same site; and  All publicly-owned land designated for park and open spaces uses.” (emphasis added)

The wetland area shown on the Context Diagram does not appear to correspond to any of the above land categories. It is not identified as floodplains and/or natural resource areas protected under statewide planning Goal 5, and no information has been submitted to demonstrate that it requires a federal fill and removal permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Parks are a land category that also qualifies as Density Restricted Land in the North Bethany Subarea Plan. If this wetland were designated as a Park, it could also be designated as Density Restricted Land. THPRD, however, has expressed reservations about designating the wetland as a Park, because doing so would set up an expectation that THPRD would purchase that land. While THPRD has indicated an interest in including all or part of the wetland as part of the park, they aren’t able to commit to it at this time.

Another issue to consider is that most of the area for which West Hills is requesting a Density Restricted Land designation was planned for higher-density residential development (R-15 NB and R-24 NB) near the West Community Park. The assignment of a Density Restricted Land designation generally indicates that an area is not eligible for residential development.

If state and federal permitting requirements for the wetland’s development are so stringent that they preclude its development, applying a Density Restricted Lands designation may be justified. It should be recognized that applying such a designation to the entire wetland area identified by West Hills will reduce North Bethany’s unit total by approximately 120 to 152 units. However, even with this reduction, North Bethany’s minimum average net density will remain above 10 units per acre, and will remain in compliance with the density requirements set by Metro and within the density range requested by the Board during the North Bethany planning.

Staff does not recommend designating the wetland as Density Restricted Land at this time. There is insufficient information to conclude that the wetland corresponds with any of the wetland subcategories of Density Restricted Land. While Parks are a subcategory of Density Restricted Land, THPRD has expressed reservations about designating the wetland as a Park.

Transportation System Impacts West Hills submitted two Memorandums by Kittelson & Associates (Kittelson) to support their requests for modifications to the street system around the West Community Park. Kittelson Memorandum, dated August 8, 2014 (Attachment B), notes the following: Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 6 of 13

 Eliminating P1, P6, and P7 diminishes impacts to the wetland;  Realignment of P4 and P12 allows continuous east-west access through the site vicinity and eliminates impacts to the wetland;  Realignment of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail to all-stop controlled intersections eliminates mid-block crossings to provide a safe and efficient multi-modal crossing; (staff notes that the ultimate alignment of the trail may change and stop controlled intersections are not defined in the North Bethany Concept Plan or Transportation System Plan)  Realignment of the local street east of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor provides additional street frontage to designated park space;  The proposed modifications to shorten P11 and P12 eliminates pedestrian-vehicle conflicts along the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor;  The proposed modifications to primary street alignments provide 1,380 linear feet of park frontage, while the adopted plan assumes 1,130 linear feet of park frontage; and,  The proposed modifications do not alter the overall east-west and north-south roadway connectivity and forecasted vehicle volumes within North Bethany.

The Memorandum focused on the trade-offs associated with the elimination and/or modification of the primary street system around the West Community Park in relation to relevant Transportation Planning Rule and Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP) policies and strategies. The analyses, supporting information and conclusions of the August 8 memorandum was found to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule and Washington County TSP policies and strategies by the county’s Traffic Engineer and a Senior Transportation Planner in the Long Range Planning section.

Staff requested additional information regarding impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists as a result of removing P1, P6 and P7 for east-west connectivity. The Kittelson Memorandum, dated July 29, 2014, focuses on the elimination of P1 and the subsequent out-of-direction travel of pedestrians and bicyclists (Attachment C). That memorandum notes the following:

 Elimination of P1, P6 and P7 introduces marginal differences in out-of-direction travel distance (approximately +530’) and time for pedestrians (approximately +2’31”) and bicyclists (approximately +0’36”);  Both P4 and P19 are proposed to have adequate pedestrian and bicyclist facilities.

Staff believes that Policy 1.3 of the 2020 Transportation Plan, which calls for an interconnected transportation network that offers multi-modal travel choices and minimizes out-of-direction travel for all modes, is most relevant to this request. As the memorandums illustrate the proposed modifications do not significantly alter the overall east-west and north-south roadway connectivity. The Memorandums note that all primary streets will continue to uphold characteristics of neighborhood routes as currently shown on the TSP Functional Classification description and map. The August 8 memorandum found no effect on forecasted vehicle volume distribution within North Bethany on the major street system. The July 29 memorandum found Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 7 of 13

that although the elimination of P1, P6 and P7 does introduce some out-of-direction travel for pedestrians and bicyclists, the anticipated impact is marginal.

The analyses, supporting information and conclusions of both memorandums were reviewed by the county’s Traffic Engineer and a Senior Transportation Planner in the Long Range Planning section, and were found to be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule and Washington County TSP policies and strategies.

Pre-Filing Feedback from THPRD West Hills’ request for modification of the size and configuration of the North Bethany Subarea’s West Community Park, and removal, re-alignment and addition of Primary Streets in the vicinity of the West Community Park was discussed at the THPRD Board hearings on June 2 and June 16, 2014. In addition, THPRD’s Natural Resources Committee and Trails Committee discussed the request on June 10, 2014.

At the THPRD Board’s June 16th meeting, the Board issued a motion (Attachment D) to ask Washington County to file and approve an ordinance that would amend the North Bethany Subarea Plan to:

1) Show the active part of the West Community Park on the Park, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map with a minimum active area of 2.72 acres;

Staff Response: The map and text exhibits in the filed ordinance specify that the West Community Park shall be at least 2.7 acres in size. In addition, proposed text in new Area of Special Concern (ASC) 11 states the intent for some or all of the adjacent westerly jurisdictional wetland area to be added to the park as passive open space and to bring the park’s size up to a minimum of 5.5 to 6 acres.

2) Show a local street along the east edge of the powerline/trail corridor which is contiguous to the West Community Park;

Staff Response: The map and text exhibits in the filed ordinance propose a new primary street, Primary Street 20, to be located along the east edge of the powerline/trail corridor, immediately east of the West Community Park. (See the proposed Primary Streets Map in Exhibit 4, page 4 of the filed ordinance for the location of Primary Street P20.) THPRD requested the addition of a street in this location to provide on-street parking for the reconfigured West Community Park. In discussions with staff about this proposed street, the former THPRD Director of Planning stated that THPRD was willing to be responsible for construction of the western half-street improvement. Accordingly, proposed text in ASC 11 states that THPRD shall be responsible for construction of the western half-street improvement of P20 between Primary Streets P4 and P6. (Staff notes that Primary Street P20 is proposed to be a local street. Exhibit 2, Page 1 of the filed ordinance erroneously depicts P20 as a neighborhood route. This error will be corrected at engrossment.)

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 8 of 13

The placement of Primary Street P20 along the east edge of the powerline corridor removed a 50-foot wide strip of the R-15 North Bethany (NB) land use designation that parallels the powerline corridor, and the remaining width of R-15 NB designation is less than one lot deep. The intent of the R-15 NB designation along the powerline corridor was as a density step-down from the Park Blocks to the trail within the powerline corridor. Therefore, to maintain that step- down while accommodating Primary Street P20, the filed ordinance includes a change in designation (from R-9 NB and R-24 NB to R-15 NB) for a 50-foot wide strip immediately east of Primary Street P20. (See the proposed Land Use Designations Map in Exhibit 4, page 3 of the filed ordinance for an illustration of the area to be re-designated.)

3) Include text in the plan stating that THPRD will explore the feasibility of acquiring the wetland west of the community park and constructing trails/boardwalks through or around the wetland to improve neighborhood connectivity and allow public viewing of the wetland.

Staff Response: The proposed text in the filed ordinance (new ASC 11, and West Neighborhood Design Element 1) goes further than THPRD’s request for text “exploring feasibility of acquiring wetland west of the community park…” The proposed text additions in the filed ordinance state the expectation that all or a portion of the wetland will be added to the area of the West Community Park, to increase its size to a minimum of 5.5 to 6 acres. That size would keep the park close to its currently specified size in the North Bethany Subarea Plan. The proposed text further states that the addition of the wetland area to the West Community Park shall occur either prior to or as part of the development review process for the properties identified as Map 1N1 17B, Tax Lots 400 and 500. (West Hills has indicated that they own, or have an ownership option on, these two properties.)

Regarding trails and/or boardwalks, the filed ordinance includes proposed text stating that:  A trail providing an east-west connection between NW Joss Avenue to the West Community Park shall be provided;  The trail alignment may go through or around the wetland that is located on the west side of the West Community Park;  The trail may include boardwalk components.

Pre-Filing Feedback from Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 7 West Hills’ request was discussed at the CPO 7 steering committee on June 10, 2014, and CPO 7 issued a position paper on the request dated June 15, 2014 (Attachment E). The CPO 7 position paper lists several recommendations and some concerns, and these will be addressed separately below.

A. CPO 7 Recommendations

1) Add a boardwalk through the wetlands to connect pedestrians/bikes from NW Brugger (future NW Joss Avenue) to the Park Blocks and vice-versa.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 9 of 13

Staff Response: This item and Item #5 recommend a boardwalk and trails through and around the wetlands to provide a connection between the Park Blocks and NW Brugger Road (NW Joss Avenue), and an opportunity for views of the wetlands. Proposed text in the filed ordinance supports and promotes these recommendations. Text is proposed under West Neighborhood Design Element 2 that would require a trail providing an east-west connection between NW Joss Avenue to the West Community Park. The text states that the trail may go through or around the wetland, and may include boardwalk components. This text allows THPRD the flexibility to determine the specifics of the trail alignment and approach (boardwalk versus at-grade trail), in response to site conditions and state/federal permitting requirements for development in wetland areas.

2) Ensure that roads front the park space for safety and street parking.

Staff Response: Based on the proposed reconfiguration of the park, which will abut the powerline corridor on the east and a probable jurisdictional wetland on the west, the opportunity for road frontage is limited to the north and south sides of the park. Proposed text in West Neighborhood Design Element 1 states that the park shall have street frontage along its north and south sides that can accommodate on-street parking for park users, the streets fronting the park shall be designed to be no less than the minimum county standard for parking on two sides, and the front façades of residential buildings on these streets shall front the park. The application of ‘Special Frontages – Category A’ is proposed on the north and south sides of the park, per an amendment to the Special Frontages Map, which sets minimum façade articulation requirements for the facades facing the park.

Also, as noted earlier, proposed Primary Street 20 will front east edge of the powerline/trail corridor and will also provide on-street parking for the West Community Park.

3) Add a connecting trail to each street north and south of the park area.

Staff Response: As noted under Item #2 above, the filed ordinance requires road frontage along the north and south sides of the park. These required roads that front on the park will include sidewalks, and will connect to Primary Street P4 to the north and P6 (NW Brugger Road) to the south. The sidewalks will provide pedestrian connectivity between the park and the Primary Streets to the north and south of the park. There will also be a north-south trail within the powerline corridor adjacent to the West Community Park that will provide access to these Primary Streets.

4) Ensure street parking on NW Brugger (future NW Joss Avenue?)

Staff Response: This item requests that street parking on NW Brugger be ensured. It is not clear whether the position paper is referring to the east-west segment of NW Brugger Road to the south of the park, or the north-south segment of NW Brugger Road to the west of the park (future NW Joss Avenue).

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 10 of 13

The east-west segment of NW Brugger Road is designated as a neighborhood route. The North Bethany Subarea Plan’s street design cross section for neighborhood routes indicates that street parking is shared, meaning the outside travel lane is wide enough to accommodate bike travel and a parking area. The Plan’s description of the street design cross sections (Section IV.G) states that the cross sections are conceptual drawings, and that all street designs are subject to County Engineer approval. Staff does not believe the North Bethany Subarea Plan should add more specificity about the presence or absence of on-street parking along this specific segment of Brugger Road. Unless already specified in a community plan to address specific design issues, staff believes that on-street parking is a road operation decision that is better left for the County Engineer.

The north-south segment of NW Brugger Road (future NW Joss Avenue) is designated as a collector in the adopted 2020 Transportation Plan and North Bethany Subarea Plan of the Bethany Community Plan. The 2035 TSP proposes to change the designation of NW Joss Avenue to an interim collector that could potentially revert to a neighborhood route once Road A connection to 185th Avenue is completed. Until such time on-street parking would be prohibited north of NW Brugger Road.

5) Create a wetland loop trail

Staff Response: See staff response under Item #1.

6) Remove development units that edge the wetlands.

Staff Response: This ordinance is not approving a specific development plan or locations of development units, but rather is amending several Plan maps to reconfigure the park and modify the street network near the park. Any site layout shown on drawings is illustrative only. No specific locations for development units are proposed or are being approved as part of this ordinance.

B. CPO 7 Concerns:

1) The proposal may have a possible impact to the length of the Park Blocks.

Staff Response: The filed ordinance includes provisions to maintain a consistent pattern of north-south connectivity through the Park Blocks. The existing ASC 5 provisions require a minimum of four north-south streets intersecting the Park Blocks between the powerline trail corridor and Kaiser Road. To maintain a regular spacing of north-south streets and pedestrian/bicycle accessways along the Park Blocks, one of these north-south streets was going to need to bisect the central portion of the property that abuts the east side of the powerline trail corridor (the Turple property; Map 1N1 17B, Tax Lot 700).

The proposed Primary Street on the west edge of the Turple property represents a westward shift in the location of the north-south street, and interrupts the regular spacing of north-south streets Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 11 of 13

and pedestrian/bicycle accessways that have received development approval to the east of the Turple property. Therefore, the filed ordinance requires a north-south pedestrian/bicycle accessway that would bisect the central portion of the Turple property and continue the rhythm of approved north-south streets and accessways located east of the Turple property.

2) New street alignments break the planned traffic flow of the Park Block traffic on P11 and P12 if Primary Street P7 is removed.

Staff Response: While the elimination of P7 in the proposed modifications to the West Community Park and surrounding Primary Streets may affect the planned traffic flow from P11 and P12, there is still a connection through perpendicular local roadways. As stated in the August 8 memorandum (page 5) "The initial intent of P6 and P7 was founded in urban design principles, rather than for traffic operation or circulation optimization purposes. Per the NBCP, P6 and P7 were intended to provide the boundary of the West Community Park. As such, the proposed modifications do not alter overall street connectivity, and actually reduce the overall amount of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle conflicts and turning movements." Furthermore, P11 and P12 (the one-way couplet with the Park Blocks as the median) are anticipated to have low vehicular volume per the proposed cross section (attached). While the elimination of P7 will have an effect on the planned vehicular traffic flow, connection to the area west of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail is provided through the local perpendicular roadways that intersect P4 and P6 to the north and south, respectively. The Park Blocks and anchor parks to the east and west are provided to encourage multimodal circulation. In eliminating P7, no vehicular access is permitted to bisect the Waterhouse Powerline Trail thereby improving north-south pedestrian and bicycle circulation and limiting interactions with vehicles.

3) This proposal does not provide the planned 5.5 to 6 acres of active park space. There’s a need for county analysis of the impacts, pros and cons, and alternative ideas. Is it possible at all to get the larger park space?

Staff Response: Proposed text additions in the filed ordinance state the expectation that all or a portion of the adjacent wetland will be added to the area of the West Community Park, to increase its size to a minimum of 5.5 to 6 acres. The proposed text further states that the addition of the wetland area to the West Community Park shall occur either prior to or as part of the development review process for the properties identified as Map 1N1 17B, Tax Lots 400 and 500. (West Hills has indicated that they own, or have an ownership option on, these properties.)

Staff Conclusion This ordinance proposes to amend the configuration of the West Community Park and reduce its size, to remove the segments of Primary Streets P4, P6 and P7 that were planned to front the park, and to remove the segment of Primary Street P1 that provided a connection between NW Joss Avenue and the roads fronting the park.

Staff recognizes that these amendments represent a substantial change in the intended design and function of the West Community Park and its immediately surrounding transportation network. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 12 of 13

Per the currently adopted Plan text and maps, the park was intended to be a prominent element of the community. The street frontage around its entire perimeter served to enhance its prominence by directing vehicle circulation in the immediate area to pass by the park. The park’s size was intended to allow some active recreational uses. The east-west segment of Primary Street P1 lying between the park and NW Joss Avenue was intended to provide a direct connection between the park and the areas to the west of NW Joss Avenue.

This proposal represents a compromise that acknowledges the existence of the wetland to the west of the West Community Park and probable difficulties in obtaining state or federal approval for development of that wetland. The ordinance includes elements to restore some of the originally intended design and function of the park to the extent practicable. These include a requirement for street frontage on the north and south sides of the reconfigured park; a requirement for some or all wetland area to be added to the park as passive open space and restore the park to its originally planned size; and the requirement for a trail that provides an east-west connection between NW Joss Avenue and the West Community Park.

Memorandums submitted by Kittelson and Associates analyzed the impacts of the proposed modifications to the transportation system, and concluded that there would be no effect on forecasted vehicle volume distribution within North Bethany. Although the elimination of Primary Street segments of P1, P6 and P7 in the vicinity of the park introduces some out-of- direction travel for pedestrians and bicyclists, the anticipated impact is marginal.

Staff acknowledges that some uncertainty remains about the Miller and Diegel properties’ wetland limits to the west of the reconfigured park, since DSL has not yet approved those delineations. There is the possibility that DSL could determine the wetland limits are located further east, potentially impacting the reconfigured park. West Hills’ wetland consultant states that such an outcome is unlikely, and that if this were the case, the degree of difference would not likely impact the reconfigured West Community Park, because of the Clean Water Services’ buffer.

Based on all of the above information, staff is supportive of the proposed amendments.

Summary of Proposed Changes

Ordinance No. 789 proposes to amend the North Bethany Subarea maps in Policy 43 of the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP); the Functional Classification map of the Transportation System Plan (TSP); and text and maps in the Bethany Community Plan, Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan.

Key provisions of Ordinance No. 789 are:

 Modifies the size and configuration of the West Community Park.

 Removes, re-aligns and adds Primary Streets in the vicinity of the West Community Park. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 789 August 13, 2014 Page 13 of 13

 Adds a new Area of Special Concern (ASC) 11, which addresses the ultimate design intent for the West Community Park and the wetland area west of the park, and a proposed new Primary Street and north-south pedestrian/bicycle accessway to be located on the property immediately east of the West Community Park and Waterhouse powerline trail corridor.

 Adds language to the Neighborhood Design Elements (West Neighborhood) to describe street frontage requirements for the West Community Park to accommodate parking, and an east-west trail connection between NW Joss Avenue and the West Community Park.

 Modifies the locations of Community Service Uses to reflect the removal and re-alignment of Primary Streets in the vicinity of the West Community Park.

 Modifies the locations of Special Frontages along the north and south sides of the West Community Park to reflect the removal and re-alignment of Primary Streets in the vicinity.

 Changes the land use designation of a 50-foot strip of land immediately east of proposed new Primary Street P20 from R-9 NB and R-24 NB to R-15 NB.

 Replaces all references to ‘Joss Road’ with ‘NW Joss Avenue’ in the Bethany Community Plan.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\ORD789_NB_WCommPark\Staff_Reports\PC\Ord789_PC_SR_082014.doc

ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 8, 2014 Project #: 8908

To: Jinde Zhu and Andy Back Washington County DLUT

From: Marc Butorac, PE, PTOE and Anais Malinge Project: North Bethany Concept Plan Subject: Proposed Modifications to the West Community Park and Primary Streets

Based on new wetland information and development potential, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., on behalf of West Hills Development, is proposing modifications to the West Community Park and surrounding primary streets (P-1, P-4, P-6, P-7, P-11, P-12 and P-19) within the North Bethany Concept Plan (NBCP) area. These modifications will be pursued through a legislative amendment to the NBCP and Transportation System Plan as part of the Washington County 2014 Work Plan. Based on our review, we have found that the proposed modifications to the roadway system comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the strategies identified in the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP), meet the intent of the NBCP, and operate in accordance with Washington County standards. PROJECT BACKGROUND The North Bethany concept area is situated north of NW Springville Road, East of PCC Rock Creek and extends to approximately NW 145th Avenue in unincorporated Washington County, Oregon. This area was included into the urban growth boundary expansion in 2002 with County concept area planning efforts commencing in 2006. Previous planning efforts sought to plan a livable mixed-use community for approximately 4,000 dwelling units. These efforts included the planning of significant infrastructure elements including the roadway system. While the roadway system was planned as part of this effort; only minimal preliminary wetland reconnaissance and design engineering was conducted to determine feasibility. The result of this transportation planning effort is the North Bethany Concept Plan as adopted by ordinance No. 712-A (and subsequent ordinances 730-A and 739-A). Figure 1 depicts the primary road network as adopted. West Hills Development has begun designing its planned residential developments including the abutting transportation elements. During the course of the design phase, several jurisdictional wetlands have been discovered. The proposed modifications to the transportation system keep these wetlands mainly intact and provide refinements to maintain or enhance the transportation system compared to the original NBCP. The remainder of this memorandum discusses the proposed modifications to the adopted transportation system within the West Community Park area.

FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\8908 - NORTH BETHANY TIS REVIEW\MAY 2014 UPDATE\REPORT\DRAFT\8908_WEST COM PARK AMND_08082014.DOCX ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 4

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Three modifications are proposed to the West Community Park and surrounding primary streets, as follows:

• Reconfiguration of the West Community Park and Primary Street System;

• Realignment of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail at intersection crossings; and,

• Realignment of the local street network east of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor.

The proposed modifications to the North Bethany Concept Plan avoid impacts and preserve the jurisdictional wetlands and provide refinements to maintain or enhance the transportation system compared to the original NBCP. The adopted concept plan and proposed modifications to the West Community Park and to primary streets within the site vicinity are shown in Figure 3 and described in further detail herein.

Intent of the North Bethany Concept Plan Figure 1 depicts the primary road network, open space, and fixed parks as adopted in the North Bethany Concept Plan. Figure 2 shows the site vicinity of the proposed modifications. Per the NBCP and applicable in scale to the proposed modifications, the intent of the area is as follows:

The West Neighborhood includes one of the Subarea’s two community parks. It is specifically located at the western end of the Subarea’s ridge feature and is an integral element of the Park Block features. The park shall have street frontage along its entire perimeter, and the front façades of residential buildings on the streets shall front the park. The neighborhood’s highest density is clustered adjacent to the community park, with the density gradually decreasing from the community park toward the west. The West Neighborhood is organized by eight Primary Streets. The north-south Primary Streets are important neighborhood-to-neighborhood connections. The east-west Primary Streets are important for their clear and logical connection to the central ridge area. The proposed modifications do not alter the initial intent of the West Neighborhood as stipulated in the NBCP, as follows:

The West Community Park (park) is aligned as such that it continues to provide a west anchor to the park blocks. While the proposed modifications eliminate primary streets surrounding and bisecting the park, the park is delineated by the wetland to the west, local streets to the north and south, and the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor to the east. The proposed modifications do not alter the overall density surrounding the park.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 5

The initial intent of P-6 and P-7 was founded in urban design principles, rather than for traffic operation or circulation optimization purposes. Per the NBCP, P-6 and P-7 were intended to provide the boundary of the West Community Park. As such, the proposed modifications do not alter overall street connectivity, and actually reduce the overall amount of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle conflicts and turning movements.

Reconfiguration of the West Community Park and the Primary Street System As shown in Figure 3, the existing wetland and buffer comprise 9.58 acres within the site vicinity and is significantly impacted by the adopted NBCP layout of primary streets and the West Community Park. Primary Streets P-1, P-4, P-6, and P-7 represent 2,330 linear feet of roadway and 1.25 acres of wetland and buffer impacts, as adopted in the NBCP. In order to minimize significant impacts to the wetland while upholding the intent of the NBCP, it is recommended that these primary streets be eliminated and/or modified and the West Community Park be reconfigured as discussed below.

Elimination of P-1, P-6, and P-7 P-6 and P-7, as adopted in the NBCP, are north-south primary streets that provide street frontage to the West Community Park and connectivity between planned residential developments north and south of the park. P-1 was proposed as a gateway to the West Community Park and park blocks from the west side of the North Bethany area. As shown, P-1 and P-6 along with P-4 bisect the existing wetland and buffer area, and would thus have significant impact to the wetland. In addition, P-7 provides a parallel and repetitive north-south connection and separates the originally envisioned West Community Park from the Powerline Trail Corridor creating unnecessary pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. As such, it is recommended that these primary streets be eliminated and a non-intrusive, grid-network be created to avoid any impact to the wetland and minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

Realignment of P-4 and P-19 As a result of the recommended elimination of P-1, P-6, and P-7, it is further recommended that P-4 and P-19 be realigned to eliminate the horizontal curves and unnecessary intersection to the west of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor.

Modifications of P-11 and P-12 To accommodate the revised transportation network and eliminate additional pedestrian-vehicular conflicts along the Waterhouse Powerline Trail, it is recommended that P-11 and P-12 be terminated at the realigned local street adjacent to the east side of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 6

West Community Park Layout The adopted West Community Park layout encroaches in the existing wetland and buffer boundary. As such, it is recommended that the layout of the West Community Park be reconfigured to uphold the following characteristics:

Eliminate impact to wetland; Provide west park anchor by aligning with park blocks; Maintain or enhance the multimodal network in the vicinity of the park; and, Provide symmetry between residential development by physically dividing the north and south residential developments.

Realignment of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail at intersections In order to avoid mid-block pedestrian crossings along the Waterhouse Powerline Trail, it is recommended along with the reconfigurations of P-4 and P-19 that the trail be realigned to cross at the newly developed all-way stop-controlled intersections. As shown in Figure 3, the new park configuration will also eliminate trail crossings at P-11 and P-12, and provide enhanced crossing safety and efficiency at the P-4 and P-19 all-way stop-controlled intersections.

Realignment of the Local North-South Street east of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor Based on discussions with the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), it is recommended that the local street located approximately 100 feet east of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor be realigned adjacent to the corridor. The realignment provides additional street frontage along designated park space. The realignment supports the adopted roadway alignments to the north of P-4 with the provision of a horizontal curve with a design speed of 25 miles per hour (mph), per Washington County design radius standards. This realigned local street will provide an all-way stop- controlled intersection with P-19.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 8

VOLUME DISTRIBUTION The North Bethany Concept Plan area 2030 travel demand model output provided by Washington County analyzes arterial and collector streets. The 2030 travel demand model does not include nor assess neighborhood routes and local streets. The proposed modifications to the West Community Park and surrounding neighborhood routes do not affect arterial and collector roadways within the site vicinity. Furthermore, the modifications documented and summarized herein do not alter the overall east-west and north-south roadway connectivity within the North Bethany Concept Plan area. As such, the 2030 forecasted vehicle volumes per the Washington County travel demand model for North Bethany are not affected. The travel demand model run output per the Transportation System Plan with the North Bethany Concept Plan area is included in Appendix “A”.

POLICY COMPLIANCE This section provides findings regarding the modifications to the West Community Park and surrounding primary streets (P-1, P-4, P-6, P-7, P-11, P-12 and P-19) within the North Bethany Concept Plan (NBCP) and how they comply with the Washington County 2020 Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 600-012-0060).

Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Per discussions with Washington County staff, the following policies and strategies from the Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan were determined to be relevant to the proposed modifications. The relevant policies and strategies are provided below in italics with our responses shown in standard font.

Policy 1.0 Travel Needs Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to provide a multi-modal transportation system that accommodates the diverse travel needs of Washington County residents and businesses.

Strategy 1.1: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that supports the land uses delineated in the County’s and other applicable comprehensive plans, minimizes reliance on any single travel mode, and makes progress toward achieving mode share targets identified in Strategy 5.3 of this Plan.

Response: The proposed modifications maintain and enhance the multi-modal transportation system by providing safe multi-use crossings along the Waterhouse Powerline Trail and more efficient vehicular access along P-4 and P-19. The removal of the curvilinear streets also reduces the overall number of required turning movements to travel north-south and east-west in the vicinity of the West Community Park and the number of conflict points for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 9

Policy 3.0 Built and Natural Environment Impacts Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to avoid, limit and/or mitigate adverse impacts to the built and natural environment that are associated with the transportation system and its improvement, operation and maintenance.

Strategy 3.1: Ensure that the Transportation Plan is consistent with statewide planning goals and federal, state and regional requirements, and supports land uses in applicable comprehensive plans.

Response: The proposed modifications prevent adverse impacts to the existing wetland under the current West Community Park and primary street configurations. Thus, the proposed modifications preserve and enhance the natural environment and are consistent with statewide planning rules and federal, state and regional requirements.

Strategy 3.5: Address potential impacts of long-distance trips on neighborhoods or communities by 1) ensuring that the major elements of the transportation system are designed to adequately accommodate these trips and 2) designing and managing local systems to accommodate local trips and to discourage long-distance trips.

Response: As described in previous sections, the proposed modifications do not deviate from the intent of the North Bethany Community Plan, thus addressing and managing potential impacts of long- distance trips on neighborhoods and communities. The modification also do not facilitate additional trips into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Strategy 3.6: Provide flexibility at the plan and project development levels to respond to location specific considerations, consistent with environmental, community and transportation system objectives and safety.

Response: The recommended modifications to the West Community Park and surrounding primary streets (P-1, P-4, P-6, P-7, P-11, P-12 and P-19) are consistent with Strategy 3.6 as further research and analysis shows that the modifications respond to location specific wetland considerations and thereby enhance environmental, community, and transportation objectives and safety.

Policy 5.0 System Implementation and Plan Management Policy: It Is the policy of Washington County to efficiently implement the Transportation Plan and to efficiently manage the transportation system.

Strategy 5.1: Provide a transportation system that accommodates travel demand consistent with applicable performance standards for all modes of travel, recognizing a need to minimize or mitigate impacts on existing neighborhoods.

Response: P-6 and P-7, as adopted in the NBCP, are north-south primary streets that provide street frontage to the West Community Park and connectivity between planned residential developments north and south of the park. P-1 was proposed as a gateway to the West Community Park and park

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 10 blocks from the west side of the North Bethany area. As shown, P-1 and P-6 along with P-4 bisect the existing wetland and buffer area, and would thus have significant impact to the wetland. In addition, P- 7 provides a parallel and repetitive north-south connection and separates the originally envisioned West Community Park from the Powerline Trail Corridor creating unnecessary pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. As such, it is recommended that these primary streets be eliminated and a non-intrusive, grid- network be created to avoid any impact to the wetland and minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

The recommended street network can continue to accommodate the forecasted transportation demands and will enhance the overall safety by reducing the number of turning movements and conflict points in the vicinity of the West Community Park.

Policy 6.0 Roadway System Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to ensure that the roadway system is designed in a manner that accommodates the diverse travel needs of all users of the transportation system.

Strategy 6.1: Provide a roadway system necessary to support travel demand associated with anticipated future development of land uses identified in the County’s Comprehensive Plan at or better than the standards identified in Table 5 and consistent with policies identified in this plan.

Response: The recommended street network can continue to accommodate the diverse needs of all users and modes and will enhance the overall safety by reducing the number of turning movements and conflict points in the vicinity of the West Community Park.

Strategy 6.2: Design and implement a roadway system with characteristics necessary to encourage and support non-auto travel and not negatively impact neighborhoods.

Strategy 6.4: Implement the roadway system in a manner that enhances accessibility by all modes by developing projects necessary to address access deficiencies.

Response: The proposed modifications do not introduce access deficiencies. The initial intent of P-6 and P-7 was founded in urban design principles, rather than for traffic operation or circulation optimization purposes. The anticipated volume along both of these primary streets is anticipated to be minimal as they are designated as local streets. With the deletion of P-6 and P-7, east-west connectivity is enhanced by eliminating turning movements, and no additional traffic along P-4 and P-19 is anticipated.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 11

Identify and assess structural barriers for transportation disadvantaged populations in the current transportation system, and address these through a comprehensive program.

Response: The proposed modifications enhance non-auto travel by reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and realigning the trail to cross at intersections along the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor, rendering the crossings more safe and efficient for users. In addition, users can access the park and wetland area from the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor trail without crossing any roadways. All roadways and trail alignments will meet ADA regulations.

Strategy 6.6: Design and manage the transportation system to minimize excessive traffic volumes and speeds on Neighborhood Routes and Local streets, while maintaining adequate neighborhood access.

Response: The proposed modifications do not introduce additional traffic volumes. The initial intent of P-6 and P-7 was founded in urban design principles, rather than for traffic operation or circulation optimization purposes. The anticipated volume along both of these primary streets is anticipated to be minimal as they are designated as local streets. With the deletion of P-6 and P-7, east-west connectivity is enhanced by eliminating turning movements, and no additional traffic along P-4 and P-19 is anticipated. The recommended all-way stop control intersection will improve trail crossings and indirectly minimize speeds.

Policy 8.0 Roadway Safety Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to provide a roadway system that is safe for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Strategy 8.3: Ensure adequate access and mobility for emergency service vehicles throughout the system.

Response: The more traditional grid network created by the recommend street modifications will maintain and actually enhance emergency service vehicle accessibility and mobility by removing the number of turning movements and conflicts in the vicinity of the West Community Park.

Policy 10.0 Functional Classification Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to ensure the roadway system is designed and operates efficiently through use of a roadway functional classification system.

Strategy 10.1: Apply the Washington County roadway system functional classification system described below and illustrated in the Functional Classification System Map (See Figures 4a-f).

Response: The recommended primary street modifications will result in modifications to the functional classification system map; however, these modifications will continue to meet the intent of the NBCP as well as the Washington County Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060).

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 12

Policy 14.0 Pedestrian Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage and support greater pedestrian activity in the County by providing and maintaining an environment where walking is a safe, convenient and pleasant mode of travel.

Strategy 14.1: Foster a safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian environment by providing for the development of a well designed, efficient and interconnected system of pedestrian facilities consisting primarily of sidewalks on the street system but utilizing separate accessways for pedestrians and bicycles when street connections are impractical or unavailable.

Response: The proposed modifications enhance non-auto travel by reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and realigning the trail to cross at all-way stop controlled intersections along the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor, rendering the crossings more safe and efficient for users.

Strategy 14.5: Require that new urban development provide for safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian travel as provided through the Transportation Plan, the Community Plans and/or the Community Development Code.

Response: The proposed modifications enhance non-auto travel by reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and realigning the trail to cross at intersections along the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor, rendering the crossings more safe and efficient for users. In addition, pedestrians can access the park and wetland area from the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor trail without crossing any roadways.

Policy 15.0 Bicycle Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to encourage and support greater bicycling activity in Washington County by providing an environment in which bicycling is a safe and convenient mode of travel.

Strategy 15.4: Provide for safe and convenient bicycle travel through an interconnected street network. When such a street network is impracticable or inappropriate to construct, shared accessways for pedestrians and bicycles shall provide the necessary connections.

Response: The proposed modifications uphold and enhance bicycle connectivity by reducing vehicular and bicycle conflicts and realigning the trail to cross at intersections along the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor, rendering the crossings more safe and efficient for users. In addition, bicyclists can access the park and wetland area from the Waterhouse Powerline Corridor trail without crossing any roadways.

Policy 19.0 Transportation Planning Coordination and Public Involvement Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to coordinate its transportation planning with local, regional, state and federal agencies and to provide opportunities for citizens to participate in planning processes.

Strategy 19.13: Review all plan amendment requests for consistency with the applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule as set forth in OAR 660-12-060.

Response: See response section below for the “Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)”

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 13

Policy 22.0 Plan Monitoring Policy: It Is the policy of Washington County to periodically review the transportation plan to ensure that, considering available resources, implementation actions are consistent with and advancing plan policies, achieving satisfactory transportation and land use benefits, and are resulting in adequate progress toward achieving mode share targets.

Strategy 22.3: Provide for amendments and administrative adjustments to the Transportation Plan that include the following:

Legislative Amendments: Those changes which involve the creation, broad scale implementation or revision public policy, including large scale map changes where a significant number of property owners are directly affected, may be processed as legislative plan amendments, including public hearings, as provided for in the Community Development Code. These include but are not limited to the Functional Classification Map and descriptions, Bicycle System Map (excluding alignment modifications to off-street pathways), plan policies, modifications to the general location of facilities identified in the plan, selection of the general location of a facility in a Corridor Study Area and deletion of proposed facilities identified in the plan. Response: The proposed modifications and removal of several primary streets will require a functional classification map change showing the recommended roadway modifications in the vicinity of the West Community Park. The Bicycle and Pedestrian system will all require changes; however, all these changes are consistent with the Washington County Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule.

Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) The proposed modifications to the West Community Park and surrounding primary streets (P-1, P-4, P- 6, P-7, P-11, P-12 and P-19) require a Comprehensive Plan amendment that addresses, among other policies, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-12-0060, also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR sets forth the criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments. Table 1 summarizes the criteria in Section 660-012-0060 and their applicability to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Table 1: Summary of Criteria in OAR 660-012-0060

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 14

7 Outlines requirements for a local street plan, access management plan, or future street plan. No 8 Defines a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood No 9 Indicates that there is not a significant affect if the proposed zoning is consistent with existing plans No 10 Defines a multi-modal mixed-use area (MMA) and the requirements that support it. No 11 Encourages establishment of traded-sector jobs No

As noted in Table 1, there are 11 criteria that apply to Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. Of these, only Criterion 1 is applicable to this proposed action. This criterion is provided below in italics with our response shown in standard font.

1. If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. i. Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; ii. Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or iii. Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment results in no change to the planned functional classification of transportation facilities in the vicinity of the West Community Park; thus, the changes do not result in traffic levels that change or degrade the performance of the existing or future transportation system as documented herein. As such, this provision of the TPR can be met.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Plan 8908 August 8, 2014 Page 15

CONCLUSIONS This memorandum documents the proposed modifications to the West Community Park and primary streets within the North Bethany Concept Plan area’s roadway network. A summary of the findings are provided below:

The adopted North Bethany Concept Plan has unavoidable impacts to existing wetland in the West Community Park site vicinity; Reconfiguration of the West Community Park eliminates wetland impact and preserves the NBCP vision of a west park anchor; Eliminating P-1,P-6, and P-7 diminishes impacts to the wetland; Realignment of P-4 and P-12 allows continuous east-west access through the site vicinity and eliminates impacts to the wetland; Realignment of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail to all-stop controlled intersections eliminates mid-block crossings to provide a safe and efficient multi-modal crossing; Realignment of the local street east of the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor provides additional street frontage to designated park space; The proposed modifications to shorten P-11 and P-12 eliminates pedestrian-vehicle conflicts along the Waterhouse Powerline Trail Corridor; and, The proposed modifications to primary street alignments provide 1,380 linear feet of park frontage, while the adopted plan assumes 1,130 linear feet of park frontage. Based on the above findings, the proposed modifications to the North Bethany roadway network are imperative to avoid significant impacts to the existing wetland and will maintain or enhance the surrounding transportation system, and will uphold the overall intent of the North Bethany Concept Plan. Furthermore, the modifications comply with the Washington County Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule.

We trust this memorandum provides the necessary documentation of the proposed roadway network modifications to support an amendment to the adopted North Bethany Concept Plan. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact us at (503)228-5230.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B

Appendix A 2030 TSP Travel Demand Model Run Output

ATTACHMENT B

205

121

3 4 5 0 2 1 2 1

7 36 1 33 15 1

2 0

1 4

6 1

3 6 3 4 1 3 1

1444

3 7

6 7 0

835 1

1210

9 8 115 5

214

904 plan1.ver north 2030 bethany 1:13460

228 779 8

4 5 551

9 9

594 3 6

4 8 5 5

2 2

9 3

5 8 4 6

4 4 6 1

2 4

9 1 2

5 4

8 2 2

22 4 5

1 2

2 94 8 5 5 6

1 5

2 8

1 5

8 3

2 3 5

5 8

4 6

55 94

7 5

7 8 2

9 4

7 1

2 7

3 5

3 3

5 6

1 1 2 7

8 7

4 5

49 33

2 38

1 21

2 283

80 81 6 9 01 3 2

9 2 2

1 1

153 20

2 2

153 7 6

6 1 2

8 9 1 5 5 5

2 2030 -Vehicles BethanyPM1 TSP

1 9 5

2 1 2030 TSP with North Bethany TSP 2030 with 1 1-hr TotalPM Vehicles

9 46

5 1

2 6 1 1 4 6

4 0 0

6 2 2 0 5 5 5 7

5 0

1 0 1

8 5

9 5

1 5 5 1 5 2 9

6 0 5

2 1

1 5

9 1 2

3 5 9 6 9

2 3

1 0

1 5 5 9 1 4

0 5

0 0 5 3 3

7 1

1781

5 500 7 0 7 4 8 3 1

0 9 3

9 0 3

2 8

390 858

2 1 9

4 5

5 4

1 North Bethany UGB Study UGB North Bethany Steve L Kelley ATTACHMENT C

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 29, 2014 Project #: 8908.3

To: Jinde Zhu and Andy Back Washington County DLUT

From: Anais Malinge, Marc Butorac, P.E., P.T.O.E. Project: North Bethany Concept Plan Subject: Supplemental Analysis for Elimination of P-1

This memorandum provides further analysis as it relates to the elimination of Primary Street 1 (P-1); thereby, addressing a comment received by the Washington County DLUT on July 14, 2014 (Attachment “A”). The qualitative and quantitative analysis provided herein supplements the analysis documented in our June 18, 2014 Memorandum (Proposed Modifications to the West Community Park and Primary Streets) and further supports the legislative amendment to the North Bethany Concept Plan (NBCP) and the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP).

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN COMPLIANCE Per discussions with Washington County staff, the following TSP policies and strategies are relevant to the elimination of P-1 and the subsequent out-of-direction travel of pedestrians and bicyclists. The relevant policies and strategies are provided below in italics, with our supplemental response in standard font.

Policy 5.0 System Implementation and Plan Management Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to efficiently implement the Transportation Plan and to efficiently manage the transportation system.

Strategy 14.1: Foster a safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian environment by providing for the development of a well-designed, efficient and interconnected system of pedestrian facilities

FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\8908 - NORTH BETHANY TIS REVIEW\MAY 2014 UPDATE\REPORT\DRAFT\SUPP MEMO_P1\8908_P1 MEMO_FINAL.DOCX ATTACHMENT C North Bethany Concept Plan 8908.3 July 29, 2014 Page 2

consisting primarily of sidewalks on the street system but utilizing separate accessways for pedestrians and bicycles when street connections are impractical or unavailable.

Response: As shown in Figure 1, the proposed modifications to the West Community Park, specifically the elimination of P-1, within the North Bethany Concept Plan (NBCP) and the Transportation System Plan (TSP), introduces potential out-of-direction travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. Washington County has not adopted a prescribed methodology to measure pedestrian and bicyclist level-of-service; however, the impact of the elimination of P-1 can be quantitatively estimated by applying standard pedestrian and bicyclist traveling speeds to the estimated linear feet of out-of-direction travel.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) applies a walking speed of 3.5 feet/second to determine the time needed to allocate for pedestrian clearance time at signalized intersections (Reference 1). The California MUTCD applies a cycling speed of 14.7 feet/second to determine the time needed for cyclists to clear the last conflicting lane at a signalized intersection (i.e., bicycle signal clearing time) (Reference 2). Based on these standard walking and cycling speeds, we can estimate the out-of-direction travel time introduced with the elimination of P-1 to reach the West anchor park.

As shown in Figure 1, without the elimination of P-1, pedestrians and cyclists bisect the wetland to reach either P-4 or P-6 to access the park. Alternatively, with the elimination of P-1, pedestrians and cyclists must travel east along P-19 or P-4. Table 1 details the different paths for both pedestrians and bicyclists with and without the elimination of P-1, as illustrated in Figure 1, and the associated pedestrian and bicyclist estimated travel times. The average out-of-direction travel associated with the difference in distance translates to approximately two minutes thirty seconds in pedestrian travel time and less than one minute in out-of-direction cycling time.1

1 The following calculation was used to estimate pedestrian and bicyclist out-of-direction travel time:

= ÷

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT C North Bethany Concept Plan 8908.3 July 29, 2014 Page 3

Table 1 Estimated Travel Time Estimate With and Without P-1

Estimated Travel Time

Path Distance (Feet) Pedestrian (3.5 feet/sec) Bicyclist (14.7 feet/sec)

With P-1

A-C-D-B 1,400 6'40'' 1'35''

A-C-E-B 1,300 6'11'' 1'28''

Without P-1

A-F-G-B 1,950 9'17'' 2'13''

A-C-E-B 1,950 9'17'' 2'13''

A-F-D-B 1,700 8’06” 1’56”

A-C-D-B 1,925 9’10” 2’11”

Average Out-of-Direction Travel Time

+530 feet +2'31'' +0'36''

While potential out-of-direction travel is introduced with the elimination of P-1, the existing wetland renders the construction “impracticable [and] inappropriate”. Per the NBCP, the proposed cross section of P-19 provides a 6-foot sidewalk separated from the roadway with a 4- to 7-foot planter strip. Similarly, the east-west connections are also classified as neighborhood routes, thereby providing a shared bicycle facility and separate sidewalks. To this end, the proposed pedestrian and bicycle route assuming the elimination of P-1 supports Strategies 14.1 and 15.4 by providing a safe and convenient network.

CONCLUSION The elimination of Primary Street 1 (P-1) as shown in the adopted North Bethany Concept Plan diminishes impacts to the wetland and preserves pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity in the area, as documented herein. The elimination of P-1 introduces marginal differences in out-of-direction travel time for pedestrians and bicyclists; however, additional routes are proposed with adequate pedestrian and bicyclist facilities. As such, the elimination of P-1 upholds the intent of the NBCP and complies with relevant policies within the 2020 Washington County Transportation System Plan.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C North Bethany Concept Plan 8908.3 July 29, 2014 Page 5

REFERENCES 1. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Section 4E.06. 2009. 2. State of California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2010.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT C

Anais Malinge

From: Marc Butorac Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:13 AM To: Mike Robinson; Mike Peebles; Mr Dan Grimberg; Anais Malinge Subject: Fwd: West Community Park - additional information requested

FYI - we will address this today

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Suzanne Savin Date: July 14, 2014 at 9:19:36 AM PDT To: Marc Butorac Cc: Dan Grimberg Subject: West Community Park - additional information requested Hello Marc,

I received the comment below from Transportation Planner Dyami Valentine. Could you provide information addressing this specific remaining issue?

You do not need to update the previously submitted traffic study Memorandum document to provide this information. Instead, you may submit an addendum to the Memorandum that addresses this specific issue. We would like to receive this this additional information by 7/31/14, so that it's in our records prior to the completion of staff's report for the Planning Commission hearing.

Thanks very much, and please contact me if you have any questions.

- Suzanne Savin

Suzanne Savin Senior Planner, Long Range Planning

Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation Planning & Development Services Division 155 N. First Avenue, 350-14 Hillsboro, OR 97124

(503) 846-3963 [email protected]

From: Dyami Valentine Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:31 PM To: Suzanne Savin Subject: West Community Park PA Hi Suzanne,

1 ATTACHMENT C The only remaining concern I have, which WH/Kittleson did not adequately address, is the potential out- of-direction travel for bike/ped as a result of removing P1. They focus on the improved north-south connectivity and reduced conflicts, but don't discuss the east-west movements and have not identified an adequate alternative. Otherwise, their analysis and response to TSP/TPR findings are acceptable.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Dyami Valentine Senior Planner | Planning and Development Services Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation 155 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 350 MS14 Hillsboro, OR 97124 503.846.3821 [email protected]

2 Attachment D

Discussion occurred regarding Jerry’s concern relating to the removal of the fixed park. The board reiterated that the desire is not to remove the parkland itself, but rather to remove the requirement for a park in that location. The board determined, and district staff agreed, that adding the term “fixed park designation” to the motion would accomplish this.

Larry Pelatt expressed appreciation for West Hills’ efforts in presenting the new proposal as reviewed this evening. He also appreciates the opportunity being granted by the county to comment, although he questions what effect it will have on the end result. Ultimately, he is disappointed that the high-level view he was so involved in through the North Bethany Subarea planning process does not look as good as the street-level view.

Jerry Jones Jr. moved that the board of directors ask Washington County to file and approve ordinances that would amend the North Bethany Subarea Plan so as to: a. Add text explaining that the trail crossing of Kaiser Road south of Brugger Road shown on the Park, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map may be at-grade or under the road, allowing for realignment to a crossing at the Brugger/Kaiser intersection only if neither of these options is determined to be feasible and safe by THPRD and the county engineer; b. Remove the fixed park designation shown along the south side of Primary Street P2 (Rosetta Street) on the Park, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map from the map but include text stating that locations shall be provided along the trail for users to stop and observe the stream corridor to the south; c. Show the active part of the West Community Park on the Park, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map with a minimum active area of 2.72 acres; d. Show a local street along the east edge of the powerline/trail corridor which is contiguous to the West Community Park; e. Include text in the plan stating that THPRD will explore the feasibility of acquiring the wetland west of the community park and constructing trails/boardwalks through or around the wetland to improve neighborhood connectivity and allow public viewing of the wetland; and direct the general manager to have district staff work with county staff and other interested parties through the ordinance adoption process to attain district objectives. Bob Scott seconded the motion.

Larry asked for clarification regarding whether half-street improvements will be required for the street running parallel to a portion of the powerline corridor next to the West Community Park as reflected in the proposed amendments.  Hal confirmed this, noting that this on-street parking would act as the parking for the West Community Park. In addition, the streets surrounding the park blocks will also require half- street improvements funded by the district. Larry asked if half-street improvements would have been required with the original configuration of the street circling the active use portion of the West Community Park.  Hal replied that those would have been full-street improvements required from the district as the street is surrounded by parkland on both sides. Joe asked for confirmation that the reason the street was located along the powerline corridor was in order to provide some level of parking for the site.  Hal confirmed this, noting that whether any additional parking will be required will depend on how the site is programmed, but that it is possible that additional parking will be needed.

Page 12 - Minutes: Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, June 16, 2014 Attachment D

Roll call proceeded as follows: John Griffiths Yes Larry Pelatt No Bob Scott Yes Jerry Jones Jr. Yes Joe Blowers Yes The motion PASSED by MAJORITY vote.

Agenda Item #9 – Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

Joe Blowers, President Bob Scott, Secretary

Recording Secretary, Jessica Collins

Page 13 - Minutes: Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, June 16, 2014

Washington County Citizen Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7) Sunset West/Rock Creek/Bethany Box 173, 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2 Portland, OR 97229

June 15, 2014

Dear THPRD Board of Directors:

Thank you for waiting for more information and input from advisory groups and community members before you made your recommendation in support or not for West Hill’s proposals to change the Bethany Community Plan park space at the designated West Community Park and the P2 Rosetta Street Realignment.

Summary of our discussion with West Hills, Washington County and THPRD on 6/10/12:

1) It is critical to ensure the intent of the plan is preserved – ATTACHMENT a. West Community Park was designed to be just that – a community park from 5 ½ to 6 acres of active space, with public view to the parks, street parking frontage. Current THPRD Community Parks have playgrounds, areas for concerts, sports fields, and areas to connect people, parks and nature. The intent here is no different. Power lines are areas for trails, not community parks. b. Rosetta Street is part of the P2 alignment to create a ‘school to school’ route within the community and is to have over ½ acre of park space in the linear park designed for community open space and views to the natural settings. 2) West Hills, THPRD and CPO 7 agreed on multiple possible solutions, however, due to the need for more information and incredible tight timeline–

we we’re unable to come to an agreement on any one direction. Thus, CPO 7 strongly encourages the THPRD Board of Directors to not take any E ‘position’ at this time, but continue to work with us, the County and West Hills as this request moves on to Engrossment and we learn more details, and discover the pros/cons of the possible solutions to make possible changes to the ordinance through the ordinance engrossment process.

Washington County Citizen Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7) Sunset West/Rock Creek/Bethany Box 173, 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2 Portland, OR 97229

1) West Community Park • NEW PROPOSAL: reduce amount of development and have 2.59 acres of community park space (reduction of ~150 units does not impact Metro’s density requirements) • POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS to make this proposal better for the Community: o Add a boardwalk through the ‘wetlands’ to connect peds/bikes from Brugger to Park Blocks and vice-versa o Ensure roads front this area for safety and street parking o Add a connecting trail to each street at north and south of park area o Ensure street parking on Brugger o Create a Wetland loop trail o Remove development units that edge the wetlands • CONCERN: o This proposal still does not provide the planned 5 ½ -6 acres of active park space or even the minimum 2.72 acres outside of wetlands • FACTS: o The 2006 THPRD standard for a Community Park is 10-25 acres. o Per the BCP, pg. 86, Design Elements in the West Neighborhood: The West Neighborhood includes one of the Subareas's two community parks. It is specifically located at the western end of the Subarea's ridge feature and is an integral element of the Park Block features. The community park shall be located at the west end of the Park Blocks and shall be five and half (5 1/2) to six (6) acres in size. The park shall have street frontage along its entire perimeter, and the front facades of residential buildings on the streets shall front the park. The streets...have been intentionally located to preserve views into the floodplain/natural resource area at part of the public realm. • OPENS LEFT TO ADDRESS: o May have a possible impact to the required length of park blocks ATTACHMENT o New street alignments break the planned traffic flow of the park block traffic on P11 and P12 if P7 is removed. o Need County analysis of impacts, pros, and cons and alternative ideas. Is it possible at all – to get the larger park space? • RECOMMENDATION: o Before providing any ‘position’ on this proposal: THPRD investigate to see if there are any possibilities to meet the Design Elements of the original Ordinance – e.g. 5 ½ to 6 acre park Washington County ensures the traffic flows provide the planned flow of traffic to/from the Community Park E Ensure the final result meets the intended purpose defined and agreed to by ALL the stakeholders to create a vibrant neighborhood for future generations to have easy access to a place to meet their friends, relax, enjoy the outdoors, and have a place to make memories.

Washington County Citizen Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7) Sunset West/Rock Creek/Bethany Box 173, 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2 Portland, OR 97229

2) Rosetta Street Realignment (southwest of Kaiser & south of Brugger) • NEW PROPOSAL: Grade the trail to allow for ADA trail access and cross Kaiser directly to P2 with a refuge in the center to ensure trail has no diversions. • POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS to make this proposal better for the Community: o Road and trail can go ‘under’ Kaiser to preserve ‘school to school’ connection and provide a direct trail to trail connection o Traffic circle can be used to connect trails and connection to P2 across Kaiser (not need the Rt. In and Rt. Out requirement from County Engineers) o Ensure the ‘school to school’ route is retained within the community regardless of solution o Ensure the linear park preserves places to stop along path for picnics, etc. and has viewpoints into natural areas. o Since this trail crossing is less than 300 feet away from another road, mid-block crossings are not allowed per Washington County code. Ensure any language in the ordinance requires the crossing be direct – either above or under the road. In addition, the THPRD Advisory Committees unanimously agreed that an open under-road crossing was best. • CONCERN o The removal of Rosetta Street adds more load to Brugger Road and breaks the ‘school to school’ route designed in the plan. Rosetta Street was on the plan for a reason. • OPENS LEFT TO ADDRESS: o Removing P2 route will increase flow of traffic from P15 onto Springville vs. allowing for neighborhood routes o County needs to identify impacts to P4 and Road A (all other roads that may encounter this issue) o County to ensure P2 East of Kaiser does not get obstructed with possible water resource o Right In, Right Out requirements on routes needed for neighborhood routes – breaks the route. County to provide analysis for other options – i.e. roundabouts. ATTACHMENT o Ensure the ‘school to school’ route is retained o County to consider trade-offs holistically to the plan – include possible impacts to traffic flows, planned open parks, roads, increase in housing units, etc. • RECOMMENDATION: Before providing any position on this proposal: • Ensure the final result meets the intended purpose defined in the Bethany Community Plan to create functional linear parks E for neighbors to stop and enjoy the natural views as they picnic, throw a Frisbee or ball in the park and kids/parents have functioning neighborhood routes between schools.

Washington County Citizen Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7) Sunset West/Rock Creek/Bethany Box 173, 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2 Portland, OR 97229

County must either preserve the school to school neighborhood route via the suggested line in red or retain P2 connection in Blue.

ATTACHMENT E

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 2 of 10

On May 14, 2014, West Hills representatives and the Director of Planning for Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) met with Long Range Planning staff to discuss West Hills’ request. West Hills indicated that their request for realignment of Primary Street P2 included the following two components:

1) The removal of the Fixed Park on the property at Map 1N1 17CA, Tax Lot 600 (the Maletis Site); and 2) A re-routing of the east-west trail on the Maletis Site, to bring the trail north along the west side of Kaiser Road and locate the trail’s crossing of Kaiser Road at the NW Brugger Road / Kaiser Road intersection.

West Hills indicated that Item #1, removal of the Fixed Park on the Maletis Site, was being proposed based on their earlier discussions with THPRD. The THPRD Director of Planning concurred that the park district desired removal of the Fixed Park on this site.

Long Range Planning staff and the THPRD Director of Planning both expressed reservations about Item #2, the proposed trail re-alignment.

However, on June 18, 2014, West Hills amended the request to limit its scope to the realignment of Primary Street P2 only, and dropped their requests for removal of the Fixed Park on the Maletis Site and re-routing of the east-west trail. Since a proposal for removal of the Fixed Park was no longer supported by West Hills, and because Long Range Planning staff believe the Fixed Park is still appropriate and the best use adjacent to the creek corridor and the trail, staff opted not to include proposed amendments for removal of the Fixed Park in the filed ordinance exhibits.

This proposal is being processed as a legislative amendment because it entails amendments to the text of the Bethany Community Plan, Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan (in addition to amendments of several maps within the Bethany Community Plan, the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, and the Transportation System Plan). County Counsel staff have indicated that text amendments are generally required to be legislative.

Ordinance No. 789, an ordinance proposing amendments to the West Community Park and the streets in its vicinity, is also based upon a request from West Hills. The Context Diagram prepared by West Hills illustrates the location of that request in relation to the location of the Primary Street P2 alignment proposed in this ordinance (Attachment A).

Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 790 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on July 15, 2014. A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in The Oregonian and Hillsboro Argus newspapers on August 1, 2014. Individual Notice 2014-11 describing proposed Ordinance No. 790 was mailed to 434 people on the General Notification List on August 6, 2014. A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 3 of 10

IV. ANALYSIS

Ordinance No. 790 amends maps in the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP), the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and the Bethany Community Plan, Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan to realign a segment of Primary Street P2 (located between Primary Street P15 and NW Kaiser Road) to intersect with NW Brugger Road rather than NW Kaiser Road.

The ordinance also modifies the Special Frontages category along a segment of the trail west of NW Kaiser Road that parallels Bethany Creek, to reflect the realignment of Primary Street P2 away from the linear park and trail. The segment of Primary Street P2 proposed to be realigned is currently designated as Special Frontages ‘Category A’ which is specific to streets that are adjacent to parks. With the realignment of Primary Street P2 away from the park and trail, Special Frontages ‘Category C’ is the proposed replacement in the same location, as it applies to buildings on lots adjacent to trails.

In addition, the ordinance adds clarifying language to the Neighborhood Design Elements (Central Neighborhood) and Areas of Special Concern (ASCs) 7 and 9 to reflect the realignment of a segment of Primary Street P2.

Transportation System Impacts West Hills submitted two Memorandums by Kittelson & Associates (Kittelson) to support their request for the Primary Street P2 realignment. The first Memorandum, dated June 18, 2014 (Attachment B), notes that the proposed elimination of the westerly P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection will address access spacing and left-turn movement conflicts along NW Kaiser Road, and geometric / topography conditions at the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection.

Regarding the access spacing issue, the Memorandum notes the following:

 The 200-foot spacing between the NW Brugger Road / NW Kaiser Road intersection and the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection does not accommodate the anticipated transitional curves and northbound and southbound left-turn bay storage lengths along this segment of NW Kaiser Road.  Northbound vehicle queues at the future signalized NW Brugger Road / NW Kaiser Road intersection are anticipated to occur, based on future traffic volumes along NW Kaiser Road and at that intersection.  As a result, the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection 200 feet south may experience vehicle queue spillback from the northerly traffic signal, which at a minimum would disrupt the ability of southbound vehicles on NW Kaiser Road that are intending to head east on Primary Street P2 to enter the left-turn lane.  Increasing the access spacing between the two intersections would address the above concerns, but there are environmentally sensitive areas to the south of the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection (Bethany Creek and jurisdictional wetland) that are barriers to increasing the access spacing.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 4 of 10

Regarding geometric/topographic conditions at the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection, the Memorandum notes the following:

 There is currently a ten percent (10 %) grade along NW Kaiser Road in the vicinity of the planned P2 intersection.  In order to accommodate an intersection at the proposed location, a flat or nearly flat landing would need to be provided.  Providing this landing would further increase the slope of NW Kaiser Road to twelve percent (12 %) between Bethany Creek and NW Brugger Road, as provision of the landing will result in less space to accommodate the elevation difference between the creek and NW Brugger Road.  This 12 % grade would then transition to the landing’s grade of five percent (5 %). However, per roadway design principles, it is preferable to avoid locating intersections close to steep grades with vertical crests due to sight distance concerns.

For the above reasons, the Memorandum recommends re-routing Primary Street P2 to intersect with NW Brugger Road, and includes an operational analysis to determine the impacts of the proposed re-route. The county evaluates roadway performance based on the volume to capacity ratios (V/C). Table 5 of the 2020 Transportation System Plan (TSP) sets forth the applicable performance criteria for plan amendment requests. The operational analysis evaluated future year 2030 traffic conditions with and without the P2 intersection at NW Kaiser Road, under two scenarios: with the Road A connection to NW 185th Avenue, and without the Road A connection to NW 185th Avenue. The traffic analysis indicates that with the proposed plan amendment and realignment of P2 the intersection of NW Brugger Road and NW Kaiser Road will function with V/C ratios of 0.36 (Level of Service [LOS] C) and 0.45 (LOS C), with and without the Road A extension, respectively, in the PM Peak Hour in year 2030.

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operational conditions of a particular transportation facility or service based on the perception of users, and sometimes supported by quantitative measures. Motor vehicle LOS describes roadway operating conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom of maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety. A letter score of 'A' through 'F' is assigned based on these conditions. For motor vehicle LOS, the scores represent the following conditions on a roadway: A. Virtually free flow; completely unimpeded B. Stable flow with delays; less freedom to maneuever C. Stable flow with delays; less freedom to maneuver D. High density but stable flow E. Operating conditions at or near capacity; unstable flow F. Forced flow, breakdown conditions

The county’s performance measures identify a V/C ratio of 0.99 (LOS E) as the minimum acceptable threshold. Therefore, the transportation system impacts associated with the proposed plan amendment will comply with the adopted performance criteria found in the 2020 TSP. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 5 of 10

Policy 1.3 of the 2020 TSP calls for an interconnected transportation network that offers multi- modal travel choices and minimizes out-of-direction travel for all modes. It is anticipated that out-of-direction travel and traffic volume redistribution to the NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection will occur with the proposed realignment of P2. The Kittleson Memorandum concludes that the elimination of the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection will result in an additional 65 vehicles in the PM peak period utilizing NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection in the year 2030. Kittelson concludes and staff concurs that the additional vehicles entering the NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection will have no significant effect on the intersection performance and will remain at a LOS of C under all scenarios in 2030. The Memorandum advocates for a future bicycle and pedestrian under-crossing and suggests that it would mitigate impacts to users of the system most sensitive to out-of-direction travel. The ordinance includes proposed text that specifies the trail crossing will be a mid-block crossing or under-crossing, which will maintain the currently planned east-west connectivity for these alternative modes.

The Memorandum also notes that all primary streets will continue to uphold characteristics of neighborhood routes as currently shown on the 2020 TSP Functional Classification description and map.

The second Memorandum, dated August 8, 2014 (Attachment C), evaluated the potential impacts on the primary street system due to out-of-direction travel time introduced through the realignment of P2. Kittelson found that the realignment of P2 did cause an associated 675 feet of out-of-direction travel for vehicles destined to areas south and east of the NW Kaiser Road/NW Springville Road intersection. However, the total travel time is shorter (19.3 seconds outbound, and 10.9 seconds inbound) along the realigned P2 to NW Brugger Road route than that associated with a reroute to P15 and NW Springville Road. To this end, a shift in anticipated travel patterns is not expected, specifically along P15.

The Memorandum’s analysis, supporting information and conclusions were reviewed by the county’s Traffic Engineer and a Senior Transportation Planner in the Long Range Planning section, and were found to be acceptable.

Pre-Filing Feedback from THPRD West Hills’ request for the re-route of Primary Street P2 was discussed at the THPRD Board hearings on June 2 and June 16, 2014. In addition, THPRD’s Natural Resources Committee and Trails Committee discussed the request on June 10, 2014. At the THPRD Board’s June 16th meeting, the Board issued a motion (Attachment D) to ask Washington County to file and approve an ordinance that would amend the North Bethany Subarea Plan to:

1) Add text explaining that the trail crossing of NW Kaiser Road south of NW Brugger Road shown on the Park, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map may be at-grade or under the road, allowing for realignment to a crossing at the NW Brugger / NW Kaiser intersection only if neither of these options is determined to be feasible and safe by THPRD and the county engineer;

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 6 of 10

Staff Response: The filed ordinance adds new language to Area of Special Concern (ASC) 7 to state that the trail is proposed to cross NW Kaiser Road as a mid-block crossing or an undercrossing. However, the filed ordinance does not include THPRD’s proposed language about allowing the trail realignment to cross at the NW Brugger / NW Kaiser intersection if a mid- block crossing is not feasible and safe. Staff’s assessment is that an alternative trail crossing location would require a Plan Amendment to specifically examine the issues and impacts associated with an alternative trail crossing location, including impacts to the properties on the east side of NW Kaiser Road.

A trail under-crossing option is anticipated to be more costly than an at-grade, mid-block crossing option. If an under-crossing option is chosen, the county would expect THPRD to contribute to the construction costs. Therefore, proposed text in ASC 7 states that THPRD would be responsible for contributing to the construction costs associated with a trail undercrossing.

2) Remove the fixed park designation shown along the south side of Primary Street P2 (Rosetta Street) on the Park, Trails and Pedestrian Connections Map from the map, but include text stating that locations shall be provided along the trail for users to stop and observe the stream corridor to the south.

Staff Response: This request exceeds the scope of park removal originally included in West Hills’ request, which was limited to the removal of the Fixed Park on the Maletis Site. The request would remove all linear park area from the north side of Bethany Creek on the west side of NW Kaiser Road, which would include not only the Maletis Site but two additional properties to the west of that site.

On June 18, 2014, West Hills amended their request to limit its scope to the realignment of Primary Street P2 only, with no removal of designated Fixed Park on the Maletis Site or adjacent sites. Long Range Planning staff opted not to include amendments for the removal of Fixed Park area west of NW Kaiser Road in the filed ordinance, because staff believe the park is still appropriate and the best use adjacent to the creek corridor and the trail.

The filed ordinance does, however, include an additional amendment to the North Bethany Subarea Plan’s ASC 7 that was requested by the THPRD Director of Planning. That amendment is the deletion of a requirement to provide separate trail lighting where the trail is farther than 50 feet away from the adjacent street right-of-way, since THPRD as a practice does not provide lighting along their trails.

Pre-Filing Feedback from Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 7 West Hills’ request was discussed at the CPO 7 steering committee on June 10, 2014, and CPO 7 issued a position paper on the request dated June 15, 2014 (Attachment E). This position paper covers several issues, and these will be addressed separately below.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 7 of 10

A. Proposed P2 Realignment The position paper made the following points about the proposed P2 realignment:

1) The removal of the P2 segment extending to NW Kaiser adds more traffic load to NW Brugger Road, and breaks the “school to school” route designed in the plan.

2) The “school to school” route must be retained, and solutions to retain this route that should be analyzed include a full road under-crossing for P2 beneath NW Kaiser Road, and a traffic circle or roundabout at the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection.

Staff Response: It is anticipated that out-of-direction travel and traffic volume redistribution to the NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection will occur with the proposed realignment of P2. The Kittleson Memorandum concludes that the elimination of the P2 / NW Kaiser Road intersection will result in an additional 65 vehicles in the PM peak period utilizing NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection in the year 2030. The additional vehicles entering the NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection are insignificant as a result of the realignment and the intersection performance remains at an LOS of C under all scenarios in 2030.

The position paper indicates that the intent and purpose of Primary Street P2 is to provide a “school to school” connection (connection between the Springville K-8 school in Arbor Oaks and a future K-5 elementary school on a site in the northeastern portion of the subarea, owned by Beaverton School District). However, this intent is not reflected in the adopted Plan language. Neither Ordinance No. 712 (2009) nor Ordinance No. 730 (2010) noted a “school to school” connecting function for Primary Street P2. Since 2010, the Plan has described P2’s intent as “…an important east-west connection between the Arbor Oaks Subarea and the North Bethany Subarea.” (North Bethany Subarea Plan, Central Neighborhood Design Element 4.a)

Staff is unaware of any situation where a specific road has been planned based on potential trips from one specific land use to another.

3) Removing Primary Street P2’s intersection with NW Kaiser Road will increase the flow of traffic from Primary Street P15 onto NW Springville Road, versus allowing for neighborhood routes.

Staff Response: Staff requested clarification from the CPO 7 Chair on how the CPO saw the realignment of Primary Street P2 impacting the traffic flow on Primary Street P15. The Chair stated that this item summarized some points that were discussed at the CPO 7 steering committee, and reflects a more general concern with how the re-alignment of Primary Street P2 will affect the traffic loads of other streets in the plan area. Kittelson found that the realignment of P2 did cause an associated 675 feet of out-of-direction travel for vehicles destined to areas south and east of the NW Kaiser Road / NW Springville Road intersection. However, the total travel time is shorter (19.3 seconds outbound, and 10.9 seconds inbound) along the realigned P2 to NW Brugger Road route than that associated with a reroute to P15 and NW Springville Road. To this end, a shift in anticipated travel patterns is not expected, specifically along P15. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 8 of 10

B. Trail Crossing The position paper made the following point about the east-west trail crossing at Kaiser Road:

1) Ensure any language in the ordinance requires the crossing to be direct (above or under the road).

Staff Response: The filed ordinance includes proposed new language in Area of Special Concern (ASC) 7 stating that the trail is proposed to cross NW Kaiser Road as a mid-block crossing or under-crossing.

C. Operating Restrictions on Other Streets The position paper expressed concern about the potential for other intersecting streets in North Bethany to have operational restrictions imposed upon them due to close access spacing. On that topic, the position paper noted the following:

1) The county needs to identify impacts to Primary Street P4 and Road A (and all other roads that may encounter this issue). 2) The imposition of right-in/right-out requirements for neighborhood route intersections result in “breaking” those routes. The county should provide an analysis for other options, i.e., roundabouts.

Staff Response: It is possible that other Primary Street intersections may have operating restrictions imposed upon them to ensure their safe operation. This possibility exists because at the time the North Bethany street network was adopted, the detailed design engineering and comprehensive review of topographic conditions specific to each road was not completed. Because of this, Ordinance Nos. 712 and 730 included caveat language for the Road A and NW Springville Road corridors. An example of the caveat language is this excerpt from ASC Road Corridor 1A (Road A: NW Springville Road to NW Kaiser Road): “…Unless review at the land development stage indicates corner vision (CDC 418-3) or sight distance issues (CDC Section 501-8.5F), access to this section of Road A from Primary Streets shown on the Primary Streets Map and non-Primary Streets shown on the Neighborhood Plan Maps shall be allowed. Turn restrictions at these allowed accesses may be required as part of the land development review process.”

There is insufficient information at this time for the county to make operational decisions about other streets in the North Bethany Subarea Plan. Those decisions depend on variables such as sight distance, speed of existing traffic, total traffic volumes, turning movements, and roadway drainage, which are not known at the present time. Operational decisions to address safety issues are based on the conditions that exist at the time of development, so operational decisions about specific streets and street intersections are more appropriately made at the current planning stage. Under any circumstance, staff believes that planned streets will function as per their classification in the Transportation System Plan.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 9 of 10

Staff Conclusion Ordinance No. 790 proposes a modification of the segment of Primary Street P2 located between Primary Street P15 and NW Kaiser Road in the North Bethany Subarea of the Bethany Community Plan. The proposed modification is eliminating the westerly Primary Street P2 / Kaiser Road intersection, and re-routing Primary Street P2 to the north to intersect with NW Brugger Road.

West Hills Development has submitted two Memorandums by Kittelson & Associates to support the proposal for the Primary Street P2 realignment. The Memorandums include operational analyses to determine the impacts of the proposed re-route. The re-route will result in approximately 675 feet of out-of-direction auto traffic for vehicles destined to areas south and east of the NW Kaiser Road / NW Springville Road intersection. However, the total travel time is shorter (19.3 seconds outbound, and 10.9 seconds inbound) along the realigned P2 to NW Brugger Road route than the travel time associated with a reroute to P15 and NW Springville Road. To this end, a shift in anticipated travel patterns is not expected, specifically along P15. The Memorandums also find that the additional vehicles entering the NW Brugger and NW Kaiser Road intersection will have no significant effect on the intersection performance, which will remain at an LOS of C under all scenarios in 2030.

The Memorandums conclude that the transportation system impacts associated with the proposed amendment will comply with the adopted performance criteria found in the 2020 Transportation System Plan (TSP), and that all primary streets will continue to uphold characteristics of neighborhood routes as currently shown on the TSP Functional Classification description and map. The Memorandums’ analyses, supporting information and conclusions were reviewed by the county’s Traffic Engineer and Long Range Planning staff in the Transportation section and were found to be acceptable.

In addition, staff notes that this proposal maintains the adopted NW Kaiser Road crossing location of the pedestrian/bicycle trail that parallels Bethany Creek on the west side of NW Kaiser Road. The ordinance includes proposed text that specifies the trail crossing will be a mid- block crossing or under-crossing, which will maintain the currently planned east-west connectivity for these alternative modes. Therefore, staff concludes that the proposed modification to the Primary Street P2 alignment will result in a transportation system that will continue to comply with the intent of the North Bethany Subarea Plan, and staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 790 to the Board.

Summary of Proposed Changes

Ordinance No. 790 proposes to amend the North Bethany Subarea maps in Policy 43 of the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (CFP); the Functional Classification map of the Transportation System Plan (TSP); and text and maps in the Bethany Community Plan, Chapter 2: North Bethany Subarea Plan.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 790 August 13, 2014 Page 10 of 10

Key provisions of Ordinance No. 790 are:

 Realigning a segment of Primary Street P2 (located between Primary Street P15 and NW Kaiser Road) to intersect with NW Brugger Road rather than NW Kaiser Road.  Modifying the Special Frontages requirement along a segment of the trail paralleling Bethany Creek to reflect the realignment of Primary Street P2 away from the trail.  Adding clarifying language to the Neighborhood Design Elements (Central Neighborhood) and Areas of Special Concern (ASCs) 7 and 9 to reflect the realignment of a segment of Primary Street P2.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\ORD790_NB_P2\Staff_Reports\PC\Ord790_PC_SR_082014.doc

ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 2

• Incorporate community design features and focal points that are connected to one another, to adjacent points of interest, and to neighborhoods via multi-modal access routes. Further, the site vicinity is within the Central Neighborhood, per the NBCP, which identifies the a primary design feature as the main street (i.e., NW Kaiser Road between NW Springville Road and NW Brugger Road) and the associated physical gateways. West Hills Development has begun designing its planned residential developments including the abutting transportation elements in southwest quadrant of the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection. During the course of the design phase, difficult topography conditions and characteristics of the area have been considered. The proposed modifications to the transportation system provides a more feasible and safe multi-modal connection to NW Kaiser Road and removes the closely spaced intersection created by P-2. The remainder of this memorandum discusses the proposed modifications to the adopted transportation system as they relate to the realignment of P-2 and the regional trail pedestrian undercrossing.

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The Primary Street (P-2) and Regional Trail alignment modifications include the following:

• Eliminate the westerly P-2/Kaiser Road intersection;

• Reroute P-2 north to intersect with NW Brugger Road; and,

• Provide a pedestrian undercrossing for the proposed regional trail approximately 200 feet south of the planned signalized NW Kaiser Road/NW Brugger Road intersection.

The proposed modifications to the transportation system provide a more feasible and safe multi-modal connection to NW Kaiser Road. The adopted concept plan and proposed modifications to the Primary Street P-2 alignment and Regional Trail pedestrian undercrossing are shown in Figure 3 and described in further detail herein.

Eliminate the Westerly P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection As adopted through the NBCP, P-2 provides an east-west road connection between Rosetta Avenue in the Arbor Oaks subdivision to NW Kaiser Road. As shown in Figure 1, the adopted alignment intersects with NW Kaiser Road approximately 200 feet south of the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection. The elimination of the westerly P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection is proposed to address the following considerations:

• Access spacing and left-turn movement conflicts along NW Kaiser Road; and

• Geometric/topography conditions at the P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection.

A description of these considerations is provided herein.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 6

Access Spacing Along NW Kaiser Road As seen in Figure 3, the access spacing between the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road and P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersections is approximately 200 feet. Per the Washington County 2020 Transportation System Plan, NW Kaiser Road is classified as an arterial for which standard access spacing is 600 feet (Reference 1). The following should be considered:

1. The 200-foot spacing between the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road and P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersections does not accommodate the anticipated transitional curves and respective northbound and southbound left-turn bay storage lengths.

2. Northbound queues at the future signalized NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection are anticipated to be present based on future volumes along NW Kaiser Road and at the intersection. As such, an intersection 200 feet downstream may experience queue spillback from the upstream signal which at a minimum would disrupt the ability of southbound vehicles destined east on P-2 to enter the left-turn lane.

While increasing the access spacing between the two intersections would address these concerns, there are environmentally sensitive areas to the south of the P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection. Rock Creek and jurisdictional wetlands are located to the south of the intersection acting as natural barriers.

Geometric/Topography Conditions at the P-2/NW Kaiser Road Intersection There is currently a ten percent (10%) grade along NW Kaiser Road in the vicinity of the planned P-2 intersection. In order to accommodate an intersection at the proposed location, a flat or near flat landing will need to be provided. Providing this landing will further increase the slope of the roadway between Rock Creek and NW Brugger Road as there will be less space to accommodate the elevation change.

As shown in Figure 4, a 12% grade is required between the P-2 alignment and NW Brugger Road. This 12% grade will then transition to the landing’s grade of 5%. Per roadway design principles, it’s preferable to avoid locating intersections close to steep grades with vertical crests due to sight distance concerns.

Reroute P-2 North to Intersect With NW Brugger Road To uphold east-west connectivity between Rosetta Avenue and NW Kaiser Road, P-2 is recommended to be rerouted to the north and west of the Maletis property to intersect with NW Brugger Road, as shown in Figure 3. The following section documents an operational analysis to determine the potential level of impact on this new intersection and the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 7

The operational analysis evaluates two scenarios under year 2030 future conditions based on future funding allocation, as follows:

1. With the Road “A” connection to NW 185th Avenue 2. Without the Road “A” connection to NW 185th Avenue

Future Year 2030 Traffic Conditions The following section documents the 2030 traffic conditions, including an operational sensitivity analysis with and without the P-2 alignment at NW Kaiser Road.

2030 Volume Development The Washington County 2030 Travel Demand Model for the North Bethany area (model) was used to determine volumes for the weekday PM peak period. The model includes the Road “A” and NW Brugger Road intersections. In order to analyze intersections along the NW Kaiser Road corridor, a volume distribution based on known planned developments was assumed for intersections located along NW Kaiser Road between Road “A” and NW Springville Road. Furthermore, the model assumes a three-legged intersection at NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road with no east leg; thus, it was assumed that the west leg represents half the volume of the east leg. The 2030 turning movement volumes for the Road “A”/NW Kaiser Road and NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersections are shown in Figure 5. The volume distribution along the NW Kaiser Road corridor intersections, assuming both Road “A” scenarios, is shown in Figure 6.

Appendix “A” includes the 2030 travel demand model forecast volumes for the North Bethany area.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 11

Level-of-Service Analysis The NW Kaiser Road corridor was analyzed using Synchro 7 with and without the P-2 alignment at NW Kaiser Road. The Road “A”/NW Kaiser Road and NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersections were modeled as signalized intersections with a left-turn only lane and shared through-right lane on each approach. The remaining four intersections were modeled as full movement, single lane approaches with the minor street stop controlled. The following two scenarios were evaluated:

1. Road “A” extends to NW 185th Avenue by year 2030. 2. Road “A” does not extend to NW 185th Avenue by year 2030. Without this connection, additional assumed for NW 185th Avenue or NW Germantown Road will be routed to NW Kaiser Road. As shown in Figure 7, all intersections along the NW Kaiser Road corridor continue to operate within Washington County operating thresholds. To evaluate a “worst-case” scenario, all traffic routed through the P-2 alignment was re-routed to the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the 2030 traffic operations with and without the P-2 alignment under the two Road “A” scenarios. Appendix “B” includes the Synchro level-of-service worksheets.

Table 1 2030 Traffic Conditions With Road “A” Extension to NW 185th Avenue

With P-2 Alignment Without P-2 Alignment

Intersection V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS

Road "A"/NW Kaiser Road 0.47 25.2 C 0.47 24.8 C

P-4/NW Kaiser Road 0.12 23.9 C 0.12 23.9 C

P-11/NW Kaiser Road 0.04 15.5 C 0.04 15.5 C

P-12/NW Kaiser Road 0.02 14.1 B 0.02 14.1 B

P-2/NW Brugger Road NA NA NA 0.05 10.6 B

NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road 0.36 24 C 0.37 23.8 C

P-2/NW Kaiser Road 0.17 23.9 C NA NA NA

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 12

Table 2 2030 Traffic Conditions Without Road “A” Extension to NW 185th Avenue

With P-2 Alignment Without P-2 Alignment

Intersection V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS

Road "A"/NW Kaiser Road 0.55 26.6 C 0.55 26.1 C

P-4/NW Kaiser Road 0.17 37.4 E 0.17 37.4 E

P-11/NW Kaiser Road 0.04 17.3 C 0.04 17.3 C

P-12/NW Kaiser Road 0.03 15.5 C 0.03 15.5 C p-2/NW Brugger Road NA NA NA 0.06 11.7 B

NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road 0.45 20.8 C 0.47 21 C

P-2/NW Kaiser Road 0.32 35.5 E NA NA NA

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 14

Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis A left-turn lane warrant analysis was completed per the Harmelink procedure to determine if a dedicated westbound lane would be warranted with the re-routing of P-2 at the P-2/NW Brugger Road intersection. Based on this analysis, it was determined that a dedicated westbound left-turn lane is not warranted under either scenario in year 2030. Appendix “C” includes the left-turn lane warrant worksheets.

Regional Trail Pedestrian Undercrossing As shown in Figure 3, West Hills Development is proposing that the regional trail remain at its adopted alignment at NW Kaiser Road approximately 200 feet south of NW Brugger Road. The recommended alternative is a pedestrian undercrossing at the alignment; however, an at-grade mid-block pedestrian crossing could potentially be considered pending a final feasibility and safety assessment by the County and the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD). Figure 8 shows the proposed alignment of the trail undercrossing, and Figure 9 shows a perspective of the undercrossing under NW Kaiser Road. The following two issues were considered:

1. Safety benefits to pedestrian/bicyclist undercrossing; and, 2. Out-of-direction travel for pedestrians/bicyclists.

Safety Benefits The Washington County Approval Process for New Pedestrian Crossings at Mid-Block Locations and Uncontrolled Intersections provides guidance to determine the feasibility of mid-block crossing locations (Reference 2). Per the guidance, “ideally, pedestrian and trail crossings would occur at road intersections having traffic signals so that road crossings could be made safely with minimal additional improvements”. However, considering out-of-direction travel discussed below, realignment of the regional trail at the signalized intersection is not ideal. The following section documents the safety concerns associated with an at-grade, mid-block crossing at the adopted P-2 alignment, including grade, speed, and sight distance.

Speed and Sight Distance NW Kaiser Road is classified as an arterial street within Washington County and currently does not have a posted speed limit; therefore, it is subject to the Oregon Basic Rule of 55 miles per hour (mph) for unposted roads. This requires 550 feet of sight distance in each direction in accordance with Washington County Code Section 501-8.5.F(4). As shown in Exhibit 1, the mid-block trail crossing is located approximately 200 feet south of a horizontal curve thus not accommodating 550 feet of stopping sight distance. It should be noted that the curvature of the roadway and posted speed will be adjusted through future development actions; however, the posted speed will likely remain at 35 miles- per-hour or greater requiring at least 350 feet of sight distance.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 15

Exhibit 1 Sight Distance along NW Kaiser Road at Mid-Block Trail Alignment Facing North

Source: Google Maps

Grade As shown in Figure 4, there is currently a ten percent (10%) grade along NW Kaiser Road in the vicinity of the planned P-2 intersection and Regional Trail alignment. In order to accommodate an intersection at the proposed location, a flat or near flat landing will need to be provided. Providing this landing will further increase the slope of the roadway between Rock Creek and NW Brugger Road as there will be less space to accommodate the elevation change. Increasing the slope would further increase speeds along NW Kaiser Road requiring additional stopping sight distance to maintain a safe crossing.

Out-of-Direction Travel The recommended pedestrian undercrossing trail alignment avoids out-of-direction travel for pedestrians which would otherwise be introduced through a trail realignment to the future signalized NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection. However, existing topography conditions, notably the high grade differential, and safety concerns introduce difficulties for an at-grade crossing, thus justifying the trail undercrossing.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 18

POLICY COMPLIANCE This section provides findings regarding the proposed modifications to Primary Street 2 (P-2) and the parallel regional trail within the North Bethany Concept Plan (NBCP) compliance with the Washington County 2020 Transportation System Plan and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 600-012- 0060).

Washington County 2020 Transportation System Plan Per discussions with Washington County staff, the following policies and strategies from the Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan were determined to be relevant to the proposed modifications. The relevant policies and strategies are provided below in italics with our responses shown in standard font.

Response: As discussed previously, the proposed modifications enhance the multi-modal transportation system by reducing pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with vehicles via the recommended multi-use trail undercrossing and moving vehicular turning movements to the future signalized NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection.

Strategy 3.1: Ensure that the Transportation Plan is consistent with statewide planning goals and federal, state and regional requirements, and supports land uses in applicable comprehensive plans.

Response: The proposed P-2 realignment increases open space through the removal of the westerly approach to NW Kaiser Road and does not alter the overall housing density. The recommended realignment and undercrossing reduce impacts to the built and natural environment and are consistent with statewide planning rules and federal, state and regional requirements.

Strategy 3.5: Address potential impacts of long-distance trips on neighborhoods or communities by 1) ensuring that the major elements of the transportation system are designed to adequately

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 19

accommodate these trips and 2) designing and managing local systems to accommodate local trips and to discourage long-distance trips.

Response: The recommended P-2 realignment and undercrossing are consistent with Strategy 3.6 as further research and analysis shows that the modifications respond to location specific considerations (i.e., topography, access spacing, etc.) and thereby enhance environmental, community, and transportation objectives and safety.

Response: As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the proposed P-2 realignment marginally affects vehicular operations and continues to meet applicable standards. The proposed trail undercrossing enhances pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and subsequently eliminates potential vehicle delay associated with pedestrian/bicyclist and vehicular conflicts.

Strategy 6.2: Design and implement a roadway system with characteristics necessary to encourage and support non-auto travel and not negatively impact neighborhoods.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 20

Response: The proposed modifications enhance non-auto travel by recommending an undercrossing at the NW Kaiser Road intersection, rendering the crossing more safe and efficient for recreational users.

Strategy 6.4: Implement the roadway system in a manner that enhances accessibility by all modes by developing projects necessary to address access deficiencies.

Strategy 6.5: Implement the roadway system to provide access to choices for transportation disadvantaged people, including youth, elderly and disabled. Provide barrier free roadways and other transportation facilities that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Identify and assess structural barriers for transportation disadvantaged populations in the current transportation system, and address these through a comprehensive program.

Strategy 6.6: Design and manage the transportation system to minimize excessive traffic volumes and speeds on Neighborhood Routes and Local streets, while maintaining adequate neighborhood access.

Response: Based on the Washington County travel demand model and future lands uses to the east of NW Kaiser Road, minimal traffic volume is anticipated along Primary Streets P-2, P-10, and P-4. The anticipated volume redistributed to the P-10/P-4 intersection with the realignment of P-2 is approximately 50 vehicles in the weekday a.m. peak period and 65 in the weekday p.m. peak period. To this end, the elimination of the P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection will have minimal impact to P-10 and P-4.

Policy 8.0 Roadway Safety Policy: It is the policy of Washington County to provide a roadway system that is safe for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Strategy 8.3: Ensure adequate access and mobility for emergency service vehicles throughout the system.

Response: The realignment of P-2 does not diminish access and mobility for emergency service vehicles.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 21

Strategy 10.1: Apply the Washington County roadway system functional classification system described below and illustrated in the Functional Classification System Map (See Figures 4a-f).

Response: Based on the Washington County travel demand model and future lands uses to the east of NW Kaiser Road, minimal traffic volume is anticipated along P-2, P-10, and P-4. The anticipated volume redistributed to the P-10/P-4 intersection with the realignment of P-2 is approximately 50 vehicles in the AM peak period and 65 in the PM peak period. To this end, the elimination of the P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection will have minimal impact to P-10 and P-4. As such, all primary streets will continue to uphold characteristics of a neighborhood route as stipulated in the Functional Classification description and System Map.

Strategy 14.1: Foster a safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian environment by providing for the development of a well-designed, efficient and interconnected system of pedestrian facilities consisting primarily of sidewalks on the street system but utilizing separate accessways for pedestrians and bicycles when street connections are impractical or unavailable.

Response: The proposed modifications enhance the pedestrian environment by recommending an undercrossing at the NW Kaiser Road intersection, rendering the crossing more safe and efficient for users.

Response: The proposed modifications uphold and enhance bicycle connectivity by recommending an undercrossing at the NW Kaiser Road intersection, rendering the crossing more safe and efficient for users.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 22

Strategy 19.13: Review all plan amendment requests for consistency with the applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule as set forth in OAR 660-12-060.

Response: See response section below to the “Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)”

Strategy 22.3: Provide for amendments and administrative adjustments to the Transportation Plan that include the following:

Legislative Amendments: Those changes which involve the creation, broad scale implementation or revision public policy, including large scale map changes where a significant number of property owners are directly affected, may be processed as legislative plan amendments, including public hearings, as provided for in the Community Development Code. These include but are not limited to the Functional Classification Map and descriptions, Bicycle System Map (excluding alignment modifications to off-street pathways), plan policies, modifications to the general location of facilities identified in the plan, selection of the general location of a facility in a Corridor Study Area and deletion of proposed facilities identified in the plan. Response: The proposed modification to P-2 will require a functional classification map change showing the roadway realigned and intersecting with NW Brugger Road. The Bicycle and Pedestrian system will remain consistent.

Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) The proposed realignment of P-2 requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment that addresses, among other policies, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-12-0060, also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR sets forth the criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments. Table 3 summarizes the criteria in Section 660-012-0060 and their applicability to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 23

Table 3: Summary of Criteria in OAR 660-012-0060

Section Criteria Applicable? 1 Describes how to determine if a proposed land use action results in a significant impact. Yes 2 Describes measures for complying with Criteria #1 where a significant impact is determined. No Describes measures for complying with Criteria #1 and #2 without assuring that the allowed land No 3 uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility 4 Determinations under Criteria #1, #2, and #3 are coordinated with other local agencies. No Indicates that the presence of a transportation facility shall not be the basis for an exception to No 5 allow development on rural lands. 6 Indicates that local agencies should credit developments that provide a reduction in trips. No 7 Outlines requirements for a local street plan, access management plan, or future street plan. No 8 Defines a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood No 9 Indicates that there is not a significant affect if the proposed zoning is consistent with existing plans No 10 Defines a multi-modal mixed-use area (MMA) and the requirements that support it. No 11 Encourages establishment of traded-sector jobs No

As noted in Table 3, there are 11 criteria that apply to Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. Of these, only Criterion 1 is applicable to this proposed action. This criterion is provided below in italics with our response shown in standard font.

1. If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: a. Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); b. Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or c. Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. i. Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; ii. Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 24

iii. Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.

Response: The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal will not result in traffic levels that change or degrade the performance of the existing or future transportation system as defined herein. Therefore, this provision of the TPR can be met.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B North Bethany Concept Area 8908 June 18, 2014 Page 25

CONCLUSIONS This memorandum documents the recommended P-2 realignment and Regional Trail modifications in the vicinity of the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road intersection within the North Bethany Concept Plan area’s roadway network. Based on this analysis, it is determined that the modifications to the roadway and regional trail system will comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the strategies identified in the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP), meet the intent of the NBCP, improve operations and safety along and across NW Kaiser Road, and operate in accordance with Washington County standards. A summary of the findings are provided below:

The elimination of the westerly P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection will not significantly impact operations along the NW Brugger Road and NW Kaiser Road. The access spacing between the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road and P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection is approximately 200 feet, which does not meet the Washington County access spacing standard of 600 feet for an arterial. In addition, the 200-foot spacing between the NW Brugger Road/NW Kaiser Road and P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersections does not accommodate the anticipated transitional curves and respective northbound and southbound left-turn bay storage lengths, and could experience queue spillback between the intersections. To ensure an at-grade crossing at the originally proposed Regional Trail crossing of NW Kaiser Road, the grade would need to increase a from 10% to 12% grade between the P-2 alignment and NW Brugger Road, thus increasing speeds along NW Kaiser Road and producing design implications. A dedicated westbound left-turn lane is not warranted under either scenario in year 2030 at the proposed realigned P-2/NW Brugger Road intersection. Existing topography conditions, notably the high grade differential, and the potential for high speed pedestrian/bicyclist-vehicular conflicts, combined with out-of-direction travel (200 feet) of a future signalize crossing justify the recommended Regional Trail undercrossing on NW Kaiser Road. We trust this memorandum provides the necessary documentation of the proposed roadway network modifications to support an amendment to the adopted North Bethany Concept Plan. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact us at (503)228-5230 REFERENCES 1. Washington County. Street Atlas Map. http://www.wc- roads.com/uploadedfiles/Wash_Co_Functional_Class.pdf. Accessed on May 29, 2014. 2. Washington County. Approval Process for New Pedestrian Crossings at Mid-Block Locations and Uncontrolled Intersections. http://www.co.washington.or.us/CAO/PoliciesRules/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid =611404. Accessed on May 29, 2014.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT B

Appendix A 2030 Travel Demand Model Forecast Volumes for the North Bethany Area

ATTACHMENT B

1 1

2 8 4 3 4 5 3 2 0 1

4 2

2 5

4 1

5 1

7 2

4 25 2

1 2

3 7

2 5

6 6

4 4

9 2 5 2

2 1 4

2 435 1

0 6 315 2

349

61 3 1 6 9 4 3 5 2

161 28

217

2 7 157 218 4 215

7 6 5 2 1:19476 1 Base 2005 - North Bethany.ver 3 7

2 15 1

116 2 0

6 1

81 2

9 9 9 3 1

8 1

6 1

3 2

9 9

9 3

3 6 1 2 8 3 4 2 6

2 6 8 6 8 2 9 3 4 2 2 6

344 571 7 5 4 3 5 6

3 0

8 0

2 2 3

8 4

7 0

2 3

4 3

2 4

220

720 6

4 9 5 8 0 7

3 7 1

7 1

177

7 0 4 1

447 76 3 7 4 1 5

5 515

7 6 9

3 1 3

4 3

4 2 4

6 3 7

2005 Hour PM1 Vehicles (North Bethany) 4

2 5

1 Network North Bethany 2005 34 Steve L Kelley

6 4

39 1 4

3 2

2 2

2 2 2

5 3 4 2

3 4

4 2 110 3

1 71

8 0 3 1

0 0

5 7 3 3 0

7 6

0 Study UGB North Bethany Vehicles Hour PM1 2005 5 ATTACHMENT B

205

121

3 4 5 0 2 1 2 1

7 36 1 33 15 1

2 0

1 4

6 1

3 6 3 4 1 3 1

1444

3 7

6 7 0

835 1

1210

9 8 115 5

214

904 plan1.ver north 2030 bethany 1:13460

228 779 8

4 5 551

9 9

594 3 6

4 8 5 5

2 2

9 3

5 8 4 6

4 4 6 1

2 4

9 1 2

5 4

8 2 2

22 4 5

1 2

2 94 8 5 5 6

1 5

2 8

1 5

8 3

2 3 5

5 8

4 6

55 94

7 5

7 8 2

9 4

7 1

2 7

3 5

3 3

5 6

1 1 2 7

8 7

4 5

49 33

2 38

1 21

2 283

80 81 6 9 01 3 2

9 2 2

1 1

153 20

2 2

153 7 6

6 1 2

8 9 1 5 5 5

2 2030 -Vehicles BethanyPM1 TSP

1 9 5

2 1 2030 TSP with North Bethany TSP 2030 with 1 1-hr TotalPM Vehicles

9 46

5 1

2 6 1 1 4 6

4 0 0

6 2 2 0 5 5 5 7

5 0

1 0 1

8 5

9 5

1 5 5 1 5 2 9

6 0 5

2 1

1 5

9 1 2

3 5 9 6 9

2 3

1 0

1 5 5 9 1 4

0 5

0 0 5 3 3

7 1

1781

5 500 7 0 7 4 8 3 1

0 9 3

9 0 3

2 8

390 858

2 1 9

4 5

5 4

1 North Bethany UGB Study UGB North Bethany Steve L Kelley

ATTACHMENT B

2 4

2 2

3 6 3 6

3 7

4 2

213

135

3 3

5 4

0 5 2 2 3 2

1 7 0 2

2 38 3 33

9 1:17074 2030 north bethany plan2 add collector_NO plan2 A.ver north 2030 bethany 9 2

1 9

2 1

1 3

4 2

2 3

1 4 4

7 1 3 2 3 1 3

3 1 5 8 1 5

1 845 1

9 2 2 1 8

9 1 9 5

3 2 6 6 1

974 1

3 773 6

4 206

8 3

563 6

4 5 713 8

6 4 3

0 6

2 4 6

3 0 3 2

1 4 4

0 3 4

9 4

1 6 9 0 0 2

2 4

2 3 0 4 6 5

0 6

4 3 3 6

2 7 5 13 2 154 7

244

0 0

1 0

1 5 7

6 7 1 9

0 5 2 4

4 3

7 0 2

4 4

4 7

1 0

2 2

9 7

0 7 5

2 0

1 3 4 4

2 5

9 9

0 9

1 7 230 220

3 359

204 7

132 2

2 271

1 9

2 5 2 3 1 7

227 2

3 0

2 2

6 221

6 4 8

7 7

0 4

5 3

0 0

0 4 7

6 9 1 4

7 8 5 4 0 1

5 9

12 5 2

1 1

9 6 1

5 5 4 6 8 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 1 6 1 4 5 4 5 4 0

1 0 6

4 0 4 2030 TSP with North Bethany TSP 2030 with PM 1-hr TotalPM Vehicles Area Vehicles / Bethany

0 1 5 1

6 4

4 1

1 6 1

7 1

6 2

3 9

3 5

0 9

7 6 0 4

2 6 5

5 1

0 4

2 6

1 1

4 4 3 3 4

3 7 2 4 3 1

1804

4 3

6 3 2 5 1 6

243 1

5 4 3

3 4 5

9 17

345 979 14 4 9 6 9 8 8

2030 Vehicles PM1 / Bethany VehiclesNo Road A TSP+Bethany: 849

2 1

5 5

9 3

7 1

3 8 6

0 6

0 7

2 3

5 4 7

3 3

3 2 1 8

4 2 4 6 5

2 1 North Bethany UGB Study UGB North Bethany Steve L Kelley ATTACHMENT B

5 0 2 1 2 1

5 11 14 2 2030 north bethany plan1.ver north 2030 bethany 1:4416

115

214

904 9 8 2 8 228 7

115

4 551 8

9 2

7 5 2

594 8

2 5

3 4

0 5

2 56

5 4 2 6 41

18 9

3 4 7 4 14

2 5

5 8 2

4 6 2 1 4

6 2 9 3 3 8 4 0

1 1

2 2 4 2 2 4

3 5 3

8 6

8 2

8 5

6 0

2 2

2 2030 -Vehicles BethanyPM1 TSP 2030 TSP with North Bethany TSP 2030 with PM 1-hr TotalPM Vehicles

5 8

4 6

55 94

1 2 North Bethany UGB Study UGB North Bethany Steve L Kelley ATTACHMENT B

06 1 03 2 2030 north bethany plan1_NO A.ver plan1_NO north 2030 bethany 1:4122

106

203

208 0 2 3 3 6 6 1

8 1

0 8 3

0 743 2

2 4 6

7 3

4 5

3 2

4 2

7 7

2 523

147

6 35

2 5 98 4 5 0 9 18

9 6 1 4

6 9 4 7

1 6 9 1 7 4 6 8 3 3 6 2

1 3 2 5

7 6 4 7 6 4

5 4 3

7 7 1 2 1

9 9

2 3

3 2030 TSP with North Bethany TSP 2030 with PM 1-hr TotalPM Vehicles

9 6

6 9

2030 VehiclesNo Road PM1 A TSP+Bethany: 1

67 19

1 3

7 1 0

7 6 North Bethany UGB Study UGB North Bethany Steve L Kelley ATTACHMENT B

Appendix B Synchro level-of-service worksheets

ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 1: Road A & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 22 26 90 9 43 21 249 219 14 190 451 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1645 1770 1771 1770 1846 1770 1811 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.60 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1325 1645 1136 1771 351 1846 1122 1811 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 28 98 10 47 23 271 238 15 207 490 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 81 0 0 19 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 45 0 10 51 0 271 251 0 207 592 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 58.0 47.0 47.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 58.0 47.0 47.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.64 0.52 0.52 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 292 281 315 447 964 636 805 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.03 c0.09 0.14 0.03 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.16 0.61 0.26 0.33 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 31.3 27.4 31.3 11.9 11.9 11.6 20.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.39 2.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.1 0.2 1.1 5.3 0.6 1.4 5.9 Delay (s) 28.1 32.4 27.6 32.4 33.8 25.2 13.0 26.6 Level of Service CC CC CC BC Approach Delay (s) 31.7 31.8 29.7 23.1 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Without Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 2: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 9 11 39 3 12 6 71 467 4 54 467 29 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 12 42 3 13 7 77 508 4 59 508 32 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 340 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1318 1307 523 1353 1321 510 539 512 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1254 1240 182 1302 1258 510 203 512 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 89 93 96 88 99 92 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 89 113 638 79 110 564 1014 1053 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 64 23 589 598 Volume Left 10 3 77 59 Volume Right 42 7 4 32 cSH 228 134 1014 1053 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.17 0.08 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 15 6 4 Control Delay (s) 26.9 37.4 2.0 1.5 Lane LOS DEAA Approach Delay (s) 26.9 37.4 2.0 1.5 Approach LOS D E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 3: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 6 3 36 539 2 27 467 15 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 1 7 3 39 586 2 29 508 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 807 950 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.79 0.84 0.79 vC, conflicting volume 1246 1241 516 1240 1248 587 524 588 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 806 799 333 798 807 351 343 352 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 99 96 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 243 259 598 252 256 550 1026 959 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 11 627 553 Volume Left 1 39 29 Volume Right 3 2 16 cSH 305 1026 959 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.04 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 3 2 Control Delay (s) 17.3 1.0 0.8 Lane LOS CAA Approach Delay (s) 17.3 1.0 0.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 4: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 1 7 0 0 0 20 575 3 2 454 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1 8 0 0 0 22 625 3 2 493 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 503 1254 pX, platoon unblocked 0.80 0.80 0.96 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.96 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 1174 1176 500 1183 1181 627 507 628 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 979 981 457 989 987 384 463 386 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 100 100 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 181 196 579 175 194 519 1052 918 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 11 650 509 Volume Left 2 22 2 Volume Right 8 3 13 cSH 354 1052 918 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 0.6 0.1 Lane LOS CAA Approach Delay (s) 15.5 0.6 0.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 5: Brugger & Kaiser 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 14 6 44 51 7 60 117 524 17 12 376 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1619 1770 1614 1770 1854 1770 1818 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.33 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1322 1619 1343 1614 633 1854 607 1818 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 7 48 55 8 65 127 570 18 13 409 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 53 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 16 0 55 20 0 127 587 0 13 480 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 57.0 50.0 51.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 57.0 50.0 51.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.63 0.56 0.57 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 288 317 287 489 1030 396 949 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.01 0.01 c0.02 c0.32 0.00 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.03 0.14 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.07 0.26 0.57 0.03 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 30.7 28.1 30.8 8.0 13.0 9.4 14.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 1.79 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.5 1.3 2.3 0.1 1.6 Delay (s) 27.7 31.1 29.3 31.3 9.3 15.3 18.1 26.5 Level of Service CC CC AB BC Approach Delay (s) 30.4 30.4 14.2 26.3 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Without Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 6: Int 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 3 22 22 3 26 59 625 9 6 429 36 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 3 24 24 3 28 64 679 10 7 466 39 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 314 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 vC, conflicting volume 1341 1316 486 1337 1331 684 505 689 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1311 1281 292 1306 1299 684 315 689 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 97 96 77 97 94 94 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 99 129 627 103 126 449 1045 905 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 35 55 753 512 Volume Left 8 24 64 7 Volume Right 24 28 10 39 cSH 249 172 1045 905 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.32 0.06 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 33 5 1 Control Delay (s) 21.8 35.5 1.6 0.2 Lane LOS CEAA Approach Delay (s) 21.8 35.5 1.6 0.2 Approach LOS C E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept area 1: Road A & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 18 26 74 6 55 20 172 224 14 110 393 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1656 1770 1788 1770 1847 1770 1811 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.60 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1311 1656 1231 1788 465 1847 1117 1811 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 28 80 7 60 22 187 243 15 120 427 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 65 0 0 15 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 43 0 7 67 0 187 256 0 120 516 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 17.0 21.0 17.0 57.0 48.0 45.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 17.0 21.0 17.0 57.0 48.0 45.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.63 0.53 0.50 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 313 311 338 483 985 595 805 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.04 c0.06 0.14 0.01 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.20 0.39 0.26 0.20 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 30.4 26.6 30.8 9.8 11.4 12.1 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.77 2.34 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 0.1 1.3 2.1 0.6 0.8 3.9 Delay (s) 27.1 31.3 26.7 32.1 29.1 27.2 12.8 23.3 Level of Service CC CC CC BC Approach Delay (s) 30.7 31.7 28.0 21.4 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

With Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept area 2: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 8 11 32 2 16 6 49 396 4 31 416 26 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 12 35 2 17 7 53 430 4 34 452 28 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 340 pX, platoon unblocked 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 vC, conflicting volume 1088 1075 466 1114 1087 433 480 435 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 980 964 195 1012 979 433 213 435 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 94 95 99 90 99 95 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 157 187 670 146 183 623 1075 1125 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 55 26 488 514 Volume Left 9 2 53 34 Volume Right 35 7 4 28 cSH 323 217 1075 1125 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 10 4 2 Control Delay (s) 18.4 23.9 1.4 0.9 Lane LOS CCAA Approach Delay (s) 18.4 23.9 1.4 0.9 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept area 3: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 8 3 25 446 2 16 421 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 1 9 3 27 485 2 17 458 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 807 950 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.88 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 1047 1041 465 1040 1047 486 472 487 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 696 689 328 687 695 281 336 282 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 99 97 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 299 315 630 311 312 631 1081 1065 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 13 514 489 Volume Left 1 27 17 Volume Right 3 2 14 cSH 357 1081 1065 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 1 Control Delay (s) 15.5 0.7 0.5 Lane LOS CAA Approach Delay (s) 15.5 0.7 0.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept area 4: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 1 6 0 0 0 15 470 2 2 413 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1 7 0 0 0 16 511 2 2 449 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 503 1254 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.97 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.97 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 1002 1003 453 1009 1005 512 457 513 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 824 825 422 832 828 291 426 292 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 100 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 240 251 614 233 250 612 1101 1037 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 10 529 459 Volume Left 2 16 2 Volume Right 7 2 8 cSH 407 1101 1037 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 14.1 0.4 0.1 Lane LOS BAA Approach Delay (s) 14.1 0.4 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept area 5: Brugger & Kaiser 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 6 37 38 7 38 88 437 13 12 366 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1625 1770 1629 1770 1855 1770 1834 Flt Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.36 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1351 1625 1282 1629 663 1855 677 1834 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 7 40 41 8 41 96 475 14 13 398 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 15 0 41 17 0 96 488 0 13 438 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.0 18.0 25.0 19.0 52.0 45.0 48.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 18.0 25.0 19.0 52.0 45.0 48.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.20 0.28 0.21 0.58 0.50 0.53 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 369 325 389 344 469 928 422 876 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.01 0.01 c0.02 c0.26 0.00 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.02 0.10 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.20 0.53 0.03 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 29.1 24.0 28.3 9.6 15.3 10.5 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.10 1.94 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 1.0 2.1 0.1 1.8 Delay (s) 25.3 29.3 24.6 28.6 10.6 17.4 22.3 33.1 Level of Service CC CC BB CC Approach Delay (s) 28.5 26.7 16.3 32.7 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

With Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept area 6: Int 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 6 3 19 16 3 17 44 515 6 6 414 20 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 3 21 17 3 18 48 560 7 7 450 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 314 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 vC, conflicting volume 1153 1136 461 1155 1143 563 472 566 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1087 1067 264 1090 1076 563 277 566 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 98 97 88 98 96 96 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 149 177 651 149 175 526 1081 1006 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 30 39 614 478 Volume Left 7 17 48 7 Volume Right 21 18 7 22 cSH 324 229 1081 1006 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.17 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 15 3 0 Control Delay (s) 17.3 23.9 1.2 0.2 Lane LOS CCAA Approach Delay (s) 17.3 23.9 1.2 0.2 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - Full Access at P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 1: Road A & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 18 26 74 6 55 20 172 224 14 110 393 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1656 1770 1788 1770 1847 1770 1811 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.60 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1311 1656 1231 1788 465 1847 1117 1811 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 28 80 7 60 22 187 243 15 120 427 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 65 0 0 15 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 43 0 7 67 0 187 256 0 120 516 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 17.0 21.0 17.0 57.0 48.0 45.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 17.0 21.0 17.0 57.0 48.0 45.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.63 0.53 0.50 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 313 311 338 483 985 595 805 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.04 c0.06 0.14 0.01 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.20 0.39 0.26 0.20 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 30.4 26.6 30.8 9.8 11.4 12.1 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.64 2.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 0.1 1.3 2.1 0.6 0.8 3.9 Delay (s) 27.1 31.3 26.7 32.1 27.9 26.0 12.8 23.3 Level of Service CC CC CC BC Approach Delay (s) 30.7 31.7 26.8 21.4 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 2: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 3: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 8 3 25 446 2 16 421 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 1 9 3 27 485 2 17 458 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 807 950 pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.88 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 1047 1041 465 1040 1047 486 472 487 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 710 703 328 702 710 303 336 305 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 99 97 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 298 314 630 310 312 624 1081 1065 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 13 514 489 Volume Left 1 27 17 Volume Right 3 2 14 cSH 356 1081 1065 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.03 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 1 Control Delay (s) 15.5 0.7 0.5 Lane LOS CAA Approach Delay (s) 15.5 0.7 0.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 4: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 1 6 0 0 0 15 471 2 2 413 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1 7 0 0 0 16 512 2 2 449 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 503 1254 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.97 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 1003 1004 453 1010 1007 513 457 514 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 835 837 422 844 840 311 426 312 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 100 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 239 251 614 233 250 605 1101 1036 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 10 530 459 Volume Left 2 16 2 Volume Right 7 2 8 cSH 407 1101 1036 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 0 Control Delay (s) 14.1 0.4 0.1 Lane LOS BAA Approach Delay (s) 14.1 0.4 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 5: Brugger & P-2 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 19 36 0 0 182 21 0 0 28 19 0 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 39 0 0 198 23 0 0 30 21 0 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 613 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 221 39 301 301 39 320 290 209 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 221 39 301 301 39 320 290 209 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 97 97 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1349 1571 636 602 1032 607 611 831 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 60 221 30 32 Volume Left 21 0 0 21 Volume Right 0 23 30 11 cSH 1349 1571 1032 669 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 2.7 0.0 8.6 10.6 Lane LOS A AB Approach Delay (s) 2.7 0.0 8.6 10.6 Approach LOS AB Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 6: Brugger & Kaiser 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 18 9 56 53 10 56 132 414 19 18 340 61 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1623 1770 1626 1770 1850 1770 1820 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.38 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1323 1623 1254 1626 674 1850 706 1820 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 10 61 58 11 61 143 450 21 20 370 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 49 0 0 48 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 22 0 58 24 0 143 469 0 20 429 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.0 18.0 25.0 19.0 52.0 45.0 48.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 18.0 25.0 19.0 52.0 45.0 48.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.20 0.28 0.21 0.58 0.50 0.53 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 363 325 383 343 475 925 436 870 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.01 0.01 c0.02 c0.25 0.00 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.03 0.15 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.30 0.51 0.05 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 29.2 24.3 28.4 9.8 15.1 10.5 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.10 1.95 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.6 2.0 0.2 1.7 Delay (s) 25.5 29.6 25.1 28.8 11.5 17.1 22.2 33.1 Level of Service CC CC BB CC Approach Delay (s) 28.7 27.2 15.8 32.6 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 7: Int 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 565 0 0 449 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 614 0 0 488 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 314 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 1102 1102 488 1102 1102 614 488 614 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1032 1032 309 1032 1032 614 309 614 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 179 198 621 179 198 492 1063 965 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 614 488 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS AA Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

With Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 7 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 1: Road A & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 22 26 90 9 43 21 249 219 14 190 451 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1645 1770 1771 1770 1846 1770 1811 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.60 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1325 1645 1136 1771 351 1846 1122 1811 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 28 98 10 47 23 271 238 15 207 490 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 81 0 0 19 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 45 0 10 51 0 271 251 0 207 592 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 58.0 47.0 47.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 58.0 47.0 47.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.64 0.52 0.52 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 292 281 315 447 964 636 805 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.03 c0.09 0.14 0.03 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.16 0.61 0.26 0.33 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 31.3 27.4 31.3 11.9 11.9 11.6 20.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.25 1.97 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.1 0.2 1.1 5.4 0.6 1.4 5.9 Delay (s) 28.1 32.4 27.6 32.4 32.3 24.0 13.0 26.6 Level of Service CC CC CC BC Approach Delay (s) 31.7 31.8 28.3 23.1 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 2: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 3: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 6 3 36 539 2 27 467 15 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 1 7 3 39 586 2 29 508 16 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 807 950 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.82 0.84 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 1246 1241 516 1240 1248 587 524 588 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 823 817 333 816 825 382 343 383 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 99 96 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 242 260 598 251 257 543 1026 960 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 11 627 553 Volume Left 1 39 29 Volume Right 3 2 16 cSH 304 1026 960 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.04 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 3 2 Control Delay (s) 17.3 1.0 0.8 Lane LOS CAA Approach Delay (s) 17.3 1.0 0.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 4: Kaiser & 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 1 7 0 0 0 20 575 3 2 454 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 1 8 0 0 0 22 625 3 2 493 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 503 1254 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 0.82 0.96 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.96 0.80 vC, conflicting volume 1174 1176 500 1183 1181 627 507 628 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 990 992 457 1000 998 410 463 412 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 100 100 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 182 197 579 176 196 514 1052 919 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 11 650 509 Volume Left 2 22 2 Volume Right 8 3 13 cSH 355 1052 919 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 0.6 0.1 Lane LOS CAA Approach Delay (s) 15.5 0.6 0.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 5: Brugger & P-2 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 19 45 0 0 274 21 0 0 32 19 0 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 49 0 0 298 23 0 0 35 21 0 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 612 pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 vC, conflicting volume 321 49 410 411 49 434 399 309 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 312 49 403 403 49 427 392 301 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 97 96 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1239 1558 539 523 1020 510 531 734 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 70 321 35 32 Volume Left 21 0 0 21 Volume Right 0 23 35 11 cSH 1239 1558 1020 570 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 3 4 Control Delay (s) 2.5 0.0 8.7 11.7 Lane LOS A AB Approach Delay (s) 2.5 0.0 8.7 11.7 Approach LOS AB Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 ATTACHMENT B HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 6: Brugger & Kaiser 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 21 9 66 73 10 86 176 491 26 18 334 109 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1617 1770 1613 1770 1849 1770 1794 Flt Permitted 0.67 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1242 1617 1311 1613 643 1849 644 1794 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 10 72 79 11 93 191 534 28 20 363 118 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 59 0 0 76 0 0 2 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 23 0 79 28 0 191 560 0 20 468 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 57.0 50.0 51.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 57.0 50.0 51.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.63 0.56 0.57 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 299 287 312 287 495 1027 415 937 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.01 0.02 c0.03 c0.30 0.00 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.05 0.21 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.25 0.10 0.39 0.55 0.05 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 30.9 28.5 31.0 8.3 12.7 9.3 13.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.91 1.81 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.7 2.3 2.1 0.2 1.5 Delay (s) 28.1 31.4 30.4 31.6 10.6 14.8 17.8 26.7 Level of Service CC CC BB BC Approach Delay (s) 30.7 31.1 13.7 26.3 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 ATTACHMENT B HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis North Bethany Concept Area 7: Int 5/30/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 693 0 0 473 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 753 0 0 514 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 314 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 vC, conflicting volume 1267 1267 514 1267 1267 753 514 753 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1222 1222 323 1222 1222 753 323 753 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 131 150 601 131 150 410 1036 857 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 753 514 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1036 857 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS AA Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Without Road A - No P-2/Kaiser Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 7 ATTACHMENT B

Appendix C Left-Turn Warrant Analyses

ATTACHMENT B

Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis

KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project #: 8908 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Project Name: North Bethany Plan Amend. Portland, Oregon 97205 Analyst: AXM (503) 228-5230 Intersection: Proposed P-2/NW Brugger Road Fax: (503) 273-8169 Scenario: 2030 PM Peak Period W/ Road "A" Extension Date: 5/30/2014 File: H:\projfile\8908 - North Bethany TIS Review\May 2014 Update\data\LT warrant\[8908_lt warrant_w A.xls]Main

Input Data:

Advancing Volume (vph) = 200 Left-turning Vehicles (vph) = 70 Opposing Volume (vph) = 50 Speed (mph) = 30 Number of Approach Lanes = 1 (not applicable for two lanes)

% Left-Turning Vehicles 35% Critical Gap (sec) = 5 Maneuver Time (sec) = 3 Exit Time (sec) = 1.9 Utilization Factor = 0.02

Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results

800

700

600 LEGEND: 500 Required Value Actual Value 400

300

200 Opposing Volume (vph) Volume Opposing

100

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Advancing Volume (vph)

* Based on Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade Intersections (D. Harmelink) ATTACHMENT B

Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis

Input Data:

Advancing Volume (vph) = 295 Left-turning Vehicles (vph) = 100 Opposing Volume (vph) = 65 Speed (mph) = 30 Number of Approach Lanes = 1 (not applicable for two lanes)

% Left-Turning Vehicles 34% Critical Gap (sec) = 5 Maneuver Time (sec) = 3 Exit Time (sec) = 1.9 Utilization Factor = 0.02

Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Results

800

700

600 LEGEND: 500 Required Value

Actual Value 400

300

200 Opposing Volume (vph) Volume Opposing

100

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Advancing Volume (vph)

* Based on Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade Intersections (D. Harmelink) ATTACHMENT C

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 8, 2014 Project #: 8908.3

To: Jinde Zhu and Andy Back Washington County DLUT

From: Anais Malinge, Marc Butorac, P.E., P.T.O.E. Project: North Bethany Concept Plan Subject: Supplemental Analysis for Realignment of P-2

This memorandum provides further analysis as it relates to the realignment of Primary Street 2 (P-2); thereby, addressing a comment posed by CPO 7 and received by the Washington County DLUT on July 29, 2014 (Attachment “A”). The qualitative and quantitative analysis provided herein supplements the analysis documented in our June 18, 2014 Memorandum (Maletis/Rosetta (P2) Alignment Modifications) and further supports the legislative amendment to the North Bethany Concept Plan (NBCP) and the Washington County Transportation System Plan (TSP).

P-2 REALIGNMENT ANALYSIS The following analysis shows travel time differentials within the site vicinity to demonstrate the negligible impact created by the realignment of P-2. To this end, a shift in anticipated travel patterns is not expected, specifically along P-15. As shown in Figure 7 of the Memorandum (Attachment “B”), the total entering vehicles at the P-2/NW Kaiser Road intersection without the realignment of P-2 are rerouted to the P2/NW Brugger Road intersection assuming the realignment of P-2.

As shown in Figure 1, without the realignment of P-2, vehicles at point A can access point E (NW Kaiser Road/NW Springville Road intersection) through point D (NW Kaiser Road/P-2 intersection). Alternatively, with the realignment of P-2, vehicles at point A can access point E (NW Kaiser Road/NW Springville Road intersection) through point C (NW Kaiser Road/NW Brugger Road intersection) and point B (P-2/NW Brugger Road intersection). There is an associated 675 feet of out-of-direction travel distance associated with the realignment of P-2. In order to determine whether the out-of-direction travel introduced through the realignment of P-2 would prompt drivers to redirect to P-15 and NW Springville Road, the associated travel time was calculated.

As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, in addition to travel time along the corridors, each intersection has associated delay which contributes to total travel time. As shown, for vehicles traveling southbound and northbound along NW Kaiser Road, there are an additional 36 seconds and 27 seconds of travel time associated, respectively.

FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\8908 - NORTH BETHANY TIS REVIEW\MAY 2014 UPDATE\REPORT\DRAFT\SUPP MEMO_P2\8908_P2 MEMO_08082014.DOCX ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C North Bethany Concept Plan 8908.3 August 8, 2014 Page 3

Table 1 Estimated Travel Time Estimate With and Without P-2 Realignment for Southbound Vehicles along NW Kaiser Road

Total Estimated Travel Time (Link Speed Distance Estimated Link Travel Time Estimated Intersection Delay Travel Time + Intersection Delay, Path (mph) (Feet) (seconds) (Seconds) Seconds)

With P-2 Realignment

A-B 25 475 13 8.6 21.6

B-C 25 535 15 28.7 43.7

C-D 45 300 5 0 5

D-E 45 705 11 NA1 11

Total A-B-C-D-E 2,015 44 37.3 81.3

A-F 25 970 27 0 27

F-G 25 640 18 10.0 28

G-E 45 1,525 23 22.62 45.6

Total A-F-G-E 3,135 68 32.6 100.6

Without P-2 Realignment

A-D 25 635 17 17.3 34.3

D-E 45 705 11 NA1 11

Total A-D-E 1,340 28 17.3 45.3

1 The intersection delay at the NW Kaiser Road/ NW Springville Road intersection remains equal between the two scenarios, because all trip ends remain constant between scenarios. 2 Intersection delay is based on estimated delay with the inclusion of the North Bethany Ridge development at full build out in 2016. As such, the estimated delay in 2030 will be at least as long as that estimated for 2016. Traffic operations worksheet included in Attachment “B”.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT C North Bethany Concept Plan 8908.3 August 8, 2014 Page 4

Table 2 Estimated Travel Time Estimate With and Without P-2 Realignment for Northbound Vehicles along NW Kaiser Road

Total Estimated Travel Time (Link Travel Time + Speed Distance Estimated Link Travel Time Estimated Intersection Delay Intersection Delay, Path (MPH) (Feet) (seconds) (Seconds) Seconds)

With P-2 Realignment

E-D 45 705 11 NA1 11

D-C 45 300 5 0 5

C-B 25 535 15 11.5 26.5

B-A 25 475 13 1.6 14.6

Total E-D-C-B-A 2,015 44 13.1 57.1

E-G 45 1,525 23 0 23

G-F 25 640 18 0 18

F-A 25 970 27 0 27

Total E-G-F-A 3,135 68 0 68

Without P-2 Realignment

E-D 45 705 11 NA1 19

D-A 25 635 17 1.2 18.2

Total E-D-A 1,340 28 1.2 29.2

1 The intersection delay at the NW Kaiser Road/ NW Springville Road intersection remains equal between the two scenarios, because all trip ends remain constant between scenarios. As shown, while there is a net increase in travel time with the realignment of P-2 for those vehicles destined south or east of the NW Kaiser Road/NW Springville Road intersection, the total travel time is shorter than that associated with a rerouted path to P-15 and NW Springville Road. As such, while potential out-of-direction travel is introduced with the realignment of P-2, the estimated increase is not expected to impact anticipated travel patterns in the site vicinity. No vehicles that would otherwise travel along segment A-D to and from point A are expected to redistribute to P-15, as a consequence of the P-2 realignment.

CONCLUSION The realignment of P-2 introduces marginal differences in out-of-direction travel time for vehicles destined to areas south and east of the NW Kaiser Road/NW Springville Road intersection. Despite the additional out-of-direction travel time, the realigned P-2 to NW Brugger Road route provides the fastest route to southerly and easterly destinations; that is, 19.3 seconds shorter outbound, 10.9 seconds shorter inbound, and approximately 1,120 feet shorter than the alternative P-15 route. To this end, no measurable difference in traffic volumes on P-15 is anticipated as a result of the proposed P-2 realignment.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ATTACHMENT C

Anais Malinge

From: Marc Butorac Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:58 PM To: Suzanne Savin Cc: Dyami Valentine; Dan Grimberg; Anais Malinge Subject: RE: Road P2 Realignment - Impacts on P15/Springville, P15/P2 intersections

Suzanne, Thanks for the email! Anais and I can pull together a memo addressing this subject. In short, the impact is negligible as the travel time differential created by the elimination of P2 to Kaiser doesn’t result in the necessary delta to create a shift in travel patterns.

From: Suzanne Savin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:51 PM To: Marc Butorac Cc: Dyami Valentine; Dan Grimberg Subject: Road P2 Realignment - Impacts on P15/Springville, P15/P2 intersections

Hello Marc,

I am working on a draft of the Planning Commission Staff Report for the P2 realignment ordinance (Ordinance No. 790). I am summarizing some comments that we received from CPO 7 in their position paper dated June 15th. The CPO states a concern about whether the P2 realignment will adversely impact traffic flow on Primary Street P15, down to Springville.

The Kittelson memorandum focuses on the traffic impacts eastward at various intersections along Kaiser, but does not discuss impacts (or lack thereof) to intersections that lie west of the P2/Kaiser intersection. So I don't currently have any information that addresses the CPO's concern, and I expect them to re-iterate that concern at the PC hearing.

Can you provide information that addresses the CPO's concern? Specifically, could you provide the PM peak period traffic condition at the following locations: P15/Springville intersection, and P2/P15 intersection. This can be in the form of a supplemental memo.

It would be ideal of that information could be submitted prior to August 6, because Andy Back is scheduled to review a final version of the PC staff report on August 6.

Thank you, and please contact me if you have questions about this request.

- Suzanne

Suzanne Savin Senior Planner, Long Range Planning

Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation Planning & Development Services Division 155 N. First Avenue, 350-14 Hillsboro, OR 97124

(503) 846-3963 [email protected]

1 ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT C 2015 Total Traffic Conditions - Mitigated Weekday PM Peak Period 3: Springville Rd & Street P15 1/16/2014

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 70 434 23 8 343 52 11 0 5 29 0 39 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (vph) 83 517 27 10 408 62 13 0 6 35 0 46 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 470 544 1171 1186 530 1148 1169 439 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 470 544 1171 1186 530 1148 1169 439 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 92 99 91 100 99 79 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 1102 1035 148 174 553 164 178 622 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 83 544 10 470 19 81 Volume Left 83 0 10 0 13 35 Volume Right 0 27 0 62 6 46 cSH 1102 1700 1035 1700 192 284 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.32 0.01 0.28 0.10 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 1 0 8 29 Control Delay (s) 8.5 0.0 8.5 0.0 25.8 22.6 Lane LOS A A DC Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.2 25.8 22.6 Approach LOS DC Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

H:\projfile\17514 - Sato Property MultiFamily\synchro\17514_ttpm_mitigated.syn Synchro 7 - Report AXM Page 3 Attachment D

Page 12 - Minutes: Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, June 16, 2014 Attachment D

Roll call proceeded as follows: John Griffiths Yes Larry Pelatt No Bob Scott Yes Jerry Jones Jr. Yes Joe Blowers Yes The motion PASSED by MAJORITY vote.

Agenda Item #9 – Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

Joe Blowers, President Bob Scott, Secretary

Recording Secretary, Jessica Collins

Page 13 - Minutes: Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, June 16, 2014

Washington County Citizen Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7) Sunset West/Rock Creek/Bethany Box 173, 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2 Portland, OR 97229

June 15, 2014

Dear THPRD Board of Directors:

Summary of our discussion with West Hills, Washington County and THPRD on 6/10/12:

Washington County Citizen Participation Organization #7 (CPO 7) Sunset West/Rock Creek/Bethany Box 173, 4804 Bethany Blvd, Suite I-2 Portland, OR 97229

County must either preserve the school to school neighborhood route via the suggested line in red or retain P2 connection in Blue.

ATTACHMENT E

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 791 August 13, 2014 Page 2 of 7

The State of Oregon has regulated signs for over 50 years and modified its sign regulations in 1971 to comply with the Highway Beautification Act. Sign regulations are included in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 377 - Highway Beautification; Motorist Information Signs. Under these regulations, an outdoor advertising sign that is visible from a state highway requires an “Outdoor Advertising Sign (OAS) permit”. The county must review and approve all OAS permit applications in Washington County’s jurisdiction. Highways subject to ORS Chapter 377 include:

 Highway 8 (Tualatin Valley Highway and Canyon Road)  Highway 10 (Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway and SW Farmington Road)  Highway 26 (Sunset Highway)  Highway 99 (Pacific Highway)  Highway 141(Hall Boulevard)  Highway 217  Highway 219  Interstate-5 and Interstate-205

Digital billboards first began to appear in 2000. This new technology has created new outdoor advertising opportunities as well as new regulatory challenges. Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology is transforming the electronic signage industry. Electronic billboard advertising companies are now able to schedule multiple clients per day, offer customized packages and sell more advertising space at one location. They have also partnered with local law enforcement agencies to broadcast public safety messages (e.g., Amber Alerts).

In response to this burgeoning technology, in 2011, the Oregon Legislature passed SB 639 which permits digital billboards to be displayed on state roadways if they meet certain conditions. SB 639 provides the definition of a digital billboard as “an outdoor advertising sign that is static and changes messages by any electronic process or remote control, provided that the change from one message to another message is no more frequent than once very eight seconds and the actual change process is accomplished in two seconds or less.” The display must not create the appearance of movement. SB 639 also sets standards for illumination.

As part of the 2014-15 Long Range Planning Work Program, a request by Clear Channel Outdoor was received to amend the county’s sign regulations to permit digital signs with appropriate restrictions as outlined in the state sign code. They would like the county to allow for the use of digital technology on existing billboard signs or those permitted to be built under the current code. The Board included the task to amend the CDC sign standards to implement SB 639 and authorized filing of this ordinance as part of the 2014-15 Work Program adoption.

Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 791 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on July 15, 2014. A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in The Oregonian on August 1, 2014 and in the Hillsboro Argus on August 1, 2014. Individual Notice 2014-12 describing proposed Ordinance No. 791 Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 791 August 13, 2014 Page 3 of 7 was mailed to 434 people on the General Notification List on August 6, 2014. A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time.

IV. ANALYSIS

Existing Standards Currently, billboards are considered as Outdoor Signs and the standards they are required to meet are contained in CDC Subsection 414-2.2 G. Outdoor Signs are permitted only in the General Commercial (GC) district, and are limited to a maximum of 300 square feet per face, with a maximum length of 25 feet and a height of 12 feet. This subsection also specifies spacing requirements. Billboards located on the same side of a highway must be spaced at least 1,000 feet apart on limited access freeways and 500 feet apart on other roads. At this time, the CDC does not allow digital billboards and therefore no standards have been established.

Staff Recommended Approach Staff recommends a conservative approach to code amendments to provide for digital signs, with minimal changes to the CDC in order to allow digital signs in the same locations and under the same general size and spacing requirements as other billboards. Further revisions are proposed to incorporate portions of state law into the county’s CDC, including the definition of digital billboards, and illumination standards. Staff is recommending varying from the state’s standards for frequency of message change, due to safety concerns on the county’s arterial roads. No changes are proposed to non-conforming uses and standards. Staff believes this minimal change approach is warranted due to uncertainty about the potential impacts of allowing digital signs, safety concerns, and potential impacts on pending litigation. Staff proposed changes are discussed in more detail in the following section.

Discussion of Specific Ordinance Issues

Digital Billboard Locations The County’s CDC currently allows outdoor signs, including billboards, only in the General Commercial (GC) district. General Commercial districts are located predominantly along Tualatin Valley Highway and Canyon Road (Attachment A - Map 1), as well as two smaller areas just off Walker Rd. at 150th Ave., and on Shaw St. between 170th and 173rd Avenues. Staff recommends allowing digital signs in these same locations. The visual and other impacts of digital billboards are at least as great as those of traditional billboards; therefore staff saw no justification for expanding allowed areas beyond what is allowed for traditional billboards. Allowing digital billboards in the General Commercial district would limit the impact to these non-residential areas that already allow billboards.

Frequency of Message Change Digital billboards are designed to attract a driver’s attention with their bright and colorful advertisement. A typical commuter can learn to ignore traditional billboards because the message doesn’t change. Since digital billboards change messages frequently, they can create fresh daily distractions (Scenic America Issue Alert 2, Electronic Signs).

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 791 August 13, 2014 Page 4 of 7

As noted, state law allows for a message change to occur once every eight seconds, with the actual change process accomplished in two seconds or less. The state law provisions are intended to apply on state highways which include freeways where speeds are higher and distractions are fewer than on county arterial roadways. The county’s Traffic Engineer reviewed supporting documentation provided by the sign industry as well as other studies on the safety of digital advertising signs, and their analysis is provided below. These studies are provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover.

Traffic Engineer Analysis The County Traffic Engineer provided the following findings (Memo dated July 17, 2014 - Attachment C):

 There is no definitive research showing increased crashes due to the presence of digital billboards. However, the body of research shows an increased crash risk due to the distractive nature of electronic billboards.  There is limited to no research regarding the safety of digital billboards in a similar context to Washington County Arterials.  The urban/arterial environment is a complex driving environment that requires a high degree of attention to the driving task. The arterial environment tends to have more roadside information that a driver must process, unstable traffic flows and more points of conflicting traffic.  The research presented by the advertising industry adds to the knowledge base. However, the study is limited in scope and isn’t definitive in regards to the safety of digital billboards or billboards in general.  Advertising messages/signs aren’t regulated in regards to font, color, and legibility like the MUTCD regulates traffic control signs and messages intended for the driver.  Oregon Senate Bill 639 doesn’t allow digital billboards to display motion, or the appearance of motion. With signs changing every 8 seconds, there is the appearance of motion that can distract the driver multiple times before passing the sign.

Based on these findings, the Traffic Engineer states that: “Distracted driving is a real and prevalent issue. The urban/arterial environment demands focused attention to the driving task. Allowing digital billboards adds to the distractive environment and can increase the risk for vehicular crashes.”

For these reasons, the Traffic Engineer has recommended that digital billboards not be allowed. As an alternative to a complete restriction his recommendation is to:

 Follow Senate Bill 639 guidelines; however increase the minimum time that a message is displayed to be greater than 8 seconds. A 10 to 16 second change interval would reduce the number of times a driver is presented new advertising. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 791 August 13, 2014 Page 5 of 7

 Require shielding or other appropriate measures to prevent uplight and light trespass from digital billboards consistent with Dark-Sky friendly goals.

Based on this information, staff recommends engrossment of Ordinance No. 791 to address these concerns.

Other Jurisdictions The Cities of Portland, Tigard, Canby, and Corvallis prohibit any new billboards including digital billboards. The Cities of Hillsboro and Salem have regulations for digital billboards. The City of Milwaukie has regulations for digital signs. The frequency of the change of display varies by jurisdiction from 8 seconds to 10 seconds and the change must take place between 1 to 4 seconds.

Impacts to Residential Areas To minimize the potential impacts to residentially designated areas near digital billboards, staff proposes language that prohibits digital billboards from being located within 250 linear feet of the property line of a residentially designated property fronting on the same street of the digital billboard and within the line of sight of the digital billboard face.

Nonconforming Signs Nonconforming signs are signs that do not conform to the current standards of the CDC. Per CDC Section 414-10 (Compliance), any sign which is altered (e.g., conversion to digital), relocated, or replaced shall be brought immediately into compliance with all provisions of the CDC.

The sign industry has requested that existing nonconforming outdoor signs be allowed to convert into digital billboards without being subject to CDC Section 414-10.

Staff strongly recommends against any changes to the nonconforming use and compliance standards in the CDC sign regulations. It is a standard land use practice to allow for the continuation of a nonconforming use until the use requires alterations, which then make it subject to the new standards in effect. Various sections of the CDC have nonconforming use standards, including the sign standards. In addition, the industry’s request is beyond the scope of the Board’s direction which was limited to provisions under SB 639.

A primary concern of staff is the effect of any changes to the compliance requirements on a number of potentially nonconforming signs that are the subject of current ongoing litigation. Prior to August 2010, “Holiday” and “Safety” signs were considered exempt from the CDC sign regulations, and sign permits were not required. Due to the nature of the structures, however, building permits for structural review were required. Based on submitted elevation drawings, a typical sign allowed under this exemption measured up to 35 feet tall and had a total sign face area of 672 square feet (48 feet by 14 feet).

Out of the 17 holiday or safety sign permits, seven have been finalized and constructed, and 10 permits are still pending due to litigation. Typically, building permit applications become Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 791 August 13, 2014 Page 6 of 7

invalid 180 days from submittal, but due to the nature of the litigation, these 10 permits are still considered pending until further direction is given by County Counsel or the courts.

Attachment B - Map 2 identifies the locations of the 17 holiday or safety signs that were submitted for structural review prior to August 2010. None of these signs would meet the current sign regulations either due to their land use district location (outside General Commercial) or because of their size (more that 300 square feet). Depending on the outcome of the litigation, it is possible that these signs could be considered nonconforming signs.

If changes were made to CDC Section 414-10 (Compliance) it would be possible that these and other currently nonconforming signs could be converted to digital signs, resulting in a proliferation of these signs in land use districts where they are not currently proposed and signs that are more than twice the size as currently proposed.

Staff Recommendation Based upon the analysis provided in this staff report, including the Traffic Engineer’s assessment and recommendation, staff proposes engrossing Ordinance No. 791 to:

1. Amend Section 106-193.13 to increase the change from one message to another message to be no more frequent than once every 10 seconds. 2. Amend Section 414-6.4 to require that digital billboards provide screening or other measures to meet dark sky requirements for uplight and light trespass per the County Road Standards.

The proposed amendments are shown in Attachment D.

Summary of Proposed Changes

Ordinance No. 791 proposes to amend the Community Development Code relating to Digital Billboards as follows:

Key Provisions  CDC Section 106, DEFINITIONS, is amended to include a definition for Digital Billboard along with clarifying language to allow digital billboards.

 Amendments to CDC Subsection 414-2.2, Outdoor Signs, are made to include digital billboards as outdoor signs.

 CDC Subsection 414-2.3 G, Location, is amended to include a setback for digital billboards of 250 linear feet from a residentially designated property fronting on the same street and within the line of sight of the billboard face.

 A new subsection is added to CDC Section 414-6, SIGNS: Illumination, to include illumination standards for digital billboards. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 791 August 13, 2014 Page 7 of 7

 Several CDC Subsections of 414-SIGNS are amended to include and clarify provisions for digital billboards.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\ORD791_DigitalBillboard\Staff_Reports\PC\Ord791_StaffReport_PC.doc EVERGREEN

HILLSBORO

BETHANY BLVD

SUNSET HWY

185THAVE CORNELL RD

WALKER RD

BASELINE RD BARNES RD

158TH AVE

JENKINS RD

CORNELIUS PASS RD

MURRAY BLVD

170TH AVE CANYON RD TUALATIN VALLEY HWY CEDAR HILLS BLVD

SHAW ST

HWY 217

FARMINGTON RD BEAVERTON HILLSDALE 209TH AVE

WATSONAVE

HALL BLVD

BEAVERTON

Map 1 - General Commercial Districts Attachment LEGEND

General Ccommercial Districts (GC) Highways

Cities County Boundary A

0 0.9 1.8 Miles ± " Map 2 Holiday / Safety

THOMPSON R D Billboards EVERG E W R V E EE A S N T PK H U W T NIO

Y 4 N RD 7 1 Legend

26 PORTLAND Final / Constructed ¤£ RD SALTZMAN # HILLSBORO CORNELL R D #" " Not Issued Community Business District CORNELIUS RDPASS Future Development - 10 acre minimum

173RDAVE CORNELL RD Future Developmetn - 20 acre minimum " General Commercial # Industrial Institutional BASELINE RD "" WALKER RD Land Extensive Industrial 26 158THAVE ¤£ Neighborhood Commercial H

A L L

V D Office Commercial B ARNES RD Transit Oriented: Business JENKINS RD Transit Oriented: Employment Æ217 E " Transit Oriented: Residential 12 to 18 units per acre

V · A

185THAVE H D Transit Oriented: Residential 18 to 24 units per acre T V # 0 L

# 7 B

1 Transit Oriented: Residential 40 to 80 units per acre " S " L " L I Transit Oriented: Residential 80 to 120 units per acre # H R Transit Oriented: Residential 9 to 12 units per acre # A TU D AL E ATINV RD Transit Oriented: Residential: 24 to 40 units per acre ALLE C N YHWY ANYO

E C

V Transit Oriented: Retail Commercial

A BEAVERT ON HILLSDALE HWY N # H A LL O B 209TH AVE L V D

S T

" A

W 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 1:70,000 RD N TO G ALLEN BLVD IN M R A F BEAVERTON Attachment

BANY RD HART RD Æ217 · D GARDEN HOME RD R

MURRAY BLVD R H R AL E Y L F A B D W L V S R N D L N E L O E ES O L R H O B

175THAVE G BROCKMAN ST C Date: 08/08/2014 BEARD RD S TIGARD Document Path: J:\Users\JonathanCz\PROJECTS\Billboards\Map2Billboards8x11.mxd

125THAVE N

R G

To: Gary Stockhoff, County Engineer

From: Stacy Shetler PE, County Traffic Engineer

Date: July 17, 2014

Subject: Digital Billboards

Long Range Planning presented a briefing to the Planning Commission on June 18, 2014. The briefing entailed information regarding a potential ordinance change to the Community Development Code to allow digital advertising signs along Washington County roadway facilities.

Currently, digital advertising signs are allowed (and operated) along Oregon Department of Transportation facilities such as US 26, OR 217, and OR 8 (Tualatin Valley Highway) within the city limits of Hillsboro and Tigard. Senate Bill 639 in 2011 established the allowance and standards for such signs.

As a result of the briefing by Long Range Planning, the Planning Commission requested input and supporting documentation from the County Traffic Engineer regarding the safety of digital advertising signs. This memo summarizes sources, findings and recommendations.

Sources: “Driver Visual Behavior In The Presence Of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS),” FHWA – September 2012

“Effects of Outdoor Advertising Displays on Driver Safety,” Caltrans – October 2012

Enrolled Senate Bill 639 – Oregon Legislative Assembly 2011 Regular Session

“Exploring the Use of Digital LED Billbords”, County of San Diego – January 2013

Conversations with Oregon State University researcher, University of Portland professor and Beaverton traffic engineer.

Findings:  There is no definitive research showing increased crashes due to the presence of digital billboards. However, the body of research shows an increased crash risk due to the distractive nature of electronic billboards.  There is limited to no research regarding the safety of digital billboards in a similar context to Washington County Arterials.  The urban/arterial environment is a complex driving environment that

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Engineering and Construction Services Traffic Engineering 1400 SW Walnut Street, MS 17 · Hillsboro, OR 97123-5625 phone: (503) 846-7900 · fax: (503) 846-7910 · www.co.washington.or.us requires a high degree of attention to the driving task. The arterial environment tends to have more roadside information that a driver must process, unstable traffic flows and more points of conflicting traffic.  The research presented by the advertising industry adds to the knowledge base. However, the study is limited in scope and isn’t definitive in regards to the safety of digital billboards or billboards in general.  Advertising messages/signs aren’t regulated in regards to font, color, and legibility like the MUTCD regulates traffic control signs and messages intended for the driver.  Oregon Senate Bill 639 doesn’t allow digital billboards to display motion, or the appearance of motion. With signs changing every 8 seconds, there is the appearance of motion that can distract the driver multiple times before passing the sign.

Recommendations:

Distracted driving is a real and prevalent issue. The urban/arterial environment demands focused attention to the driving task. Allowing digital billboards adds to the distractive environment and can increase the risk for vehicular crashes.

My recommendation is to not allow digital billboards.

As an alternative to a complete restriction:  Follow Senate Bill 639 guidelines; however increase the minimum time that a message is displayed to be greater than 8 seconds. A 10 to 16 second change interval would reduce the number of times a driver is presented new advertising.  Require shielding or other appropriate measures to prevent uplight and light trespass from digital billboards consistent with Dark-Sky friendly goals.

The following sections of the Community Development Code are amended as shown below:

1. SECTION 106 - DEFINITIONS

***

106-193 Sign A name, identification, description, display or illustration, which is affixed to, painted or represented directly or indirectly upon a building, or other outdoor surface which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization or business and where sign area means the space enclosed within the extreme edges of the sign for each face, not including the supporting structure or where attached directly to a building wall or surface, the outline enclosing all the characters of the word. Signs located completely within an enclosed building, and not exposed to view from a street, shall not be considered a sign. Each display surface of a sign shall be considered to be a sign.

106-193.1 Electric Any sign containing electric wiring. This does not include signs illuminated by an exterior floodlight source.

106-193.3 Flashing Any illumined sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. For the purpose of this Code any moving, illuminated sign, except digital billboards permitted pursuant to Section 414-2.2 G, shall be considered a flashing sign.

***

106-193.13 Digital Billboard A sign that is static and changes messages by any electronic process or remote control, provided that the change from one message to another message is no more frequent than once every eight (8) ten (10) seconds and the actual change process is accomplished in two (2) seconds or less. Digital signs complying with Section 414-6.4 shall not be considered flashing as defined by this Code.

2. SECTION 414 - SIGNS

414 SIGNS

The following sign regulations shall apply to all uses as indicated.

***

414-2 Commercial and Institutional Districts

414-2.1 Scope: abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed engrossment

Attachment D Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 791 Exhibit 1 July 1, 2014 Page 2 of 5

This Section shall apply to all Commercial Districts and the Institutional District.

414-2.2 Number and Size:

For each lot or parcel signing at the listed size may be allowed:

***

G. Outdoor Signs:

Outdoor signs, including digital billboards ,and excluding bench signs (see Section 414-5.2), shall be permitted only in the General Commercial (GC) District. Such signs shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet per face, nor shall the face exceed a length of twenty-five (25) feet or a height, excluding foundation and supports, of twelve (12) feet. In determining these limitations, the following shall apply:

(1) Minimum spacing shall be as follows:

Minimum space between Minimum space from Type of Highway signs on same side of Interchange (in feet) Highway (in feet) Interstate Hwy 500 Limited Access 500 1000 (Freeway) Other Roads None 500

(2) For the purpose of applying the spacing requirements of Section (1) above, the following shall apply:

(a) Distances shall be measured parallel to the centerline of the highway; and

(b) A back-to-back, double-faced or V-type sign shall be considered as one sign.

414-2.3 Location:

A. Flat Wall Signs may be located on any wall of the building.

B. Freestanding Signs must have a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet six (6) inches above a sidewalk and fifteen (15) feet above driveways or alleys.

C. One Freestanding or Ground-Mounted sign per lot or parcel except as provided in Section 414-1.2 B. and 414-2.2 F. may be located anywhere on the premises except as follows: abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed engrossment

Attachment D Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 791 Exhibit 1 July 1, 2014 Page 3 of 5

(1) A ground-mounted sign shall not be located in a required side yard, rear yard or within five (5) feet of a street right-of-way.

(2) A freestanding sign shall not be located in a required side or rear yard. A freestanding sign may project up to the street right-of-way provided there is a minimum ground clearance of eight (8) feet six (6) inches.

D. Marquee Signs or signs located on or attached to marquees must have a minimum clearance of not less than eight (8) feet six (6) inches (8' 6"). The maximum vertical dimension of signs shall be determined as follows:

Height above Grade Vertical Dimension 8' 6" up to 10' 2' 6" high 10' up to 12' 3' high 12' up to 14' 3' 6" high 14' up to 16' 4' high 16' and over 4' 6" high

E. Wall signs shall not extend above the top of a parapet wall or a roofline at the wall, whichever is higher.

F. Permitted outdoor signs, including digital billboards, may be allowed anywhere on the premises except in a required side yard, rear yard or within twenty (20) feet of a street right-of-way.

G. No portion of a digital billboard shall be located within two hundred and fifty (250) linear feet of the property line of a residentially designated property fronting on the same street and within the line of sight of the billboard face.

414-2.4 Height:

A. Ground-mounted signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in height from ground level.

B. Freestanding signs shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet in height from ground level.

C. Outdoor signs, including digital billboards, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height from ground level.

414-2.5 Content:

A. Any of the signs pursuant to this Section (414-2) may be changeable copy signs.

B. The primary identification sign for each firm shall contain its street number. The street number shall be clearly visible from the street right-of-way. abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed engrossment

Attachment D Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 791 Exhibit 1 July 1, 2014 Page 4 of 5

414-2.6 Illumination:

Shall be as provided in Section 414-6.

***

414-6 Illumination

No sign shall be erected or maintained which, by use of lights or illumination, creates a distracting or hazardous condition to a motorist, pedestrian or the general public. In addition:

***

414-6.4 Digital billboards allowed pursuant to Section 414-2.2 G shall:

A. Display only static messages that remain constant in illumination intensity and do not have movement or the appearance or optical illusion of movement;

B. Not operate at an intensity level of more than 0.3 foot-candles over ambient light as measured at a distance of one hundred and fifty (150) feet;

C. Be equipped with a light sensor that automatically adjusts the intensity of the billboard according to the amount of ambient light; and

D. Be designed to either freeze the display in one static position, display a full black screen, or turn off in the event of a malfunction.

E. Provide screening or other measures to meet dark sky requirements for uplight and light trespass per the County Road Standards.

414-7 Prohibited Signs

Signs or lights which:

414-7.1 Are of a size, location, movement, coloring, or manner of illumination which may be confused with or construed as a traffic control device or which hide from view any traffic or street sign or signal;

414-7.2 Contain or consist of banners, posters, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or other similarly moving devices or signs which may move or swing as a result of wind pressure. These devices when not part of any sign are similarly prohibited, unless they are permitted specifically by other legislation;

414-7.3 Have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or other illuminating devices which exhibit movement, except digital billboards as permitted pursuant to this Code; abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed engrossment

Attachment D Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 791 Exhibit 1 July 1, 2014 Page 5 of 5

414-7.4 Are roof signs except as allowed in Section 414-5.4;

414-7.5 Are freeway-oriented signs; and

414-7.6 Are portable signs; and.

***

abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed engrossment

Preliminary Investigation Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation Produced by CTC & Associates LLC

Effects of Outdoor Advertising Displays on Driver Safety

Requested by Suzy Namba, Caltrans Division of Design

October 11, 2012

The Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation (DRI) receives and evaluates numerous research problem statements for funding every year. DRI conducts Preliminary Investigations on these problem statements to better scope and prioritize the proposed research in light of existing credible work on the topics nationally and internationally. Online and print sources for Preliminary Investigations include the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and other Transportation Research Board (TRB) programs, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the research and practices of other transportation agencies, and related academic and industry research. The views and conclusions in cited works, while generally peer reviewed or published by authoritative sources, may not be accepted without qualification by all experts in the field.

Executive Summary

Background Digital and other outdoor advertising displays are becoming more common along California’s highways, and Caltrans is considering generating income with advertisements on changeable message signs and outdoor advertising displays on state-owned rights of way outside of the operational highway. Local agencies, commercial businesses and private landowners are also looking at digital displays as a way to generate income.

However, the technology for digital displays is relatively new, and there has been little account taken of their effects on driver safety. Further, there are no regulations regarding their font size or complexity. Caltrans needed more data to determine whether digital displays and other forms of outdoor advertising constitute a safety hazard to drivers.

To conduct this investigation, CTC carried out a literature search to: • Identify existing or in-progress research about the driver safety impacts of static signs, digital billboards and other displays, including the effects of brightness/illumination, font size and visual complexity of the signs. • Review research on both on-premise and off-premise signage as well as the broader aspects of how guide signs (as given in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) affect safety. • Investigate how other states are regulating the use of digital displays.

Summary of Findings We gathered information in three topic areas: • Federal Guidance on Digital Displays • Related Research o The Wachtel Report and Pre-2009 Literature on Outdoor Advertising Safety o Literature on Outdoor Advertising Safety Since the 2009 Wachtel Report o Luminance Criteria and Other Human Factors for Sign Design • State Regulations

Following is a summary of findings by topic area.

Federal Guidance on Digital Displays A 2007 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memo makes recommendations for changeable message sign message duration (8 seconds), transition time (1 to 4 seconds), brightness, spacing and locations.

Related Research The most thorough review of the literature to date on digital display safety is the 2009 report Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs by Jerry Wachtel. Wachtel has been the president of The Veridian Group, a California human factors research consulting firm, for 22 years and has published numerous studies on outdoor advertising safety.

We give a summary of this report and include a selection of the references cited for studies in or before 2009. (We found no relevant studies for this period not included in Wachtel’s report, which covers both digital and nondigital outdoor advertising.) In a separate section, we discuss literature on outdoor advertising safety that has been published since Wachtel’s report.

The Wachtel Report and Pre-2009 Literature on Outdoor Advertising Safety Based on the literature review, Wachtel concludes that: • Studies regularly demonstrate that roadside advertising, including digital billboards, contributes to driver distraction at levels that adversely affect safe driving performance. • There are consistent research recommendations regarding brightness, message duration and change interval, and other factors.

Wachtel also gives a thorough survey of national and international guidelines and regulations for digital billboards, and based on these (along with the literature review) makes recommendations for digital billboard guidelines, including: • Message duration: A minimum display duration of sight distance to the digital billboard (feet)/speed limit (feet/second). • Message interval: An interval between successive displays that is close to instantaneous as possible. • Display brightness: Brightness, luminance and illuminance limits based on the ambient lighting conditions of digital billboards. • Digital billboard spacing: Spacing between digital billboards that does not face a driver with two or more displays within his field of view at the same time. • Other: The prohibition of visual effects, message sequencing, and the placement of digital billboards near traffic control devices and driver decision and action points.

Wachtel concludes that there is growing evidence that digital billboards distract drivers because these signs increase driver glance duration and the driver’s gaze is reflexively drawn to objects of different luminance in the visual field.

Findings from the literature support the argument that while there is no definitive research showing increased crashes due to the presence of billboards or digital billboards, there is an increased crash risk based on research on the effects of billboards on driver attention and the effects of driver distraction on safety: • Billboards can have a significant effect on driver speed, lateral control, mental workload, ability to follow road signs, and eye movements and fixations, with older drivers particularly affected. (The Effects of Visual Clutter on Driving Performance and Driven to Distraction, An Evaluation of the Influence of Roadside Advertising on Road Safety, and Review of Roadside Advertising Signs). And visual clutter generally can distract drivers (Driver Distraction by Advertising). • Digital billboards attract more attention than regular billboards, with larger number of glances and longer glances (Driving Performance and Digital Billboards and Observed Driver Glance

Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs). Wachtel notes that the implication is that the shorter the message duration, the longer the driver’s glance in anticipation of the next message. • Drivers engaging in visually demanding tasks have a crash risk three times higher than attentive drivers; while brief glances do not increase risk, glances of more than two seconds at least double crash risk (The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk). • While studies have not been able to establish a statistical relationship between the presence of billboards and traffic safety, these studies have been flawed in design, and the use of accident data in evaluating the impacts of billboard is ill-advised (The Impact of Roadside Advertising on Driver Distraction, A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Driving Performance and Digital Billboards, and Driving Performance in the Presence and Absence of Billboards, Effects of Roadside Advertisements on Road Safety). • More research is needed. A 2009 FHWA study on the effects of commercial electronic variable message signs on driver attention and safety (of which Wachtel is a co-author) proposes a three- stage program of research: an on-road instrumented vehicle study, a naturalistic driving study and an unobtrusive observation study (The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction).

Literature on Outdoor Advertising Safety Since the 2009 Wachtel Report We found a number of studies on outdoor advertising safety that have been published since the Wachtel report; but only three on digital billboard safety specifically. These studies reaffirm the negative effects of billboards on driver attention, despite the fact that no correlation can be found between the presence of billboards and increased crash rates: • Advertising billboards affect driver’s ability to detect changes in road scenes, especially when the roadway background is more cluttered (Advertising Billboards Impair Change Detection in Road Scenes). In general they affect lateral control and mental workload (Conflicts of Interest), and change drivers’ pattern of visual attention, increasing the amount of time needed for drivers to respond to road signs and increasing driving errors (Effects of Advertising Billboards during Simulated Driving). A 2010 study concludes that among distractions external to vehicles, roadside advertisements have the strongest correlation to collision frequency (Quantifying External Vehicle Distractions and Their Impacts at Signalized Intersections). • A 2011 FHWA study scans outdoor advertising control practices in Australia, Europe and Japan (Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan). • A 2010 Transport Research Laboratory study concludes that video billboards draw longer and more frequent glances from drivers than static advertisements, with drivers showing greater variation in lateral lane position, driving more slowly and braking harder (Investigating Driver Distraction). A 2011 study shows that video billboards also lead to more rear-end collisions when there is a hard-braking lead vehicle (External Distractions: The Effects of Video Billboards and Windfarms on Driving Performance). • A 2010 study showed no impact on driver performance after the installation of a digital billboard (The Impact of Sacramento State’s Electronic Billboard on Traffic and Safety), and a 2009 study shows no correlation between hazardous intersection and the presence of digital billboards in Los Angeles (Digital Billboard Safety amongst Motorists in Los Angeles). • Preventing distraction by digital billboards requires controlling lighting at nighttime, lengthening message duration time, simplifying message information and prohibiting message sequencing (Digital Billboards, Distracted Drivers).

Luminance Criteria and Other Human Factors for Sign Design We also include a number of studies on human factors for the design of signs in general (including guide signs). Topics include congruent visual information, legibility, message design for variable message signs and luminance criteria for digital billboards. A 2010 study by Arizona State University (Digital LED Billboard Luminance Recommendations) suggests that:

… drivers should be subjected to brightness levels of no greater than 10 to 40 times the brightness level to which their eyes are adapted for the critical driving task. As roadway lighting and automobile headlights provide lighting levels of about one nit, this implies signage should appear no brighter than about 40 nits.

State Regulations • An undated chart from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America summarizes state regulations on changeable message advertising signs. Generally minimum message duration is between 4 and 10 seconds, with 6 and 8 seconds most common; the maximum interval between messages is 1 to 4 seconds; and spacing is most commonly 500 feet. A review of state practices is also included in Appendices B and C of the 2001 FHWA study, Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction in Related Research. • We survey the digital advertising display regulations of 12 states. Of note are Massachusetts and Tennessee, which are currently updating regulations to specifically address digital billboards.

Gaps in Findings • While there is a significant amount of research on the effects of outdoor advertising on driver distraction, there is little research definitively showing that outdoor advertising affects crash rates, and there are a limited number of studies on digital billboards specifically. • We found little research justifying common regulations and design recommendations for digital billboards, including brightness/illumination, font size and visual complexity. Recommendations are typically based on common state practices. • We found little research on the safety effects of signage in general, including guide signs. • We did not find research in progress for any areas of inquiry.

Next Steps • Caltrans may be able to gather additional information about current practice and regulations by surveying the other state DOTs. • Caltrans could consider launching a multi-year research study, either by itself or with other states, aimed at measuring changes in crash rates after installation of digital displays. • Caltrans could follow up with the Outdoor Advertising Association of America to determine the sources and dates of the data presented in their State Changeable Message Chart; OAAA may also have other unpublished research of interest.

Federal Guidance on Digital Displays

Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs, Federal Highway Administration, September 2007. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/offprmsgsnguid.htm Guidance from this memorandum is as follows: • Duration of message: Between 4 and 10 seconds; 8 seconds is recommended. • Transition time between messages: 1 to 4 seconds. • Brightness: Adjust brightness in response to changes in light levels so that signs are not unreasonably bright for the safety of the motoring public. • Spacing: Not less than minimum spacing requirements for signs under the federal/state agreement (FSA), or greater if determined appropriate to ensure the safety of the motoring public. • Locations: As where allowed by the FSA except where such locations are determined to be unsafe.

Related Resources:

Outdoor Advertising Control, Federal Highway Administration, January 3, 2012. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/out_ad.htm This web page provides a series of links to related topics, including a history and overview of the federal outdoor advertising control program, the possible effects of commercial electronic variable message signs on driving safety, and research about the potential safety effects of electronic billboards on driver attention and distraction.

Related Research

Studies below that are industry sponsored are preceded by an asterisk and include an indication of the sponsor.

The Wachtel Report and Pre-2009 Literature on Outdoor Advertising Safety

Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs, Jerry Wachtel, NCHRP Project 20-7 (256), Final Report, April 2009. http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/pdf/cms.resource/NCHRP_Digital_Billboard_Report70216.pdf

Sections 2 and 3 of this report include the most thorough review to date of the literature on the use of digital displays for outdoor advertising signs. Summaries of a selection of the studies referenced in the report are provided on the following pages, along with Wachtel’s comments on these studies, where relevant. (In the citations for this section, all references to “Wachtel” are to the 2009 report.)

Summaries of the following sections of the report are also provided: • Conclusions from the literature. • Section 4: Human Factors Issues. • Section 5: Current and Proposed Guidelines and Regulations. • Section 6: Recommendations for Guidelines. • Section 7: Digital Billboards On-Premise and on the Right-Of-Way. • Section 8: New Technology, New Applications, New Challenges. • Section 9: Summary and Conclusions.

Conclusions from the Literature This report gives an exhaustive review of the literature (Sections 2 and 3) and concludes broadly (pages 5 and 6 of the report) that: • Studies regularly demonstrate that the presence of roadside advertising signs such as digital billboards contributes to driver distraction at levels that adversely affect safe driving performance. • There is consistency in research recommendations regarding brightness, message duration and change interval, and billboard location with regard to official traffic control devices, roadway geometry and vehicle maneuver requirements at interchanges, lane drops, merges and diverges, as well as regarding constraints that should be placed on such signs’ placement and operation.

Section 4: Human Factor Issues: Beginning on page 115 of the report, Wachtel summarizes human factors issues related to digital billboards as follows: • Conspicuity: Billboards with high levels of illumination and frequent changes can reduce the visibility of traffic control devices and other visual signs required for safety (vehicle brake lights, reflectors, etc.). • Distraction and inattention: Inattention involves the failure of a driver to concentrate on the driving task for any reason, or for no known reason at all. It is distinguished from distraction in that it may have no known cause and possibly no remediation. • Information processing: Billboards are often placed in ways that do not adhere to good human factors practice restricting the amount of information conveyed by signs. • The Zeigarnik Effect: Discomfort related to task interruption may lead drivers to continue looking at changing messages on digital billboards to learn what comes next. • Brightness and glare: The majority of public complaints about digital billboards concern their excessive brightness, particularly at night, to the extent that they become the most conspicuous item in the visual field and draw the eye away from other objects that need to be seen. • Legibility and readability: Billboards may not adhere to Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidelines on legibility, including font, letter size and color. Often they take more time to read than guidelines prescribe, taking multiple glances to communicate the intended message. • Novelty: Novel stimuli make a greater demand on driver attention, and where drivers get used to static billboards, digital billboards have the ability to present new images to drivers every time the sign is approached. • Sign design, coding, redundancy: Digital billboards lack the consistent design of traffic control devices, which is intended to assist recognition and decrease reaction time. • Visual attention: Digital billboards, more than any previous technology used for roadside advertising, are capable of commanding drivers’ attention by employing extremely high luminance levels; bright, rich colors; and a pattern of message display that may appear to flash. • Positive Guidance: Drivers can be given sufficient information about road hazards when and where they need it, and in a form that enables them to avoid error that might result in a crash. • The Moth Effect: Drivers may have the tendency to inadvertently steer in the direction of bright lights, leading to lane departures and crashes.

Section 5: Current and Proposed Guidelines and Regulations This section reviews national and international guidelines and regulations for digital billboards.

Queensland, Australia Queensland had the most comprehensive regulations, including flowcharts and tables that enable an inspector to determine exactly what types and operational characteristics of advertising signs are permissible under different road and speed conditions. Page 121 of the report describes different levels of restriction for different road categories:

For advertising devices beyond the right-of-way but visible from “motorways, freeways, or roads of similar standard,” only non-illuminated signs or non-rotating static illuminated signs are permitted (p. 6-4). Where an advertising device is permitted on State-controlled roads, the same restrictions apply. Further, “variable message signs and trivision signs are not permitted on State- controlled roads” (p. 6-5). For those advertising devices that are permitted, a clear chart is provided (labeled Figure C6) that provides graphic depictions of the “device restriction area” (p. C-12).

Guidelines also establish maximum average sign luminance for zones with differing ambient street lighting. To limit the distracting potential of electronic billboards, Australia requires that digital billboards outside the boundaries of but visible from state-controlled roads (except motorways) (Category 1) be installed only where: • There is adequate advanced visibility to read the sign. • The environment is free from driver distraction points and there is no competition with official signs. • The speed limit is 80km/h or less. • The device is not a moving sign (defined elsewhere in the document).

For Category 1 digital billboards that display predominantly graphics: • Long duration display periods are preferred in order to minimize driver distraction and reduce the amount of perceived movement. Each screen should have a minimum display period of 8 seconds. • The time taken for consecutive displays to change should be within 0.1 seconds. • The complete screen display should change instantly. • Sequential message sets are not permitted. • The time limits will be reviewed periodically.

For Category 1 digital billboards that display predominantly text: • The number of sequential messages … may range from one to a maximum of three; in locations with high traffic volume or a high demand on driver concentration, the number of sequential messages should be limited to two. • Where a display is part of a sequential message set, the display duration should be between 2.5 to 3.5 seconds for a corresponding message length of three to six familiar words. • The number and complexity of words used … should be consistent with the display duration. • The time taken for consecutive displays to change should be within 0.1 seconds. • The complete screen display should change instantaneously. • In a text-only display, the background color should be uniform and nonconspicuous.

Australia’s regulations do not allow changeable message signs, flashing signs or digital billboards of any type if such devices would be visible by motorists traveling on motorways (Category 2). Where advertising devices are permitted within the boundaries of state-controlled roads (Category 3), such signs must be nonrotating static illuminated and nonrotating, nonilluminated signs. Neither variable message signs nor trivision signs are permitted on state-controlled roads.

South Africa On page 126 of the report, Wachtel describes South Africa’s regulations, which require that no advertisement may: • Be so placed as to distract, or contain an element that distracts, the attention of drivers of vehicles in a manner likely to lead to unsafe driving conditions. • Be illuminated to the extent that it causes discomfort to or inhibits the vision of approaching pedestrians or drivers of vehicles.

• Be attached to traffic signs, combined with traffic signs, … obscure traffic signs, create confusion with traffic signs, interfere with the functioning of traffic signs, or create road safety hazards. • Obscure the view of pedestrians or drivers, or obscure road or rail vehicles and road, railway or sidewalk features such as junctions, bends, and changes in width. • Be erected in the vicinity of signalized intersections which display the colours red, yellow or green if such colours will constitute a road safety hazard. • Have light sources that are visible to vehicles traveling in either direction (p. 12).

Regulations provide guidance on advertisement size, colors, number of advertisements in the area, speed limit, quantity of information in the advertisement (measured in bits), illumination level and other factors.

Victoria, Australia Regulations define the conditions under which an advertisement is a road safety hazard, including position and potential for distraction because of color or illumination. From page 130 of the report, signs must: • Not display animated or moving images, or flashing or intermittent lights. • Not be brighter than 0.25 candela per square metre. • Remain unchanged for a minimum of 30 seconds. • Not be visible from a freeway. • Satisfy the ten point checklist.

New South Wales, Australia Guidelines include recommendations for variable message signs on conventional roads, including message on- and off-time, changeover time, maximum distance to traffic signal, and minimum distances to other advertising devices or to official traffic devices. It also restricts the maximum luminance levels of advertising devices based on levels of ambient off-street lighting.

The Netherlands The Netherlands has guidelines for visual distracters (including but not limited to billboards) that contain nondriving related information. Recommendations include (from page 132 of the report): • There should be no information that actively attracts attention; this includes no moving objects, no LCD or LED screens, and no moving or changing pictures or images. • Non-driving related information should not appear within the driver’s central field-of-view (less than 10 deg from straight ahead). • Signs should contain a maximum of five “items” (letters, numbers, symbols, etc.). • No distractions should be permitted at merges, exits and entrances, close to road signs or in curves (specific constraints will follow). • No telephone numbers will be permitted. • No fluorescent colors are permitted. • No ambiguity is permitted. • No controversial information is permitted; examples include sex, violence, religion, nudity. • No mixture of real and fake words is permitted. • Commercial signs must be 90 deg to the road to minimize head turning. • No signs will be permitted that mimic road signs in color or layout.

Brazil A 1998 study proposes the following regulations (from page 134 of the report): • Advertising signs should be located at a tangent to approaching drivers. • Advertising signs should be no closer than 1000 m from one another on the same side of the road, and no closer than 500 m from the nearest advertising sign on the opposite side of the road. • The display time of each image on a variable message sign should be long enough to appear static to 95% of drivers approaching it at highway speeds.

• The message change interval should not exceed 2 s. • The displayed image should remain static from the moment it first appears until the moment it is changed. • No animation, flashing or moving lights should be allowed. • No message or image that could be mistaken for a traffic control signal should be displayed. • Messages should be simple and concise.

United States

New York State Regulations proposed in 2008 include: • Minimum message duration of 62 seconds, so that no motorist would be able to see more than one message change as he or she approached any particular changeable electronic variable message sign. • Message transition time should be instantaneous to minimize distraction. • Minimum spacing between changeable electronic variable message sign is 5,000 feet. • Maximum changeable electronic variable message sign brightness of 5,000 cd/m2 in daylight and 280 cd/m2 at night. • Prohibited locations: o On interstate and controlled access highways: Within 1,100 feet of an interchange, at-grade intersection, toll plaza, signed curve or lane merge/weave area; within 5,000 feet of another changeable electronic variable message sign or official traffic device that has changeable messages. o On primary highways: Within 1,100 feet of an entrance or exit from a controlled access highway, a signed curve or a lane/merge area; within 5,000 feet of another changeable electronic variable message sign or official traffic control device with changeable messages.

Revised criteria made these requirements less restrictive, reducing message duration from 62 to 6 seconds and changing spacing requirements and prohibited locations. The requirements for instantaneous message transition and maximum brightness did not change.

San Antonio, TX Regulations for a trial evaluation of 15 off-premise digital signs included a message duration time of 10 seconds; change intervals of one second or less; brightness less than or equal to 7,000 nits during the day and 2,500 nits at night; and various other regulations. (One nit = one candela per square meter.)

Flowery Branch, GA Regulations in this community begin on page 138 of the report and include: • Minimum message duration: to the amount of time that would result in one message per mile at the highest speed limit posted within the 5000 feet approaching the sign for the road from which the sign is to be viewed. • Transition time: less than one-tenth of a second, with no animated transitions. • Illumination and brightness: not greater than 12 foot-candles from the nearest point of the road. • Freezing of the display on malfunction. • Prohibition of message sequencing.

Oakdale, MN Brightness is limited to 2,500 nits during the day and 500 nits at night, with adjustments for ambient light conditions and a minimum display duration of 60 seconds.

St. Croix County, WI From page 140 of the report, signs with “external and uncolored” illumination are permitted. In addition to typical prohibitions against flashing, moving, traveling, or animated signs or sign elements, the following prohibitions apply to all signs with internal illumination: • No illuminated off-premises sign which changes in color or intensity of artificial light at any time while the sign is illuminated shall be permitted. • No illuminated on-premise sign which changes in color or intensity of artificial light at any time when the sign is illuminated shall be permitted, except one for which the changes are necessary for the purpose of correcting hour-and-minute, date or temperature information. • A sign that regularly or automatically ceases illumination for the purpose of causing the color or intensity to have changed when illumination resumes (are prohibited). • The scope of the ordinance’s prohibitions include, but are not limited to, any sign face that includes a video display, LED lights that change in color or intensity, “digital ink,” and any other method or technology that causes the sign face to present a series of two or more images or displays.

Outdoor Advertising Industry The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) publication Regulating Digital Billboards suggests that digital billboards: • Display a message that appears for no less than four seconds. • Have message transitions of at least one second. • Have spacing consistent with state requirements. • Do not include animated, flashing, scrolling, intermittent or video elements. • Appropriately adjust display brightness as ambient light levels change.

Section 6: Recommendations for Guidelines Wachtel makes recommendations for guidelines based on the review of literature and international, national, state and local regulations (despite the fact that “there are not yet comprehensive research-based answers to fully inform such guidance and regulation”): • Minimum message display duration: The FHWA recommends 6 seconds, the OAAA recommends 4 seconds, and the OAAA reports that 41 states have set display minimums ranging from 4 seconds to 10 seconds. Wachtel is not aware of any research on this issue to support such guidelines, and notes that “good human factors practice would suggest that minimum display duration should differ with sight distance, prevailing speeds, and other factors.” The author recommends the following formula to minimize the chance that a motorist will see more than two successive messages:

Sight distance to the digital billboards (ft) / Speed limit (ft/sec) = Minimum display duration (sec)

• Interval between successive displays: This interval should be as close to instantaneous as possible so that a driver cannot perceive any blanking of the display screen. • Visual effects between successive displays: Visual effects should be prohibited. • Message sequencing: Sequencing should be prohibited. • Amount of information displayed: To the author’s knowledge, no U.S. jurisdiction places restrictions on the amount of information that may be presented on billboards, including digital billboards (although some agencies outside the United States do). There is not enough research to make recommendations, although a good starting point are guidelines for South Africa and the Netherlands (which limit information based on how much a driver can read at a given speed and while the sign is visible). • Information presentation: Considerable guidance is available to advertisers and digital billboard owners from sources inside the outdoor advertising industry as well as human factors and traffic

safety experts, and the MUTCD itself. Digital billboards should facilitate rapid, error-free reading of roadside advertisements with lower levels of driver attentional demand and distraction. Typeface, font, color and contrast of figure and background, character size, etc., all play a role in the legibility and readability of a display. • Digital billboard size: Recommendations for size limitations are beyond the scope of the report. The most common size for billboards of any kind is 14 feet high by 48 feet wide. • Brightness, luminance and illuminance: Since perceived brightness can change depending on ambient light conditions, it is necessary to establish objective, measurable limits on the amount of light that such billboards actually emit, and set different upper bounds for different environmental and ambient conditions. • Display luminance in the event of failure: Roadway authorities should incorporate into their guidelines verifiable requirements that, in the event of any failure or combination of failures that affect DBB luminance, the display will default to an output level no higher than that which has been independently determined to be the acceptable maximum under normal operation. • Longitudinal spacing between billboards: An approaching driver should not be faced with two or more digital billboard displays within his field of view at the same time. • Digital billboard placement with relation to traffic control devices and driver decision and action points: Prohibitions against the placement of distracting irrelevant stimuli in roadway settings where drivers must make decisions and take actions should be imposed. The guidance for Queensland, Australia, might serve as a model. • Annual operating permits: Government agencies and roadway operating authorities might consider the practice adopted in Oakdale, MN, where owners of digital billboards are granted a permit to operate a sign for a year and must renew the permit annually.

Section 7: Digital Billboards On-Premise and on the Right-Of-Way

On-Premise Signs From page 161 of the report:

… On-premise sign regulation is typically accomplished through local zoning codes, and may, in general, be far more variable and likely less stringent with regard to the means of the display, display characteristics, or the size of the sign than comparable controls on billboards. Many such codes have changed little in recent years, despite the growth of digital technology for on-premise displays.

From the traffic safety perspective, it is possible that the risk of driver inattention and distraction is higher for some on-premise signs than for some [digital billboards], because on-premise signs may be larger and closer to the road, mounted at elevations closer to the approaching driver’s eye level, and placed at angles that may require excessive head movements, In addition, many such signs may display animation, full motion video, sound, and other stimuli.

… Agencies might want to consider restrictions for on-premise sign operations at least as rigorous as those for billboards, as well as restrictions on size, height, proximity to the right-of-way, and angular placement with regard to the oncoming driver’s line of sight. Of all of the guidelines proposed in this report for [digital billboards], there may well be an equal or greater need to consider similar controls for on-premise signs. In addition, consideration must also be given to such signs’ capacity for animation, flashing lights or other special effects, and full motion video.

Digital Billboards within the Right-of-Way The FHWA opposes advertising of any kind within the right of way (despite proposals for public-private partnerships in California and Nevada).

Wachtel concludes that permitting California to study its proposed exceptions to the requirements of the MUTCD and existing federal law would bring about several adverse consequences, including undermining decades of human factors research, setting a dangerous precedent and opening to challenge the entire basis of the MUTCD.

Section 8: New Technology, New Applications, New Challenges The potential for driver distraction displaying billboards (electronic and otherwise) on moving vehicles is high, as it is for personalized and interactive billboards.

Section 9: Summary and Conclusions From page 179 of the report:

In short, the issue of the role of [digital billboards (DBBs)] in traffic safety is extremely complex, and there is no single research study approach that can provide answers to all of the many questions that must be raised in looking at this issue. … A small number of important research studies, all published (or to be published) within the past several years, may have opened the door to a solution to the long-standing question of whether unsafe levels of driver distraction can occur from roadside billboards. … [One study found] that a driver’s eyes-off-road time due to external-to-the-vehicle distraction or inattention was estimated to cause more than 23% of all crashes and near crashes that occurred. … [Another study shows] significantly longer average glance durations to roadside digital signs than to “baseline” sites and to traditional (fixed) billboards, and the researchers suggest, all measures of visual glances indicative of driver distraction would prove to be significantly worse in the presence of digital signs if a full study was to be conducted at night. … [T]here is growing evidence that billboards can attract and hold a driver’s attention for the extended periods of time that we now know to be unsafe.

… [A]n on-road study (Lee, et al., 2007) using an instrumented vehicle found many more such long glances made to DBBs and similar “comparison sites” consisting of (among other things) on-premise digital signs, than there were to sites containing traditional, static billboards, or sites with no obvious visual elements. … From the same study, we have evidence expressed by the researchers that if we were to conduct our research at night we would find that all measures of eye glance behavior would demonstrate significantly greater amounts of distraction to digital advertisements than to fixed billboards or to the natural roadside environment, and that driver vehicle control behaviors such as lane-keeping and speed maintenance would also suffer in the presence of these digital signs.

… When we add the results of these recent, applied research studies, to the earlier theoretical work by Theeuwes and his colleagues (1998, 1999), in which they demonstrated that our attention and our eye gaze is reflexively drawn to an object of different luminance in the visual field, that this occurs even when we are engaged in a primary task, and regardless of whether we have any interest in this irrelevant stimulus, and that we may have no recollection of having been attracted to it, we have a growing, and consistent picture of the adverse impact of irrelevant, outside-the-vehicle distracters such as DBBs on driver performance.

Note: In the citations that follow, all references to “Wachtel” are from the 2009 report citation given on page 4 of this report.

The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction: An Update, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-018, February 2009. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/cevms.pdf From the abstract: The present report reviews research concerning the possible effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) used for outdoor advertising on driver safety. Such CEVMS displays are alternatively known as Electronic Billboards (EBB) and Digital Billboards (DBB). The report consists of an update of earlier published work, a review of applicable research methods and techniques, recommendations for future research, and an extensive bibliography. The literature review update covers recent post-hoc crash studies, field investigations, laboratory investigations, previous literature reviews, and reviews of practice. The present report also examines the key factors or independent variables that might affect a driver’s response to CEVMS, as well as the key measures or dependent variables which may serve as indicators of driver safety, especially those that might reflect attention or distraction. These key factors and measures were selected, combined, and integrated into a set of alternative research strategies. Based on these strategies, as well as on the review of the literature, a proposed three stage program of research has been developed to address the problem. The present report also addresses CEVMS programmatic and research study approaches. In terms of an initial research study, three candidate methodologies are discussed and compared. These are: (1) an on-road instrumented vehicle study, (2) a naturalistic driving study, and (3) an unobtrusive observation study. An analysis of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each study approach indicated that the on-road instrumented vehicle approach was the best choice for answering the research question at the first stage.

Wachtel notes: It should be noted that this project was performed essentially in parallel with the present study. Although both looked at the recent literature that addressed driver behavior and performance in the presence of DBBs, the two studies had different goals and took different approaches. The study by Molino and his colleagues was intended to identify gaps in our current knowledge and design a research strategy to begin to fill those gaps, with the ultimate goal of providing the FHWA Office of Real Estate Services with a sufficient empirical basis from which to develop or revise, if appropriate, guidance and/or regulation for the use of DBBs along the Federal Aid Highway System. These goals differed considerably from the present study, whose purpose was to review, not only the recent research literature, but also existing guidelines and/or regulations that have been developed in the U.S. and abroad to address DBBs. Finally, the ultimate goal of the present study was to take what is known from the research, combine this knowledge with what has worked for regulatory authorities, and recommend new guidelines and/or regulations that could be enacted by State and local governments, and private and toll road authorities, without the need or the ability to wait for the completion of additional research. The FHWA study had no such objective.

The Effects of Visual Clutter on Driving Performance, Jessica Edquist, Accident Research Centre, Monash University, February 24, 2009. http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/Billboard-study-article.pdf From the abstract: Driving a motor vehicle is a complex activity, and errors in performing the driving task can result in crashes which cause property damage, injuries, and sometimes death. It is important that the road environment supports drivers in safe performance of the driving task. At present, increasing amounts of visual information from sources such as roadside advertising create visual clutter in the road environment. There has been little research on the effect of this visual clutter on driving performance, particularly for vulnerable groups such as novice and older drivers. The present work aims to fill this gap. Literature from a variety of relevant disciplines was surveyed and integrated, and a model of the mechanisms by which visual clutter could affect performance of the driving task was developed. To determine potential sources of clutter, focus groups with drivers were held and two studies involving subjective ratings of visual clutter in photographs and video clips of road environments were carried out. This resulted in a taxonomy of visual clutter in the road environment: “situational clutter”, including

13 vehicles and other road users with whom drivers interact; “designed clutter”, including road signs, signals, and markings used by traffic authorities to communicate with users; and “built clutter”, including roadside development and any signage not originating from a road authority. The taxonomy of visual clutter was tested using the change detection paradigm. Drivers were slower to detect changes in photographs of road scenes with high levels of visual clutter than with low levels, and slower for road scenes including advertising billboards than road scenes without billboards. Finally, the effects of billboard presence and lead vehicles on vehicle control, eye movements and responses to traffic signs and signals were tested using a driving simulator. The number of vehicles included appeared to be insufficient to create situational clutter. However billboards had significant effects on driver speed (slower), ability to follow directions on road signs (slower with more errors), and eye movements (increased amount of time fixating on roadsides at the expense of scanning the road ahead). Older drivers were particularly affected by visual clutter in both the change detection and simulated driving tasks. Results are discussed in terms of implications for future research and for road safety practitioners. Visual clutter can affect driver workload as well as purely visual aspects of the driving task (such as hazard perception and search for road signs). When driver workload is increased past a certain point other driving tasks will also be performed less well (such as speed maintenance). Advertising billboards in particular cause visual distraction, and should be considered at a similar level of potential danger as visual distraction from in- vehicle devices. The consequences of roadside visual clutter are more severe for the growing demographic of older drivers. Currently, road environments do not support drivers (particularly older drivers) as well as they could. Based on the results, guidance is given for road authorities to improve this status when designing and location road signage and approving roadside advertising.

The Impact of Roadside Advertising on Driver Distraction: Final Report, WSP Development and Transportation, June 2008. http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge_compendium/assets/documents/Portfolio/The%20impact%20of %20roadside%20advertising%20on%20the%20travelling%20public%20-%20Report%20-%201103.pdf This report argues against the use of accident data in evaluating the impacts of billboards. Wachtel summarizes these arguments as follows: • There could be other unknown variables that could have led to the reported accidents. • There are many opportunities for error or omission in data entry in police accident reporting forms. • In minor accidents, the involved vehicles may move away from the point of rest (POR) to clear traffic lanes, thus further degrading the potential accuracy of identifying the true location. The POR of the involved vehicle(s) (which is what is commonly identified in police reports) may have little relationship to the point of distraction that was the proximal cause of the crash. • Accidents, particularly minor accidents, are underreported. • Accident data considers only those incidents that result in an actual collision. But there are likely many more incidences of distraction that result in driver error (such as late braking, lane exceedances) without consequence, and others that result in “near misses” that might have resulted in a crash but for the evasive actions of another driver. “As no data on ‘near misses’ is available, it is not possible to quantify the full effect of distraction” (p. 35).

Wachtel also summarizes the reports broad conclusions as follows: • Although it is accepted that drivers are responsible for attending to the driving task, “visual clutter is liable to overload or distract drivers” (p. 63). • The stakeholders could not provide statistical evidence to demonstrate the presence or absence of a correlation between roadside advertising and accidents. • There is no desire for an outright ban on roadside advertising, but there is general agreement about the need for more guidance or regulation to control the type, location and content of such advertising. • There is a need for additional governmental powers to remove unauthorized advertising, and there is a need to make enforcement a greater priority.

*A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Tantala Associates, sponsored by the OAAA, July 2007. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2007/M/1154756 This study sponsored by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America uses police reports to examine the statistical relationship between certain digital billboards and traffic safety for seven locations in Cuyahoga County. Results show no statistical relationship between the presence of digital billboards and accidents.

Wachtel notes: The authors performed a post-hoc accident analysis study in which they reviewed statistical summaries of traffic collision reports, the originals of which had been prepared by investigating police officers. There are serious, inherent weaknesses in the use of this technique; such weaknesses have been understood and well documented for many years (see, for example, Wachtel and Netherton, 1980; Klauer, et al., 2006b; Speirs, et al., 2008). The use of this approach to relate crashes to driver distraction from DBBs, however, raises additional concerns.

Wachtel goes on to give an extensive critique of this study (pages 89 to 101), reprising his criticisms in the following review:

A Critical, Comprehensive Review of Two Studies Recently Released by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Jerry Wachtel, The Veridian Group, October 18, 2007. http://www.scenic.org/storage/documents/Wachtel_Maryland_review.pdf From the report: In July 2007, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) announced on its website the issuance of two “ground-breaking studies” that addressed the human factors and driver performance issues associated with real-world digital (or electronic) billboards (EBBs), and the impact of such billboards on traffic accidents (Outdoor Advertising Association of America, 2007). … As a result of the issuance of these two studies and the claims made for them, and because of the need to address this technology by Government agencies nationwide, the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) asked this reviewer to perform an independent peer review of each of the two studies. This report represents the results of that review. … Having completed this peer review, it is our opinion that acceptance of these reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data, and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised.

*Driving Performance and Digital Billboards, Suzanne E. Lee, Melinda J. McElheny, Ronald Gibbons, Center for Automotive Safety Research, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, sponsored by the OAAA, March 22, 2007. http://www.oaaa.org/UserFiles/File/Legislative/Digital/6.3.9b%20Driver%20Behavior%20Research.pdf From the abstract: Thirty-six drivers drove an instrumented vehicle on a 50-mile loop route in the daytime along some of the interstates and surface streets in Cleveland [OH]. … The overall conclusion, supported by both the eyeglance results and the questionnaire results, is that the digital billboards seem to attract more attention than the conventional billboards and baseline sites. Because of the lack of crash causation data, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards. Although there are measurable changes in driver performance in the presence of digital billboards, in many cases these differences are on a par with those associated with everyday driving, such as the on-premises signs located at businesses.

Driven to Distraction: Determining the Effects of Roadside Advertising on Driver Attention, Mark S. Young, Janina M. Mahfoud, Brunel University, 2007. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/2229/1/Roadside%20distractions%20final%20report%20%28Bru nel%29.pdf From the abstract: There is growing concern that roadside advertising presents a real risk to driving safety, with conservative estimates putting external distractors responsible for up to 10% of all accidents. In this report, we present a simulator study quantifying the effects of billboards on driver attention, mental workload and performance in Urban, Motorway and Rural environments. The results demonstrate that roadside advertising has a clear detrimental effect on lateral control, increases mental workload and eye fixations, and on some roads can draw attention away from more relevant road signage. Detailed analysis of the data suggests that the effects of billboards may in fact be more consequential in scenarios which are monotonous or of lower workload. Nevertheless, the overriding conclusion is that prudence should be exercised when authorising or placing roadside advertising. The findings are discussed with respect to governmental policy and guidelines.

Wachtel gives an extensive critique of the methodology for this industry-sponsored study (pages 101 to 114).

The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data, S.G. Klauer, T.A. Dingus, V.L. Neale, J.D. Sudweeks, D.J. Ramsey, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, April 2006. http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2006/DriverInattentio n.pdf From the abstract: The purpose of this report was to conduct in-depth analyses of driver inattention using the driving data collected in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study. An additional database of baseline epochs was reduced from the raw data and used in conjunction with the crash and near-crash data identified as part of the original 100-Car Study to account for exposure and establish near-crash/crash risk. The analyses presented in this report are able to establish direct relationships between driving behavior and crash and near-crash involvement. Risk was calculated (odds ratios) using both crash and near-crash data as well as normal baseline driving data for various sources of inattention. The corresponding population attributable risk percentages were also calculated to estimate the percentage of crashes and near-crashes occurring in the population resulting from inattention. Additional analyses involved: driver willingness to engage in distracting tasks or driving while drowsy; analyses with survey and test battery responses; and the impact of driver’s eyes being off of the forward roadway. The results indicated that driving while drowsy results in a four- to six-times higher near-crash/crash risk relative to alert drivers. Drivers engaging in visually and/or manually complex tasks have a three-times higher near- crash/crash risk than drivers who are attentive. There are specific environmental conditions in which engaging in secondary tasks or driving while drowsy is more dangerous, including intersections, wet roadways, and areas of high traffic density. Short, brief glances away from the forward roadway for the purpose of scanning the driving environment are safe and actually decrease near-crash/crash risk. Even in the cases of secondary task engagement, if the task is simple and requires a single short glance, the risk is elevated only slightly, if at all. However, glances totaling more than 2 seconds for any purpose increase near-crash/crash risk by at least two times that of normal, baseline driving.

Driving Performance in the Presence and Absence of Billboards, Suzanne E. Lee, Erik C.B. Olsen, Maryanne C. DeHart, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, February 29, 2004. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2004/M/811075 From the abstract: The current project was undertaken to determine whether there is any change in driving behavior in the presence or absence of billboards. Several measures of eyeglance location were used as primary measures of driver visual performance. Additional measures were included to provide further insight into driving performance—these included speed variation and lane deviation. The overall conclusion from this study is that there is no measurable evidence that billboards cause changes in driver

16 behavior, in terms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, and lane keeping. A rigorous examination of individual billboards that could be considered to be the most visually attention-getting demonstrated no measurable relationship between glance location and billboard location. Driving performance measures in the presence of these specific billboards generally showed less speed variation and lane deviation. Thus, even in the presence of the most visually attention-getting billboards, neither visual performance nor driving performance changes measurably. Participants in this study drove a vehicle equipped with cameras in order to capture the forward view and two views of the driver’s face and eyes. The vehicle was also equipped with a data collection system that would capture vehicle information such as speed, lane deviation, GPS location, and other measures of driving performance. Thirty-six drivers participated in the study, driving a 35-mile loop route in Charlotte, North Carolina. A total of 30 billboard sites along the route were selected, along with six comparison sites and six baseline sites. Several measures were used to examine driving performance during the 7-seconds preceding the billboard or other type of site. These included measures of driver visual performance (forward, left, and right glances) and measures of driving performance (lane deviation and speed variation). With 36 participants and 42 sites, there were 1,512 events available for analysis. A small amount of data was lost due to sensor outages, sun angle, and lane changes, leaving 1,481 events for eyeglance analysis and 1,394 events for speed and lane position analysis. Altogether, 103,670 video frames were analyzed and 10,895 glances were identified. There were 97,580 data points in the speed and lane position data set. The visual performance results indicate that billboards do not differ measurably from comparison sites such as logo boards, on-premises advertisements, and other roadside items. No measurable differences were found for visual behavior in terms of side of road, age, or familiarity, while there was one difference for gender. Not surprisingly, there were significant differences for road type, with surface streets showing a more active glance pattern than interstates. There were also no measurable differences in speed variability or lane deviation in the presence of billboards as compared to baseline or comparison sites. An analysis of specific, high attention-getting billboards showed that some sites show a more active glance pattern than other sites, but the glance locations did not necessarily correspond to the side of the road where the billboards were situated. The active glance patterns are probably due more to the road type than to the billboard itself. One major finding was that significantly more time was spent with the eyes looking forward (eyes on road) for billboard and comparison sites as compared to baseline sites, providing a clue that billboards may actually improve driver visual behavior. Taken as a whole, these analyses support the overall conclusion that driving performance does not change measurably in the presence or absence of billboards.

Effects of Roadside Advertisements on Road Safety, Finnish Road Administration, 2004. http://alk.tiehallinto.fi/julkaisut/pdf/4000423e-veffectsofroadside.pdf From the abstract: The effects of roadside advertisements on road safety have been studied using various methods. The topic was studied in Finland especially in the 1970s and 1980s. The results of those studies can be summarised thusly: • In general, the number of accidents occurring near roadside advertisements has not been observed to be higher than at reference sites. • The negative effects of advertisements are, however, visible in accident statistics if they are focused on limited conditions (junctions). • The effects of advertisements are apparent in driver behaviour, but the effects measured in normal traffic are small. • Advertisements along main roads distract the detection of traffic signs and possibly also other objects relevant to the driver’s task.

“Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs,” Transportation Research Record 1899, 2004: 96-103. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2004/C/749677 From the abstract: This study focused on the glance behavior of 25 drivers at various advertising signs along an expressway in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The average duration of the glances for the subjects was 0.57 s [standard deviation (SD) = 0.41], and in total there was an average of 35.6 glances per subject (SD = 26.4). Active signs that contained movable displays or components made up 51% of the signs and received significantly more glances (69% of all glances and 78% of long glances). The number of glances was significantly lower for passive signs (0.64 glances per subject per sign) than for active signs (greater than 1.31 glances per subject per sign). The number of long glances was also greater for active signs than for passive signs. Sign placement in the visual field may be critical to a sign being noticed or not. Empirical information is provided to assist regulatory agencies in setting policy on commercial signing.

Wachtel notes: The implication for digital signs is that the shorter the period of time for which a given message is presented, and thus the more likely it is that a given approaching driver will see one or more message changes, the more likely it is that a driver will glance at such a sign for a longer period in anticipation of the next message to be displayed. Further, digital billboards display some characteristics of both fixed, traditional billboards and the types of active signs examined here. For example, a digital billboard may display a fixed image to any particular approaching driver, but depending upon its message cycle time, a driver may see one or more different displays. In this way, it is not unlike the roller signs discussed in this study, and, depending upon the display duration and change interval, digital signs may attract the same kind of attention expressed by some of the respondents in this study. Finally, a digital billboard is likely to possess image brightness, color, contrast, and image fidelity far higher than that achieved by any of the four sign types examined by the authors in this study. While the implications of these technological advances suggest that digital billboards would be more effective at capturing attention, this remains an empirical question.

“Driver Distraction by Advertising: Genuine Risk or Urban Myth?” Brendan Wallace, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer, Vol. 156, Issue 3, September 2003: 185-190. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2003/C/688088 From the abstract: Drivers operate in an increasingly complex visual environment, and yet there has been little recent research on the effects this might have on driving ability and accident rates. This paper is based on research carried out for the Scottish Executive’s Central Research Unit on the subject of external-to-vehicle driver distraction. A literature review/meta-analysis was carried out with a view to answering the following questions: is there a serious risk to safe driving caused by features in the external environment, and if there is, what can be done about it? Review of the existing literature suggests that, although the subject is under-researched, there is evidence that in some cases overcomplex visual fields can distract drivers and that it is unlikely that existing guidelines and legislation adequately regulate this. Theoretical explanations for the phenomenon are offered and areas for future research highlighted.

Wachtel summarizes the major conclusions as follows: • The adverse effect of billboards is real, but situation specific. • Too much visual clutter at or near intersections can interfere with drivers’ visual search and lead to accidents. • It is “probable” that isolated, illuminated billboards in an otherwise boring section of highway can create distraction through phototaxis.

Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction, Federal Highway Administration, September 11, 2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov////realestate/elecbbrd/elecbbrd.pdf This report reviews the literature on electronic billboards (with a focus on implications for safety) from 1980 to 2001. Based on the literature review, it identifies knowledge gaps and potential research questions categorized by roadway characteristics such as curves, interchanges and work zones; electronic billboard characteristics such as exposure time, motion and legibility; and driver characteristics such as familiarity and age. Related research findings on the legibility of changeable message signs are also included.

Wachtel gives the following overview of the report’s conclusions: A number of the conclusions reached, while highly relevant, might be seen even more strongly in light of the observations made by other researchers. For example, the authors appropriately suggest that there may be lessons from studies into the legibility and conspicuity of official changeable message signs that could be applied to [digital billboards (DBBs)]. They further discuss the fact that low levels of illumination on official signs could lead to reduced conspicuity and, hence, reduced legibility. This difficulty might be exacerbated because DBBs typically have very high luminance levels, often leading to complaints by the traveling public as well as regulators. These high luminance levels may increase the conspicuity of the DBBs at the expense of official signs. Similarly, the authors discuss differences in response to signs by familiar vs. unfamiliar drivers, since it is understood that motorists who pass the same signs regularly become acclimated to their presence and may ignore them. Of course, one of the defining characteristics of DBBs is their ability to display a new message every few seconds, thus, in effect, presenting displays that are always new and therefore unfamiliar to all drivers.

The report also gives an overview of state regulations and practices as of 2001 (pages 5-9 and Appendices B and C) of 42 states: • Thirty-six states had prohibitions on signs with red, flashing, intermittent or moving lights. • Twenty-nine states prohibited signs that were so illuminated as to obscure or interfere with traffic control devices. • Twenty-nine states prohibited signs located on Interstate or primary highway outside of the zoning authority of incorporated cities within 500 feet of an interchange or intersection at grade or safety roadside area.

“An Evaluation of the Influence of Roadside Advertising on Road Safety in the Greater Montreal Region,” J. Bergeron, Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the Northeast Association of State Transportation Officials, 1997: 527. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/1997/C/539081 Wachtel summarizes this report’s conclusions as follows: • Attentional resources needed for the driving task are diverted by the irrelevant information presented on advertising signs. This is an impact attributable to the “nature of the information” that is conveyed on such signs. This distraction leads to degradation in oculomotor performance that adversely affects reaction time and vehicle control capability. • When the driving task imposes substantial attentional demands such as might occur on a heavily traveled, high speed urban freeway, billboards can create an attentional overload that can have an impact on micro- and macro-performance requirements of the driving task. In other words, the impact of the distraction varies according to the complexity of the driving task. The greater the driving task demands, the more obvious are the adverse effects of the distraction on driving performance. • The difficulty of the driving task can vary in several ways. Those that relate to the physical environment (e.g., weather, roadway geometry, road conditions) are unavoidable, and drivers must adjust to them (unless they take an alternate route or wait for better conditions). Necessary

sensory information adds to the workload of the driving task, but is, of course, needed to perform safely. In addition, road signs and signals that communicate complex but necessary information contribute to the overall workload of driving. In this case, however, years of study have been directed toward making this information as clear and as easily accessible as possible. • To some extent, the level of mental workload that impacts driving occurs at a pre-processing level. Bergeron cites, as an example, a complex or cluttered visual environment. In this case, the attentional effort that drivers expend in searching for target objects (e.g., signs and signals) will be more laborious, demand more resources, and lead to declines in performance levels. • The presence of a billboard increases the confusion of the visual (back)ground and may lead to conflict with road signs and signals. • Situational factors that are likely to create a heavy mental workload include: complex geometry, heavy traffic, high speeds, areas of merging and diverging traffic, areas with road signs where drivers must make decisions, roadways in poor repair, areas of reduced visibility, and adverse weather conditions. • The very characteristics of billboards that their designers employ to enable them to draw attention are those that have the greatest impact on what Bergeron calls attentional diversion. • Drivers must constantly carry out the work of recognizing stimuli that may not be immediately meaningful to them. This task requires time and mental resources, both of which are in limited supply. • Attention directs perception, and vice versa. In other words, when we are looking for something, our sensory system places itself at the service of our attention. But it is also possible for a sensation to attract the attention of drivers because it may represent something that is of potential importance. For example, authorities put flashing lights on emergency vehicles because they want drivers to attend to them.

Review of Roadside Advertising Signs, Transportation Environment Consultants, Roads and Traffic Authority, August 1989. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=350317 From the abstract: Some of the main findings are: 1) The review study did not identify any factor or experience which would substantiate, on safety grounds, the long standing policy of prohibiting the erection of advertising signs within the road reserves of declared roads, including freeways. In fact, the literature survey, embracing over 40 publications including a comprehensive safety survey as recently as 1985, did not identify any evidence to say that, in general, advertising signs are causing traffic accidents. 2) Human factors research confirms the principle of the limited processor capacity of the driver. Management of stimuli to the driver, both inherent to the driving task and from external (distractions) sources, requires scrutiny as driving performance deteriorates when high levels of attention and decision making are involved. 3) Motorists information needs systems comprise a ‘navigational’ and a ‘services information’ component. There is a strong correlation between these needs and the adequacy of display of such information by traditional forms of advertising. 4) Changing values of aesthetics and amenity have resulted from community concerns with the disorder and clutter of traditional roadside advertising; 5) Subject to specified control conditions, advertising signs may be permitted within the road reserve of declared roads, including freeways. Desirably such signs should provide directional, tourist, services and locational information.

Wachtel summarizes the report’s conclusions as follows: • Research confirms the limited processor capacity of a driver. • It is important that management of stimuli to the driver, both inherent to the primary task of driving and external to it (distraction) must clearly aim not to exceed the optimum rate for safe and efficient driver performance. • When these external stimuli fall significantly below optimum, driver performance may decrease (boredom), and additional external stimuli could benefit driver response.

• Additional attentional loading by advertising signs may impair driving performance when high levels of attention and decision making are required. • Advertisements not associated with navigational and services information needs can, subject to relevant safety controls, be permitted at roadside locations where the driving task does not heavily load the attentional capacity of the driver.

Interestingly, they reported from their interview with a Dr. S. Jenkins of the ARRB, his recommendation that “changeable message signs could be used in roadside advertisements providing each message is ‘static for about 5 minutes’ (i.e., the message on-time) and the changeover period between messages ‘does not exceed about 2 seconds’” (p. 39).

In a later chapter of the report, the authors provide a series of “definitions and technology” (p. 49) to describe the different types of advertising signs that might be considered, and how they might be used. In a section on “internally illuminated signs” the authors provide a table showing what they consider to be the maximum luminance levels of advertising signs of different sizes which may be located in different driving environments. These data are based on recommendations from the Public Lighting Engineers in the U.K. With regard to “electronic variable-message signs” the authors devote several pages to defining terminology and identifying “factors” that should be taken into account when considering their impact (pp. 56-60). This discussion is taken directly from the Wachtel and Netherton (1980) report (pp. 68-74), and need not be repeated here.

Literature on Outdoor Advertising Safety Since the 2009 Wachtel Report

“Advertising Billboards Impair Change Detection in Road Scenes,” J. Edquist, T. Horberry, S. Hosking, I. Johnston, Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, November 6-9, 2011. http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/rsr/RSR2011/4CPaper%20166%20Edquist.pdf From the abstract: The present experiment used the ‘change detection’ paradigm to examine how billboards affect visual search and situation awareness in road scenes. In a controlled experiment, inexperienced, older, and comparison drivers searched for changes to road signs and vehicle locations in static photographs of road scenes. On average, participants took longer to detect changes in road scenes that contained advertising billboards. This finding was especially true when the roadway background was more cluttered, when the change was to a road sign, and for older drivers. The results are consistent with the small yet growing body of evidence suggesting that roadside advertising billboards impair aspects of driving performance such as visual search and the detection of hazards, and therefore should be more precisely regulated in order to ensure a safe road system.

“Are Roadside Electronic Static Displays a Threat to Safety?” Rena Friswell, Elia Vecellio, Raphael Grzebieta, Julie Hatfield, Lori Mooren, Murray Cleaver, Michael De Roos, Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, November 6-9, 2011. http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/rsr/RSR2011/4CPaper%20172%20Friswell.pdf This study reviews the literature from 2001 to 2010 on the effects of electronic static displays (ESDs) on driver distraction, driving performance and safety, and discusses the implications of the findings for research and policy. Researchers found only 11 studies that bear directly on ESDs, and created two tables summarizing them (pages 5-8). Over half of the studies were conducted by Tantala and Tantala and were commissioned by the U.S. Outdoor Advertising Association of America, and most examined crash data before and after installation of ESDs. Five of the eight crash data studies reported no adverse effect of ESD installation on crashes, but both of the studies that compared post-installation crashes with the rates predicted by the trend in pre-installation crashes found statistically significant evidence of increased crashes following installation. Studies using measures other than crashes reported mixed findings. Gaze was directed toward the sign stimuli in the simulator and on-road studies, dual task reaction time was slowed in the presence of the sign stimuli in the laboratory experiment, and lane keeping was impaired in

21 the simulator study but reductions in lane keeping only approached significance on-road and there was no evidence of speed disruption on-road. Researchers conclude that while the research designs for these studies are weak, there does seem to be evidence that ESDs can have a negative impact on attention, driving performance and safety.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan, Federal Highway Administration, May 2011. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42200/42240/FHWA-PL-11-023.pdf This study scanned practices in Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to learn how they regulate outdoor advertising both inside and outside the roadway right of way, and also includes a desk scan of outdoor advertising practices in Japan.

General similarities between practices in the countries visited and those of the United States include (pages 1-2): • Inconsistent enforcement and mixed success in developing more objective criteria for decision makers. • Interest in growing commercial advertising in transportation corridors. • Interest in generating revenue inside the right of way and removing some of the restrictions to commercial use of the right of way. • Common interest in regulating new technologies to minimize driver distraction, such as use of and rules to govern commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS). The major focus is reducing crashes and fatalities. • Prohibitions of signs that resemble official signs. • Interest in reliable research on the safety impacts of outdoor advertising and CEVMS.

Differences (from pages 2-3 of the report) include: • Where outdoor advertising is allowed in the countries visited, state and federal responsibility is limited to high-level and national routes. • For permitting purposes, on-premise and off-premise signs are regulated. • The national/federal government has a lesser role in the state’s administration and program compliance. • Sign businesses, site owners, and sign owners can incur penalties for noncompliance. • Agencies in the countries visited rely more on safety factors and the relationship between the sign and the road environment for permitting decisions than agencies in the United States. • Agencies have some control over message formatting, such as specifying font size and prohibiting phone numbers and e-mail addresses, to reduce driver distraction and reading time. • Local planning authorities had more regulatory involvement in and control of sign permits in all countries visited because all areas were under some control, designation, or zoning. There were few unzoned areas because of more rigorous, comprehensive local planning and land use management. • Use of the right- of- way for commercial billboards is limited, but more prevalent in locally controlled urban jurisdictions. One Australian state generated AU$15 million with advertising inside the right- of- way, but most countries visited are waiting until more conclusive research is done on driver distraction. Sweden is beginning a pilot. • Signs may be removed after permitted if safety is a concern. • In all of the countries visited, traffic and public safety play a more critical role in the permitting process than in the United States. • All of the countries have developed criteria to identify unacceptable signs, such as those that resemble traffic control devices, could direct traffic, or could distract or confuse drivers. • The safety evaluation process is more comprehensive, both in the documentation and burden of proof applicants must provide that a sign will not create a safety hazard and the review process after an application is submitted.

Based on this scan, researchers suggest the following steps to enhance safety (from page 4 of the report): • Develop criteria to evaluate permit applications to identify signs that are unacceptable from a safety perspective because they resemble traffic control devices or could distract or confuse drivers. • Update the assessment criteria used to review permit applications to reflect design, planning, environmental, and public and traffic safety criteria used by several countries visited. • Update permitting requirements to include an analysis of the technical feasibility, benefits, safety impacts, and other effects of a proposed outdoor advertising installation. • Conduct research on the safety impacts of outdoor advertising, and possibly require applicants to conduct a safety analysis to demonstrate the design and safety feasibility of proposed installations. Assess whether existing traffic data from intelligent transportation systems or traffic control centers could be used to track traffic patterns and establish the potential impacts of commercial electronic variable message signs on traffic flow. • Study the effects of full-motion video on driver attention.

“Effects of Advertising Billboards During Simulated Driving,” Jessica Edquist, Tim Horberry, Simon Hosking, Ian Johnston Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 42, Issue 4, May 2011: 619-626. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2011/C/1100574 From the abstract: The driving simulator experiment presented here examines the effects of billboards on drivers, including older and inexperienced drivers who may be more vulnerable to distractions. The presence of billboards changed drivers’ patterns of visual attention, increased the amount of time needed for drivers to respond to road signs, and increased the number of errors in this driving task.

“Digital Billboards, Distracted Drivers,” Jerry Wachtel, Planning, Vol. 77, Issue 3, March 2011: 25-27. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2011/C/1106533 From the abstract: This article discusses the negative consequences of billboards, especially those that employ digital technology. … An industry study has shown that drivers take their eyes off the road for two seconds or longer twice as often when they are looking at digital advertising signs than when they are looking at traditional billboards. … The author has identified four factors that could reduce the distraction caused by digital billboards: control the lighting at nighttime; lengthen the dwell time of messages; simplify the message by limiting the number and types of words and symbols; and prohibit message sequencing (i.e., the digital equivalent of Burma Shave-type signs).

“External Distractions: The Effects of Video Billboards and Windfarms on Driving Performance,” Handbook of Driving Simulation for Engineering, Medicine and Psychology, CRC Press, 2011: 16-1 – 16-14. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2011/C/1114742 This study used a driving simulator to study driver reactions to the braking of a lead vehicle in the presence of wind turbines and digital video billboard. While perception response time was not affected by the presence of wind turbines, significantly more rear-end collisions occurred to the hard lead-vehicle braking event in the presence of video billboards than conventional billboard and control conditions.

*“An Examination of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Reading, Pennsylvania, Using Empirical Bayes Analyses,” Moving Toward Zero: 2011 ITE Technical Conference and Exhibit, sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2011. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2011/C/1103869 From the abstract: This paper examines the statistical relationship between advertising digital billboards and traffic safety using Empirical Bayes Method analyses. Specifically, this paper analyzes traffic and accident data near 26 existing, non-accessory, advertising digital billboards along routes with periods of comparison as long as 8 years in the greater Reading area, Berks County, Pennsylvania. These studied digital billboards are one type of commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) which display

23 static messages, include no animation, flashing lights, scrolling, or full-motion video, and have duration times of 6, 8, or 10 seconds. Temporal (when and how frequently) and spatial (where and how far) statistics are summarized within multiple vicinity ranges as large as one mile near billboards. The study uses the Empirical Bayes (EB) method to predict the “expected” range of accidents at locations assuming that no digital billboard technology was introduced. The method analyzes data near 26 billboard locations, incorporates data using 51 non-digital comparison sites, and establishes a multivariate Crash Estimation Model (CEM) with a negative binomial distribution to estimate expected numbers of crashes near locations. Predictive methods in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual are used with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) highway, geometric, and crash data.

Investigating Driver Distraction: The Effects of Video and Static Advertising, TRL Published Project Report, Transport Research Laboratory, 2010. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2010/M/919620 From the abstract: Roadside advertising is a common sight on urban roads. Previous research suggests the presence of advertising increases mental workload and changes the profile of eye fixations, drawing attention away from the driving task. This study was conducted using a driving simulator and integrated eye-tracking system to compare driving behaviour across a number of experimental advertising conditions. Forty eight participants took part in this trial, with three factors examined; Advert type, position of adverts and exposure duration to adverts. The results indicated that when passing advert positions, drivers: spent longer looking at video adverts; glanced at video adverts more frequently; tended to show greater variation in lateral lane position with video adverts; braked harder on approach to video adverts; drove more slowly past video adverts. The findings indicate that video adverts caused significantly greater impairment to driving performance when compared to static adverts. Questionnaire results support the findings of the data recorded in the driving simulator, with participants being aware their driving was more impaired by the presence of video adverts. Through analysis of the experimental data, this study has provided the most detailed insight yet into the effects of roadside billboard advertising on driver behaviour.

*“Quantifying External Vehicle Distractions and Their Impacts at Signalized Intersections,” Raheem Dilgir, Cory Wilson, ITE 2010 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. http://www.ite.org/annualmeeting/compendium10/pdf/AB10H3702.pdf This study investigated the safety impacts of visual distractions for vehicles at 28 signalized intersections in greater Vancouver, British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta. Site visits were conducted to assess each intersection, and three years of collision data and traffic volumes were provided by road agencies. The results indicated a positive relationship between distraction score and collision rate as well as between distraction score and collision frequency. Analysis of individual distraction criteria revealed that the strongest correlation exists between roadside advertising and safety. No other specific element was significantly more influential than another regarding safety performance, suggesting that the combined effect of various distraction features is correlated to safety performance.

The Impact of Sacramento State’s Electronic Billboard on Traffic and Safety, Mahesh Pandey, California State University, Sacramento, Summer 2010. http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.9/282/Project%20Report10a.pdf?sequence=1 This student project evaluated the traffic and safety impact of a new electronic billboard near Sacramento State adjacent to Highway 50 by analyzing traffic flow parameters on upstream portions of electronic billboards on both directions of the highway before and after the installation. Data came from the California Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) database for changes in common traffic flow parameters (speed, flow rate and lane occupancy) over a two-month period before and after the installation of the electronic billboard. This project also analyzed crash and collision data from PeMS for changes in noninjury, injury and fatal crashes over a one-year period before and a one-year period after the installation of the electronic billboard.

Results showed that the presence of the electronic billboard near Sacramento State does not appear to have a significant negative impact in traffic performance (flow, speed and lane occupancy) or incidents in the study section of the freeway. Because many of the road users at this segment are probably commuters, they may be familiar with the electronic billboard, and it does not appear to affect their driving. Even though electronic billboards are capable of displaying multiple messages/commercials at different times, the advertisements do not appear to be a major distraction to drivers at this location. No changes in measurable impact on road safety after the installation of the electronic billboard were observed. At the same time, a public opinion survey indicated that more than two-thirds of self-identified drivers through the study area who were surveyed believed that this electronic billboard does not pose a safety risk to traffic.

“Conflicts of Interest: The Implications of Roadside Advertising for Driver Attention,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 12, Issue 5, September 2009: 381-388. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2009/C/902985 From the abstract: There is growing concern that roadside advertising presents a real risk to driving safety, with conservative estimates putting external distractors responsible for up to 10% of all road traffic accidents. In this report, we present a simulator study quantifying the effects of billboards on driver attention, mental workload and performance in urban, motorway and rural environments. The results demonstrate that roadside advertising has clear adverse effects on lateral control and driver attention, in terms of mental workload. Whilst the methodological limitations of the study are acknowledged, the overriding conclusion is that prudence should be exercised when authorizing or placing roadside advertising. The findings are discussed with respect to governmental policy and guidelines.

Digital Billboard Safety Amongst Motorists in Los Angeles, Steven Clark Henson, California State University Northridge, Spring 2009. http://www.csun.edu/~sch60990/Geog_490_PAPER.pdf The paper discusses the impact of digital billboards and driver safety in Los Angeles via a review of literature, driver behavior surveys and a spatial analysis of high traffic collision intersections and digital billboard locations. Of 76 intersections with digital billboards, only three (4 percent) were hazardous intersections (as defined by The 2008 California 5 Percent Report and driver surveys). However, 80 percent of drivers surveyed said they were more likely to glance at a digital billboard as opposed to a standard billboard, 42.8 percent said that digital billboards inhibited the ability of motorists to concentrate on the road, and all but two respondents said their glances are longer than two seconds.

Luminance Criteria and Other Human Factors for Sign Design In the following studies, “luminance” refers to luminous intensity per unity area, measured in candela per square meter (cd/m2, or “nit”). Luminance differs from brightness, which measures the subjective perception caused by an object’s luminance, and can differ in various contexts for an object of the same luminance.

“Congruent Visual Information Improves Traffic Signage,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 15, Issue 4, 2012: 438-444. Abstract at: http://trid.trb.org/view/2012/C/1141270 From the abstract: This study investigated the interference effect produced by the position of the sign elements in traffic signage on response accuracy and reaction time. Sixteen drivers performed a flanker interference reaction time task. Incongruent graphical/space solutions, actually used for the airport stack- type sign, [led] to increased reaction time and a reduction in the proportion of correct answers. These results suggest that incongruent visual information should be avoided, as this might impair drivers’ performance. These findings provide important information for the specification of future signage design guidelines and for improving road safety.

“A Study on Guide Sign Validity in Driving Simulator,” Wei Zhonghua, Gong Ming, Guo Ruili, Rong Jian, Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD, Paper #12- 1983, sponsored by Transportation Research Board, 2012. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2012/C/1129560 This project used a driving simulator to study guide sign legibility distance. Results indicated that legibility distance was inversely related to speed and positively related to the text height of the guide sign. When the speed is 20km/h, 30km/h or 40km/h, the magnifying power of text height is 4.3, 4.1 or 3.8, respectively.

“Luminance Criteria and Measurement Considerations for Light-Emitting Diode Billboards,” John Bullough, Nicholas Skinner, Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD, Paper #11-0659, sponsored by Transportation Research Board, 2011. ftp://ftp.hsrc.unc.edu/pub/TRB2011/data/papers/11-0659.pdf From the abstract: The present paper summarizes luminance measurements and calculations for advertising billboard signs located adjacent to highways. The primary purpose of the present information is to provide preliminary estimates of conventional externally-illuminated billboard panel luminances in the driving environment. These estimates could form a partial basis for maximum luminance requirements for electronic billboards adjacent to highways using self-luminous light sources such as light-emitting diodes. Also discussed are considerations when making luminance measurements of billboard signs in the field.

Table 1 on page 3 has a summary of luminance measurements:

Digital LED Billboard Luminance Recommendations: How Bright is Bright Enough? Christian B. Luginbuhl, Howard Israel, Paul Scowen, Jennifer and Tom Polakis, Arizona State University, November 9, 2010. http://www.illinoislighting.org/resources/DigitalBillboardLuminanceRecommendation_ver7.pdf From the abstract: Careful and sensible control of the nighttime brightness of digital LED signage is critical. Unlike previous technologies, these signs are designed to produce brightness levels that are visible during the daytime; should too large a fraction of this brightness be used at night serious consequences for driver visibility and safety are possible. A review of the lighting professional literature indicates that drivers should be subjected to brightness levels of no greater than 10 to 40 times the 26 brightness level to which their eyes are adapted for the critical driving task. As roadway lighting and automobile headlights provide lighting levels of about one nit, this implies signage should appear no brighter than about 40 nits. Standard industry practice with previous technologies for floodlit billboards averages less than 60 nits, and rarely exceeds 100 nits. It is recommended that the new technologies should not exceed 100 nits.

“Effect of Luminance and Text Size on Information Acquisition Time from Traffic Signs (With Discussion and Closure),” Transportation Research Record 2122, 2009: 52-62. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2009/C/881884 From the abstract: This study investigated the effect of (legend) luminance and letter size on the information acquisition time and transfer accuracy from simulated traffic signs. Luminances ranged from 3.2 cd/m² to 80 cd/m² on positive-contrast textual traffic sign stimuli with contrast ratios of 6:1 and 10:1, positioned at 33 ft/in. and 40 ft/in. legibility indices, and viewed under conditions simulating a nighttime driving environment. The findings suggest that increasing the sign luminance significantly reduces the time to acquire information. Similarly, increasing the sign size (or reducing the legibility index) also reduces the information acquisition time. These findings suggest that larger and brighter signs are more efficient in transferring their message to the driver by reducing information acquisition time, or alternatively, by increasing the transfer accuracy. In return, reduced sign viewing durations and increased reading accuracy are likely to improve roadway safety.

Note: the “legibility index” is:

... a numerical value representing the distance in feet at which a sign may be read for every inch of capital letter height. For example, a sign with a Legibility Index of 30 means that it should be legible at 30 feet with one inch capital letters, or legible at 300 feet with ten inch capital letters. (See http://www.usscfoundation.org/USSCSignLegiRulesThumb.pdf)

Driver Comprehension of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs, Susan T. Chrysler, Alicia A. Williams, Dillon S. Funkhouser, Andrew J. Holick, Marcus A. Brewer, Texas Transportation Institute, February 2007. http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5147-1.pdf From the abstract: This report contains the results of a three-phase human factors study which tested driver comprehension of diagrammatic freeway guide signs and their text alternatives. Four different interchange types were tested: left optional exit, left lane drop, freeway to freeway split with optional center lane, and two lane right exits with optional lanes. Three phases of the project tested comprehension by using digitally edited photographs of advance guide signs in freeway scenes. Participants viewed a computer slideshow in which slides were shown for only three seconds to simulate a single driver eye glance at a sign. All signs were mounted overhead in the photographs. Participants were provided a route number and city name as a destination that could be reached either by the through route or the exit route. They indicated which lane or lanes they would choose to reach the given destination. The fourth phase of the study used a fixed-base driving simulator which presented full sign sequences consisting of two advance guides and one exit direction sign. Performance measures were distance from the gore at which required lane changes were made and number of unnecessary lane changes made. Results showed that for the left exits the standard text-only signs performed equal to or better than the diagrammatic signs. This performance was true for left lane drops also. For the right exit with optional lane, the standard text signs did well, as did the diagrammatic signs. For freeway-to-freeway splits, standard text signs with two arrows over the optional lane performed better than either style of diagrammatic sign. This report also contains an extensive literature review of previous work in the area, a discussion of testing methodology, and suggestions for future research.

Enhancing Driving Safety through Proper Message Design on Variable Message Signs, Jyh-Hone Wang, Charles E. Collyer, Chun-Ming Yang, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, September 2005. Citation at http://trid.trb.org/view/2005/M/793262 From the abstract: This report presents a study that assessed drivers’ responses to and comprehension of variable message sign (VMS) messages displayed in different ways with the intent to help enhance message display on VMSs. Firstly, a review of literatures and current practices regarding the design and display of VMS messages is presented. Secondly, the study incorporates three approaches in the assessment. Questionnaire surveys were designed to investigate the preferences of highway drivers in regards to six message display settings, they were: number of message frames, flashing effect, color, color combinations, wording, and use of abbreviations. Lab experiments were developed to assess drivers’ responses to a variety of VMS messages in a simulated driving environment. Two groups of factors, within-subject and between-subject factors, were considered in the design of experiment. Within-subject factors included message flashing and color combination. Between-subject factors were age and gender. To help validate results found from lab experiments, field studies were set up to study drivers’ response to VMS in real driving environment. Thirty-six subjects, from three age populations (20-40, 40-60, above 60 years old) with balanced genders, were recruited to participate in both questionnaire surveys and lab experiments while eighteen of them participated in field studies on a voluntarily basis. The study findings suggest a specific set of VMS features that might help traffic engineers and highway management design VMS signs that could be noticed, understood and responded to in a more timely fashion. Safer and more proactive driving experiences could be achieved by adopting these suggested VMS features.

State Regulations

State and Local Regulation Summaries

State Changeable Message Chart, Outdoor Advertising Association of America, undated. http://www.superliciousdesign.com/ledmedia/State_Changeable_Message.pdf (or see Appendix A). This chart summarizes changeable message advertising sign regulations for 46 states: • Three states (New Hampshire, North Dakota and Wyoming) do not allow these signs. • Five states (Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas and Washington) allow tri-action signs only. • Thirty-eight states allow changeable message signs. Of these, 19 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin) have statutes; 10 states (Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia) have regulations; seven states (Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, Rhode Island and South Dakota) have interpretations of the federal/state agreement; and two states (Mississippi and Pennsylvania) have policy memoranda.

The document categorizes each of these states by regulations for minimum message duration (“dwell time”—generally from 4 to 10 seconds, with 6 or 8 seconds most common); maximum interval between messages (typically from 1 to 4 seconds), and spacing (500 feet is most common). It is unclear how up-to- date these regulations are; we were unable to determine the date for this chart or obtain the latest information from the OAAA, which requires paid registration for access.

The Regulation of Signage: Guidelines for Local Regulation of Digital On-Premise Signs, Menelaos Triantafillou, Alan C. Weinstein, National Signage Research and Education Conference, 2010. http://www.thesignagefoundation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3inv%2fFyrpFk%3d&tabid=59&mid=46 8 From the report: Based on a recent survey of numerous jurisdictions by one of the authors, the most common regulatory provisions applicable to digital on-premise signs appear below: • Require that the sign display remain static for a minimum of 5-8 seconds and require “instantaneous” change of the display; i.e., no “fading” in/out of the message. • Prohibit scrolling and animation outside of unique—and mostly pedestrian-oriented—locations. • Limit brightness to 5,000 nits during daylight and 500 nits at night. • Require automatic brightness control keyed to ambient light levels. • Require display to go dark if there is a malfunction. • Specify distancing requirements from areas zoned for residential use and/or prohibit orientation of s sign face towards an area zoned for residential use.

See also Appendices B and C in Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction in Related Research for an overview of state regulations and practices as of 2001.

Survey of Current State Regulations

We found digital display regulations for 12 states. These regulations are summarized in the following table and then detailed by state.

State Duration Inter- Brightness/ Font Size Visual Effects Sequencing Spacing Locations Billboard ≥ val ≤ Illumination Size DE 10s 1s Must appropriately Size not specified. A May not contain Prohibited. >2,500ft from Permitted within 660ft Not adjust display sign that attempts or or display any another VMS of the edge of the specified. brightness as ambient appears to attempt to lights, effects, or right-of-way of any light levels change. direct the movement messages that >500ft from a interstate or federal- of traffic or which flash, move, static sign aid primary highway. contains wording, appear to be color, shapes, or animated or to > 1,000ft from an likenesses of official move, scroll, or interchange, interstate traffic control devices change in junction of merging or is prohibited. intensity during diverging traffic, or an the fixed display at-grade intersection. period May not be placed along designated Delaware byways. FL 6s 2s Lighting which causes Not specified. Flashing, Not Not specified. Not specified. Not glare or impairs the intermittent, specified. specified. vision of the driver of rotating, or any motor vehicle, or moving lights are which otherwise prohibited. interferes with any driver’s operation of a Instantaneous motor vehicle is transition for prohibited. A sign may entire sign face not be illuminated so required. that it interferes with the effectiveness of, or obscures, an official traffic sign, signal or device. Lighting may not be added to or increased on a nonconforming sign.

State Duration Inter- Brightness/ Font Size Visual Effects Sequencing Spacing Locations Billboard ≥ val ≤ Illumination Size GA 10s 3s Must be effectively Not specified. May not contain Not >5,000ft from Not specified. Not shielded so as to flashing, specified. another specified. prevent beams or rays intermittent, or multiple of light from being moving light or message sign. directed at any portion lights except those of the traveled way, giving public which beams or rays are service of such intensity or information such brilliance as to cause as time, date, glare or to impair the temperature, vision of the driver of weather. any motor vehicle or which otherwise interfere with the operation of a motor vehicle.

Must not obscure or interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device, or signal. IA 8s 1s The intensity of the Not specified. No traveling No >500ft from Not specified. Not illumination may not messages (e.g., segmented another LED specified. cause glare or impair moving messages, messages display facing the vision of the driver animated allowed. the same way of any motor vehicle or messages, full- in cities. otherwise interferes motion video, or with any driver’s scrolling text >1000ft in operation of a motor messages) or rural areas. vehicle. segmented messages are allowed. KS 8s 2s Must be effectively Not specified. Cannot contain or Not >1000ft from Not specified. Not shielded so as to display flashing, specified. another CMS. specified. prevent beams or rays intermittent or of light from being moving lights, directed at any portion including

State Duration Inter- Brightness/ Font Size Visual Effects Sequencing Spacing Locations Billboard ≥ val ≤ Illumination Size of the traveled way of animated or any interstate or scrolling primary highway and advertising. are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or to otherwise interfere with any driver’s operation of a motor vehicle.

Must not be so illuminated that they obscure any official traffic sign, device or signal, or imitate or may be confused with any official traffic sign, device or signal. MA 10s 0s Must automatically Not specified. May not contain Not >500ft from Not specified. Not adjust the intensity of flashing, specified. any sign. specified. its display according to intermittent, or natural ambient light moving lights; or >2000ft from conditions. display animated, another off moving video, premise May not cause beams or scrolling electronic rays of light from being advertising; or sign on the directed at any portion consist of a static same side of of the traveled way, image projected the highway. which beams or rays are upon a stationary of such intensity or object. >1000ft from brilliance as to cause another off glare or to impair the May not display premise vision of the driver of illumination that electronic any motor vehicle or moves, appears to sign on the otherwise interfere with move or changes opposite side the operation of a motor in intensity during of the

State Duration Inter- Brightness/ Font Size Visual Effects Sequencing Spacing Locations Billboard ≥ val ≤ Illumination Size vehicle. the static display highway. period. This does May not obscure or not include interfere with the changes to a effectiveness of an display for time, official traffic sign, date and device or signal, or temperature. cause an undue distraction to the traveling public NY 6s 3s Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. Not Not specified. Not specified. Not specified. specified. OH 8s 3s Not specified. Not specified. A multiple Not >1000ft from Not specified. Not message or specified. another specified. variable message MMS. advertising device shall not be illuminated by flashing, intermittent, or moving lights. No multiple message or variable message advertising device may include any illumination which is flashing, intermittent, or moving when the sign face is in a fixed position. OR 8s 2s Must operate at an Not specified. No flashing or Not Not specified. Not specified. Not intensity level of not varying intensity specified. specified. more than 0.3 foot- light; cannot candles over ambient create the light as measured by the appearance of distance to the sign movement.

State Duration Inter- Brightness/ Font Size Visual Effects Sequencing Spacing Locations Billboard ≥ val ≤ Illumination Size depending upon its size (150 feet if the display surface of the sign is 12 feet by 25 feet, 200 feet if the display surface is 10.5 by 36 feet, and 250 feet if the display surface is 14 by 48 feet). TN 8s 2s Not specified. Not specified. Video, animation, Not >2000ft from Not specified. Not and continuous specified. another CMS. specified. scrolling messages are prohibited. WS A single 4s No electronic sign lamp Not specified. Displays may Not Not specified. Not specified. Not message may be illuminated to a travel horizontally specified. specified. or a degree of brightness or scroll vertically message that is greater than onto electronic segment necessary for adequate signboards, but must have visibility. In no case must hold in a a static may the brightness static position for display exceed 8,000 nits or two seconds after time of at equivalent candelas completing the least two during daylight hours, travel or scroll. seconds or 1,000 nits or after equivalent candelas Displays shall not moving between dusk and appear to flash, onto the dawn. Signs found to be undulate, or pulse, signboard, too bright shall be or portray with all adjusted as directed by explosions, segments the department. fireworks, flashes of the of light, or total blinking or message chasing lights. to be Displays shall not displayed appear to move within ten toward or away seconds. from the viewer,

State Duration Inter- Brightness/ Font Size Visual Effects Sequencing Spacing Locations Billboard ≥ val ≤ Illumination Size A one- expand or segment contract, bounce, message rotate, spin, twist, may or otherwise remain portray graphics static on or animation as it the moves onto, is signboard displayed on, or with no leaves the duration signboard. limit. WI 6s 1s No variable message Not specified. No flashing, Not Not specified. Not specified. Not sign lamp may be intermittent or specified. specified. illuminated to a degree moving light. of brightness that is Traveling greater than necessary messages for adequate visibility. prohibited.

Delaware § 1110. Delaware Byways Program, Chapter 11: Regulation of Outdoor Advertising, Title 17: Highways, Delaware Code, State of Delaware, 2012. http://delcode.delaware.gov/title17/c011/sc01/index.shtml#1110 From the code: (3) Lighting. -- Signs may be illuminated, subject to the following restrictions.

a. Signs which contain, include, or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, or moving light or lights are prohibited, except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather, or traffic conditions, or as defined in paragraph (3)e. of this section.

e. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)a. through d. of this section, signs commonly known as variable message signs may be changed at intervals by electronic or mechanical process or remote control, and are permitted within 660 feet of the edge of the right-of-way of any interstate or federal-aid primary highway so designated as of June 1, 1991, and of the National Highway System. These variable message signs are permitted, except as prohibited by local ordinance or zoning regulation or by the Delaware federal-state outdoor advertising agreement of May 1, 1968, and are not considered to be in violation of flashing, intermittent, or moving lights criteria provided that:

1. Each message remains fixed for a minimum of at least 10 seconds.

2. When the message is changed, it must be accomplished in 1 second or less, with all moving parts or illumination changing simultaneously and in unison.

3. A variable message sign along the same roadway and facing in the same direction of travel may not be placed, as measured along the centerline of the roadway, within 2,500 feet of another variable message sign, or within 500 feet of a static billboard sign regulated by this section, or within 1,000 feet of an interchange, interstate junction of merging or diverging traffic, or an at-grade intersection.

4. A variable message sign must contain a default design that will freeze the sign in 1 position if a malfunction occurs or, in the alternative, that will shut down.

5. A variable message sign may not contain or display any lights, effects, or messages that flash, move, appear to be animated or to move, scroll, or change in intensity during the fixed display period. A variable message sign must appropriately adjust display brightness as ambient light levels change.

6. A sign that attempts or appears to attempt to direct the movement of traffic or which contains wording, color, shapes, or likenesses of official traffic control devices is prohibited.

7. A sign may not be placed along designated Delaware byways.

Florida Outdoor Advertising Sign Regulation and Highway Beautification Program, Florida Administrative Weekly & Florida Administrative Code, Florida Department of Transportation, October 3, 2010. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=14-10 From the code: 14-10.004 Permit. (3) Changeable messages – A permit shall be granted for an automatic changeable facing provided: (a) The static display time for each message is at least six seconds; 36

(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; and (d) The application meets all other permitting requirements. (e) All signs with changeable messages shall contain a default design that will ensure no flashing, intermittent message, or any other apparent movement is displayed should a malfunction occur.

Guide to Outdoor Advertising, Florida Department of Transportation, 2012. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rightofway/documents/GuidetoODA.pdf From page 15 of the guide: Multiple messages: Your sign may display multiple messages, provided you do not have more than two sign faces for each direction the sign is facing. Mechanically changeable and digital display panels are allowed on conforming signs, provided the static display time is at least 6 seconds, and the time to change from one message to another is no great than 2 seconds. Scrolling or animated images are prohibited.

1. Flashing, intermittent, rotating, or moving lights are prohibited. 2. Lighting which causes glare or impairs the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle, or which otherwise interferes with any driver’s operation of a motor vehicle is prohibited. 3. A sign may not be illuminated so that it interferes with the effectiveness of, or obscures, an official traffic sign, signal or device. 4. Lighting may not be added to or increased on a nonconforming sign.

Georgia Article 3. Control of Signs and Signals, Chapter 6: Regulation of Maintenance and Use of Public Roads Generally, Title 32: Highways, Bridges, and Ferries, Georgia Code, State of Georgia, 2008. http://oaag.net/guidelines/documents/32-6OutdoorAdvertisingStateLaw.pdf From page 7 of the report: 32-6-75. Restrictions on outdoor advertising authorized by Code Sections 32-6-72 and 32-6-73; multiple message signs on interstate system, primary highways, and other highways.

(a) No sign authorized by paragraphs (4) through (6) of Code Section 32-6-72 and paragraph (4) of Code Section 32-6-73 shall be erected or maintained which:

(8) If illuminated, contains, includes, or is illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, or moving light or lights except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather, or other similar information except as expressly permitted under subsection (c) of this Code section. The illumination of mechanical multiple message signs is not illumination by flashing, intermittent, or moving light or lights, except that no multiple message sign may include any illumination which is flashing, intermittent, or moving when the sign is in a fixed position;

(9) If illuminated, is not effectively shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the traveled way, which beams or rays are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or which otherwise interfere with the operation of a motor vehicle;

(10) If illuminated, is illuminated so that it obscures or interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device, or signal;

(c) (1) Multiple message signs shall be permitted on the interstate system, primary highways, and other highways under the following conditions:

(A) Each multiple message sign shall remain fixed for at least ten seconds;

(B) When a message is changed mechanically, it shall be accomplished in three seconds or less;

(C) No such multiple message sign shall be placed within 5,000 feet of another mechanical multiple message sign on the same side of the highway;

(D) Any such sign shall contain a default design that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs;

(E) Any maximum size limitations shall apply independently to each side of a multiple message sign; and

(F) Nonmechanical electronic multiple message signs that are otherwise in compliance with this subsection and are illuminated entirely by the use of light emitting diodes, back lighting, or any other light source shall be permitted under the following circumstances: (i) Each transitional change occurs within two seconds; (ii) If the department finds an electronic sign or any display or effect thereon to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or to otherwise interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, then, upon the department’s request, the owner of the sign shall promptly and within not more than 48 hours reduce the intensity of the sign to a level acceptable to the department; and (iii) The owner of any existing or nonconforming electronic sign shall have until October 31, 2006, to bring the electronic sign in compliance with this subparagraph and to request a permit from the department.

Iowa Guide to Iowa Outdoor Advertising Regulations for Interstate Highways, Iowa Department of Transportation, April 2009. http://www.iowadot.gov/iowaroadsigns/Guide_to_Outdoor_Advertising_for_Interstates.pdf From page 7 of the guide: Light emitting diode (LED) displays LED displays are permitted under the following conditions: • Adding this type of technology for an existing billboard constitutes a billboard “modification” under Iowa law. Therefore, a new permit application is required. • Each change of message must be accomplished in one second or less. • Each message must remain in a fixed position for at least eight seconds. • No traveling messages (e.g., moving messages, animated messages, full-motion video, or scrolling text messages) or segmented messages are presented. • The intensity of the illumination does not cause glare or impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or otherwise interferes with any driver’s operation of a motor vehicle. • LED displays must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any other LED display facing the same direction within cities. LED displays must be located a minimum of 1000 feet from any other LED display facing the same direction in rural areas.

Kansas Section 68-2234. Highway Advertising Control; Sign Standards; Zoning Requirements, Article 22, Highway Beautification Highway Advertising Control Act of 1972 – Revised 2006, Kansas Department of Transportation, 2006. http://www.ksdot.org/burrow/beaut/KHACARev6.pdf From page 5 of the report: (d) Lighting. (1) Signs shall not be erected which contain, include or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, revolving or moving light, except those giving public service information such as, but not limited to, time, date, temperature, weather or news; steadily burning lights in configuration of letters or pictures are not prohibited; (2) signs shall not be erected or maintained which are not effectively shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the traveled way of any interstate or primary highway and are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or to otherwise interfere with any driver’s operation of a motor vehicle; and (3) signs shall not be erected or maintained which are so illuminated that they obscure any official traffic sign, device or signal, or imitate or may be confused with any official traffic sign, device or signal.

(e) Automatic changeable facing signs. (1) Automatic changeable facing signs shall be permitted within adjacent or controlled areas under the following conditions: (A) The sign does not contain or display flashing, intermittent or moving lights, including animated or scrolling advertising; (B) the changeable facing remains in a fixed position for at least eight seconds; (C) if a message is changed electronically, it must be accomplished within an interval of two seconds or less; (D) the sign is not placed within 1,000 feet of another automatic changeable facing sign on the same side of the highway, with the distance being measured along the nearest edge of the pavement and between points directly opposite the signs along each side of the highway; (E) if the sign is a legal conforming structure it may be modified to an automatic changeable facing sign upon compliance with these standards and approval by the department. A nonconforming structure shall not be modified to create an automatic changeable facing sign; (F) if the sign contains a default design that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; and (G) if the sign application meets all other permitting requirements. (2) The outdoor advertising license shall be revoked for failure to comply with any provision in this subsection.

Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising, Office of Outdoor Advertising, Highway Division, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 2012. http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/OutdoorAdvertising.aspx On June 5, 2012, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation conducted a public hearing for proposed regulation changes that include provisions for electronic billboards.

Draft of Proposed Revisions to 711 CMR 3.00 http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/ooa/711CMR3_revisions.pdf

3.17: Requirements for Electronic Sign Permits (1) Permits for Electronic Signs require the prior approval of the municipality wherein the proposed sign will be located unless otherwise exempted by State law.

(2) Except as otherwise prohibited by Federal or Massachusetts law and regulations, or local ordinances or zoning regulations, permits for Electronic Signs may be issued provided such sign complies with all of the following: (a) Has a static display lasting at least 10 seconds. (b) Achieves an instant message change. (c) Does not display illumination that moves, appears to move or changes in intensity during the static display period. This does not include changes to a display for time, date and temperature. (d) Automatically adjusts the intensity of its display according to natural ambient light conditions.

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this section shall indicate that it is for an Electronic Sign. Any such permit is determined to not be prohibited by any agreement between the Department and the Secretary of Transportation of the United States. All regulations provided by 700 CMR 3.00 et. seq. are applicable to Electronic Signs. In the event a provision of this section conflicts with another section of 700 CMR, this section controls.

(4) A legally conforming sign or site may be modified to an Electronic Sign if a new permit for the Electronic Sign is obtained by the Department.

(5) Electronic Signs shall not: (a) Emit or utilize in any manner any sound capable of being detected on a main traveled way by a person with normal hearing; (b) Cause beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the traveled way, which beams or rays are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or otherwise interfere with the operation of a motor vehicle; (c) Obscure or interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal, or cause an undue distraction to the traveling public; (d) Contain more than one face visible from the same direction on the traveled way; (e) Be located so as to obscure or otherwise interfere with a motor vehicle operator’s view of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic; (f) Be within 500 feet of any type of permitted sign; (g) Be within 2000 feet of another off premise permitted Electronic Sign on the same side of the traveled way; (h) Be within 1000 feet of another off premise permitted Electronic Sign on the opposite side of the traveled way; (i) Face more than one direction of travel; (j) Contain flashing, intermittent, or moving lights; or display animated, moving video, scrolling advertising; or consist of a static image projected upon a stationary object.

(6) Any such sign shall contain a default design that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs.

(7) If the Department finds an Electronic Sign or any display or effect thereon to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle or to otherwise interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, upon request, the permit holder shall promptly and within not more than 24 hours reduce the intensity of the sign to a level acceptable to the Department.

(8) In addition to any municipal requirement the Department may impose any restriction as to the hours of operation for each Electronic Sign.

(9) The permit holder of an Electronic Sign shall coordinate with governmental authorities, through the Department’s Division of Highways, to display, when appropriate, emergency information important to the traveling public, such as Amber Alerts or alerts concerning terrorist attacks, or natural disasters. Emergency information messages shall remain in the advertising rotation according to the protocols of the agency that issues the information, or protocols established by the Department’s Division of Highways.

(10) The permit holder shall provide the Director with contact information for a person who is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to turn off the Electronic Sign promptly if a malfunction occurs. The sign shall contain a default mechanism that freezes the sign in one display in the event of a sign malfunction.

(11) The permit holder shall designate a minimum of 25 hours per month of total advertisement time per permit to the Department for Public Service Announcement (PSA) purposes. Said time shall be equally distributed throughout the hours of operation of the Electronic Sign. The permit holder shall submit a detailed proof of play report each month to the Director to verify that PSA’s are being displayed. The Director shall determine the total number of PSA’s to be aired each month and will coordinate with the permit holder for their sign. Detailed Proof of Play (POP) Reports are due by the 5th day of each month for the prior month of play. Failure to submit a POP report or failure to adhere to the minimum PSA requirement may result in a fine or revocation of permit/s.

Criticism These regulations have been criticized for not being strong enough:

New Rules Would Mean More Billboard Blight for Massachusetts, Scenic America, 2012. http://www.scenic.org/blog/144-new-rules-would-mean-more-billboard-blight-for-massachusetts From the web site: A proposed set of new regulations on outdoor advertising would see Massachusetts go from having some of the strongest billboard controls in the country to some of the weakest, and result in a proliferation of signs all over the state.

Massachusetts: Coming Billboard Regulations = Complete Deregulation, Daily Kos Network, May 30, 2012. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/30/1096048/-Massachusetts-Coming-Billboard- Regulations-Complete-Deregulation From the web site: The strong Massachusetts billboard regulation legacy will come to a swift end if proposed new regulations by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Office of Outdoor Advertising (the “OOA”, not to be confused with the OAAA, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, the billboard industry lobby) are enacted.

New York N.Y. HAY. LAW § 88: NY Code - Section 88: Control of Outdoor Advertising, FindLaw, 2012. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/HAY/4/88 From the web site: Provided that, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the erection or maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices which include the steady illumination of sign faces, panels or slats that rotate or change to different messages in a fixed position, commonly known and referred to as changeable or multiple message signs, provided the change of one sign face to another is not more frequent than once every six seconds and the actual change process is accomplished in three seconds or less, when such signs, displays and devices are permitted or authorized pursuant to this section and by the agreement ratified and approved by this section.

Ohio “Chapter 5501:2-2 – Ohio Administrative Code (OAC),” Ohio Revised Code and Administrative Code for Advertising Device Control, Ohio Department of Transportation, November 2011. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ContractAdmin/Contracts/ADC/ADC_RegBook.pdf From the report: 5501:2-2-02 General provisions for the erection and control of outdoor advertising. (A) (4) (b) A multiple message or variable message advertising device shall not be illuminated by flashing, intermittent, or moving lights. No multiple message or variable message advertising device may include any illumination which is flashing, intermittent, or moving when the sign face is in a fixed position.

(B) Multiple message and variable message advertising devices: such advertising devices may be permitted on the interstate system or the primary system under the following conditions: (1) Each message or copy shall remain fixed for at least eight seconds; (2) When a message or copy changes by remote control or electronic process, it shall be accomplished in three seconds or less; (3) No such advertising device shall be placed within one thousand feet of another multiple message or variable message advertising device on the same side of the highway visible in the same direction of travel;(4) Such advertising devices shall contain a default design that will freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs; (5) Any maximum size limitations shall apply independently to each face of a multiple message or variable message advertising device; and (6) Only one multiple message advertising device shall be permitted at a single location facing the same direction.

Oregon Chapter 377—Highway Beautification; Motorist Information Signs, Oregon Revised Statutes, 2011 edition. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/377.html From the web site: 377.753 Permits for outdoor advertising signs; rules. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 377.715, 377.725 and 377.770, the Department of Transportation may issue permits for outdoor advertising signs placed on benches or shelters erected or maintained for use by customers of a mass transit district, a transportation district or other public transportation agency. (2) The department shall determine by rule the fees and criteria for the number, size, and location of such signs but the department may not issue a permit for a sign that is visible from an interstate highway. [2007 c.199 §3]

Division 60: Signs, Department of Transportation, Highway Division, Oregon Administrative Rules, July 13, 2012. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_700/oar_734/734_060.html From the web site: Digital Billboard Procedures (1) This rule describes the process for applying for a permit for a digital billboard. (2) Definitions for the purposes of this rule: (a) “Sign” means the sign structure, the display surfaces of the sign, and all other component parts of the sign. (b) “Retire” means to use a relocation credit such that it no longer exists or to remove an existing sign. (c) “Bulletin” means an outdoor advertising sign with a display surface that is 14 feet by 48 feet. (d) “Poster” means an outdoor advertising sign with a display surface that is 12 feet by 25 feet. (e) “Digital Billboard” means an outdoor advertising sign that is static and changes messages by any electronic process or remote control, provided that the change from one message to another message is no more frequent than once every eight seconds and the actual change process is accomplished in two seconds or less. (3) Qualifications for receiving a digital billboard state sign permit: (a) The proposed site and digital billboard must meet all requirements of the OMIA including, but not limited to, the following: (A) the digital billboard is not illuminated by a flashing or varying intensity light. (B) the display surface of the digital billboard does not create the appearance of movement. (C) the digital billboard must operate at an intensity level of not more than 0.3 foot- candles over ambient light as measured by the distance to the sign depending upon its size. (D) The distance measurement for ambient light is: 150 feet if the display surface of the sign is 12 feet by 25 feet, 200 feet if the display surface is 10.5 by 36 feet, and 250 feet if the display surface is 14 by 48 feet. (b) Applicant must submit a completed application for a digital billboard state sign permit using the approved form that may be obtained by one of the following methods: (A) Requesting from Sign Program Staff by phone at 503-986-3656; (B) Email: [email protected]; (C) Website http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/SIGNPROGRAM/contact_us.shtml (c) The Department shall confirm that any existing permitted Outdoor Advertising Sign or relocation credit being retired for the purpose of receiving a new digital billboard state sign permit has been removed within the 180 days allowed to construct the new permitted sign. The Department will not charge a Banking Permit Fee for the cancellation of state sign permits retired for the purpose of receiving a new digital billboard permit. (4) This section sets forth the criteria for determining the required relocation credits or existing permitted signs that an applicant shall retire to receive one new digital billboard state sign permit: (a) Applicants who own 10% or less of all active relocation credits at the time the application is submitted shall either remove one existing state permitted outdoor advertising sign with a display area of at least 250 square feet or provide one active relocation credit of at least 250 square feet and retire that permit. Applicants meeting these criteria are not limited to either “Bulletin” or “Poster” billboards. (b) Applicants who own more than 10% of all active relocations credits shall apply for a new digital billboard state sign permit as follows:

(A) For a digital billboard that is intended to be a bulletin, the applicant has three options: (i) Remove two existing bulletins, retire the permits for those signs, and retire three relocation credits; or (ii) Remove one existing bulletin and two existing posters, retire those permits and retire three active relocation credits; or (iii) Remove four existing posters, retire the permits for those signs, and retire three relocation credits. (B) For a digital billboard that is intended to be a poster, the applicant has two options: (i) Remove two existing posters, retire the permits for those signs, and retire three relocation credits; (ii) Remove one existing bulletin, retire the permit for that sign, and retire three relocation credits. (c) For an active relocation credit to be eligible it must be at least 250 square feet. All permits and relocation credits submitted under these procedures will be permanently cancelled and are not eligible for renewal. (d) Any state sign permits submitted for retirement must include the written statement notifying the Department that the “lease has been lost or cancelled.” (5) The Department will determine the percentage of relocation credits owned by an applicant by dividing the total number of unused relocation credits by the total number of unused relocation credits owned by the applicant on the day the application is received. (6) Two digital billboard state sign permits are required for any back to back or V-type digital sign. A separate application is required for each digital sign face. (7) The first time a digital billboard is permitted it is not subject to the 100-mile rule in ORS 377.767(4). The site of the newly permitted billboard will become the established location for future reference. (8) Relocation of permitted digital billboards. The Department will issue one digital relocation credit for each permitted digital sign that is removed. The digital relocation credit issued will be for the same square footage as the permitted digital sign that was removed. A digital relocation credit can only be used to relocate a digital billboard. A permitted digital sign can only be reconstructed as a digital billboard. (9) Use of renewable energy resource. The applicant must provide a statement with the application that clarifies what, if any, renewable energy resources are available at the site and are being utilized. If none, then a notarized statement to that effect must be included with the application. (10) All permitted digital billboards must have the capacity to either freeze in a static position or display a black screen in the event of a malfunction. (a) The applicant must provide emergency contact information that has the ability and authority to make modifications to the display and lighting levels in the event of emergencies or a malfunction. (b) The Department will notify the sign owner of a malfunction that has been confirmed by ODOT in the following instances: (A) The light impairs the vision of a driver of any motor vehicle; or (B) The message is in violation of ORS 377.710(6) or 377.720(3)(d). (11) All digital billboard signs must comply with the light intensity and sensor requirements of ORS 377.720(3)(d). (a) The Department will take measurements of the permitted digital billboard when notified that the sign has been constructed and the permit plate has been installed. (b) The Department will use an approved luminance meter designed for use in measuring the amount of light emitted from digital billboards using the industry standard for size and distance as follows: (A) 150 feet for 12’x 25.’

(B) 200 feet for 10.5’x 36’. (C) 250 feet for 14’x 48’.

Tennessee Control of Outdoor Advertising, Chapter 1680-2-3, Rules of Tennessee Department of Transportation Maintenance Division, Tennessee Department of Transportation, February 2003.

Current regulations do not include electronic billboards: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/environment/beautification/pdf/1680-02-03.pdf.

However, proposed revisions are under review that include guidance on digital displays: http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/environment/beautification/docs/Revised-ODA-Rules-Redline.pdf. From the web site: 1680-10-01-.03 CRITERIA FOR THE CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DEVICES. 4. Spacing (i) (IV) The minimum spacing for changeable message signs with a digital display is two thousand (2,000) feet, except as follows: I. An outdoor advertising device that uses a digital display which does not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in total area to give public information such as time, date, temperature, or weather, or to provide the price of a product, the amount of a lottery prize or similar numerical information supplementing the content of a message otherwise displayed on the sign face shall not be subject to the two thousand (2,000) feet minimum spacing requirement in this item (IV).

5. Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs are permissible, subject to the following restrictions: (i) The message display time shall remain static for a minimum of eight (8) seconds with a maximum change time of two (2) seconds. (ii) Video, animation, and continuous scrolling messages are prohibited. (iii) Non- conforming devices shall not be converted to a changeable message sign. (iv) The changeable message sign shall contain a default design that will freeze the sign face to one position if a malfunction occurs. (v) The structure for a changeable message sign may contain sign faces that are in a double-faced, back-to-back, or V-type configuration. (vi) The minimum spacing for changeable message signs with a digital display is as provided in Rule 1680-10-.03(1)(a)4.(i)(IV).

Washington Highway Advertising Control, M22-95, Washington State Department of Transportation, March 2011. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-95/HighwayAdvertisingControl.pdf From the report: 468-66-050 Sign classifications and specific provisions (3) Type 3 – On-premise signs. (b) Type 3(b) – Business complex on-premise sign. A Type 3(b) business complex on-premise sign may display the name of a shopping center, mall, or business combination. (i) Where a business complex erects a Type 3(b) on-premise sign, the sign structure may display additional individual business signs identifying each of the businesses conducted on the premises. A Type 3(b) on-premise sign structure may also have attached a display area, such as a manually changeable copy panel, reader board, or electronically changeable message center, for advertising on-premise activities and/or presenting public service information.

(g) Electronic signs may be used only as Type 3 on-premise signs and/or to present public service information, as follows: (i) Advertising messages on electronic signboards may contain words, phrases, sentences, symbols, trademarks, and logos. A single message or a message segment must have a static display time of at least two seconds after moving onto the signboard, with all segments of the total message to be displayed within ten seconds. A one-segment message may remain static on the signboard with no duration limit. (ii) Displays may travel horizontally or scroll vertically onto electronic signboards, but must hold in a static position for two seconds after completing the travel or scroll. (iii) Displays shall not appear to flash, undulate, or pulse, or portray explosions, fireworks, flashes of light, or blinking or chasing lights. Displays shall not appear to move toward or away from the viewer, expand or contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, or otherwise portray graphics or animation as it moves onto, is displayed on, or leaves the signboard. (iv) Electronic signs requiring more than four seconds to change from one single message display to another shall be turned off during the change interval. (v) No electronic sign lamp may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is greater than necessary for adequate visibility. In no case may the brightness exceed 8,000 nits or equivalent candelas during daylight hours, or 1,000 nits or equivalent candelas between dusk and dawn. Signs found to be too bright shall be adjusted as directed by the department.

(h) The act does not regulate Type 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d) on-premise signs located along primary system highways inside an incorporated city or town or a commercial or industrial area.

Wisconsin Control of Outdoor Advertising Along and Visible from Highways on the Interstate and Federal- Aid Primary Systems, Chapter Trans 201, Wisconsin Administrative Code, February 2005. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/201.pdf From the web site: Trans 201.15 – Electronic signs (3) Variable Message Signs. (c) No message may be displayed for less than one-half second. (d) No message may be repeated at intervals of less than 2 seconds. (e) No segmented message may last longer than 10 seconds. (f) No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or faster than 32 columns per second. (g) No variable message sign lamp may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is greater than necessary for adequate visibility.

(4) Multiple Message Signs. (a) The louver rotation time to change a message shall be one second or less. (b) The time a message remains in a fixed position shall be 6 seconds or more.

84.30 Regulation of Outdoor Advertising, Wisconsin Legislative Documents, 2012. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/84/30 From the web site: (3)(c)(1) Signs that contain, include or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights are prohibited, except electronic signs permitted by rule of the department.

(4)(bm) Signs may contain multiple or variable messages, including messages on louvers that are rotated and messages formed solely by use of lights or other electronic or digital displays, that may be changed by any electronic process, subject to all of the following restrictions: 1. Each change of message shall be accomplished in one second or less. 2. Each message shall remain in a fixed position for at least 6 seconds. 3. The use of traveling messages or segmented messages is prohibited. 4. The department, by rule, may prohibit or establish restrictions on the illumination of messages to a degree of brightness that is greater than necessary for adequate visibility.

State Changeable Message Chart (Source: OAAA State Statute Matrix)

No changeable message Tri- action Only Changeable Message signs allowed: /Digital Technology

(3 STATES) (5 STATES) (38 STATES) ND, NH, WY MD, MA, OR, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT TX, WA, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WV, WI

State-by-state breakdown of the 38 states allowing Changeable Message/Digital technology

• States which have statutes (19):

CA, CO, CT, DE, FL GA, IN, KS, MI, MO MN, NJ, NY, OH OK, UT, TN, VA, WI

• Regulations (10):

AR, ID, IL, IA*, LA, NE, NV, NC, SC, WV

• States with interpretations of the federal/state agreement (7):

AL, AZ, KY, MT, NM, RI, SD

● Policy memoranda (2):

MS approved a policy DOT memorandum PA approved the technology through an internal PENNDOT memorandum (2002) IA* regulations are undergoing a comment period

OAAA Changeable Message Criteria Dwell Time Sequence – By State

Dwell Time (Static Message) State

4 seconds CA, CO, IA, VA

5 seconds NM, PA

6 seconds AL, AZ, CT, FL, GA, IA, MI, MN, NV, NY, SD, WI, RI (average)

8 seconds AR, ID, IN, KS, LA, MO, MS, NJ, NC, OH, OK, OR, SC, TN, UT, WV, WA

10 seconds DE, IL, NE, MD, TX

Other/State-Company KY, MA, MT Discretion

Dwell and Twirl Times for message changes and spacing criteria

States Allowing Changeable Message/Digital Technology

State Dwell time Twirl time Spacing *traditional 500 ft AL 6 seconds ______AR 8 seconds or more 2 seconds or less 1500 feet ______AZ 6 seconds 1 second * ______CA 4 seconds 4 seconds 1000 feet ______CO 4 seconds 1 second 1000 feet ______CT 6 seconds 3 seconds * ______DE 10 seconds 1 second 2500 feet ______FL 6 seconds 2 seconds 1000 to 1500 feet ______GA 10 seconds 2 seconds 5000 feet

Dwell and Twirl Times for message changes and spacing criteria (cont’d)

States Allowing Changeable Message Including Electronics

State Dwell time Twirl time Spacing

ID 8 seconds 2 seconds * ______IL 10 seconds 3 seconds * ______IN 8 seconds 2 seconds * ______IA 6 seconds 1 second * ______KS 8 seconds 2 seconds 1000 feet ______KY At discretion of state DOT______LA 8 seconds 4 seconds * ______MI 6 seconds 1 second * ______MN 6 seconds none * ______MS 8 seconds instantaneous * ______MO 8 seconds 2 seconds 1400 feet ______MT At discretion of state DOT______

NE 10 seconds 2 seconds 5000 feet ______NV 6 seconds 3 seconds * ______*NJ 8 seconds 1 second 3000 feet (regulatory change pending______NM 5 seconds 1-2 seconds * Company discretion______NY 6 seconds 3 seconds * ______NC 8 seconds 2 seconds 1000 feet ______OH 8 seconds 3 seconds 1000 feet ______OK 8 seconds 4 seconds *

Dwell and Twirl Times for message changes and spacing criteria (cont’d)

States Allowing Changeable Message Including Electronics

State Dwell time Twirl time Spacing

PA 5 seconds 1 second * ______RI 5-7 seconds 2-3 seconds * Company discretion______SD 6 seconds none * ______SC 8 seconds 2-3 seconds * ______TN 8 seconds 2 seconds 2000 feet ______UT 8 seconds 3 seconds * ______VA 4 seconds none * ______WV 8 seconds 2 seconds 1500 feet ______WI 6 seconds 1 second * ______

States Allowing Changeable Message Including Electronics

Tri-action Only

State Dwell time Twirl time Spacing

MD 10 seconds 4 seconds * ______MA none none * ______OR 8 seconds 4 seconds 1000 feet ______TX 10 seconds 2 seconds * Rural Roads Only______WA 8 seconds 4 seconds * ______

4 DRIVER VISUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PRESENCE OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS (CEVMS)

SEPTEMBER 2012

FHWA-HEP-

FOREWORD

The advent of electronic billboard technologies, in particular the digital Light-Emitting Diode (LED) billboard, has necessitated a reevaluation of current legislation and regulation for controlling outdoor advertising. In this case, one of the concerns is possible driver distraction. In the context of the present report, outdoor advertising signs employing this new advertising technology are referred to as Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS). They are also commonly referred to as Digital Billboards and Electronic Billboards.

The present report documents the results of a study conducted to investigate the effects of CEVMS used for outdoor advertising on driver visual behavior in a roadway driving environment. The report consists of a brief review of the relevant published literature related to billboards and visual distraction, the rationale for the Federal Highway Administration research study, the methods by which the study was conducted, and the results of the study, which used an eye tracking system to measure driver glances while driving on roadways in the presence of CEVMS, standard billboards, and other roadside elements. The report should be of interest to highway engineers, traffic engineers, highway safety specialists, the outdoor advertising industry, environmental advocates, Federal policymakers, and State and local regulators of outdoor advertising.

Monique R. Evans Director, Office of Safety Research and Development

Nelson Castellanos Director, Office of Real Estate Services

Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HRT- 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Driver Visual Behavior in the Presence of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. William A. Perez, Mary Anne Bertola, Jason F. Kennedy, and John A. Molino

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) SAIC 6300 Georgetown Pike 11. Contract or Grant No. McLean, VA 22101 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Real Estate Services Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTR) were Christopher Monk and Thomas Granda. 16. Abstract This study was conducted to investigate the effect of CEVMS on driver visual behavior in a roadway driving environment. An instrumented vehicle with an eye tracking system was used. Roads containing CEVMS, standard billboards, and control areas with no off-premise advertising were selected. Data were collected on arterials and freeways in the day and nighttime. Field studies were conducted in two cities where the same methodology was used but there were differences in the roadway visual environment. The gazes to the road ahead were high across the conditions; however, the CEVMS and billboard conditions resulted in a lower probability of gazes as compared to the control conditions (roadways not containing off-premise advertising) with the exception of arterials in Richmond where none of the conditions differed from each other. Examination of where drivers gazed in the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions showed that gazes away from the road ahead were not primarily to the billboards. Average and maximum fixations to CEVMS and standard billboards were similar across all conditions. However, four long dwell times were found (sequential and multiple fixations) that were greater than 2,000 ms. One was to a CEVMS on a freeway in the day time, two were to the same standard billboard on a freeway once in the day and once at night; and one was to a standard billboard on an arterial at night. In Richmond, the results showed that drivers gazed more at CEVMS than at standard billboards at night; however, in Reading the drivers were equally likely to gaze towards CEVMS or standard billboards in day and night. The results of the study are consistent with research and theory on the control of gaze behavior in natural environments. The demands of the driving task tend to affect the driver’s self- regulation of gaze behavior. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Driver visual behavior, visual environment, billboards, eye tracking No restrictions. system, commercial electronic variable message signs, CEVMS, visual complexity

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______1 INTRODUCTION______5 BACKGROUND ______5 Post-Hoc Crash Studies______5 Field Investigations ______6 Laboratory Studies ______8 Summary ______9 STUDY APPROACH ______9 Research Questions ______12 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH ______13 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW ______14 Site Selection ______14 READING ______16 METHOD ______16 Selection of Data Collection Zone Limits ______16 Advertising Conditions ______16 Photometric Measurement of Signs ______19 Visual Complexity ______20 Participants ______21 Procedures ______21 DATA REDUCTION ______23 Eye Tracking Measures______23 Other Measures ______25 RESULTS ______26 Photometric Measurements ______26 Visual Complexity ______27 Effects of Billboards on Gazes to the Road Ahead ______28 Fixations to CEVMS and Standard Billboards ______30 Comparison of Gazes to CEVMS and Standard Billboards ______36 Observation of Driver Behavior ______36 Level of Service ______36 DISCUSSION OF READING RESULTS ______37 RICHMOND ______40 METHOD ______40 Selection of DCZ Limits ______40 Advertising Type ______40 Photometric Measurement of Signs ______42 Visual Complexity ______42 Participants ______43 Procedures ______43 DATA REDUCTION ______44 Eye Tracking Measures______44

iii Other Measures ______44 RESULTS ______44 Photometric Measurement of Signs ______44 Visual Complexity ______45 Effects of Billboards on Gazes to the Road Ahead ______45 Fixations to CEVMS and Standard Billboards ______47 Comparison of Gazes to CEVMS and Standard Billboards ______50 Observation of Driver Behavior ______51 Level of Service ______51 DISCUSSION OF RICHMOND RESULTS ______51 GENERAL DISCUSSION ______53 CONCLUSIONS ______53 Do CEVMS attract drivers’ attention away from the forward roadway and other driving relevant stimuli? ______53 Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety? ______54 Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards? ______54 SUMMARY ______55 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ______55 REFERENCES ______57

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Eye tracking system camera placement. ______13 Figure 2. FHWA’s field research vehicle. ______14 Figure 3. DCZ with a target CEVMS on a freeway. ______17 Figure 4. DCZ with a target CEVMS on an arterial. ______18 Figure 5. DCZ with a target standard billboard on a freeway. ______18 Figure 6. DCZ with a target standard billboard on an arterial. ______18 Figure 7. DCZ for the control condition on a freeway. ______19 Figure 8. DCZ for the control condition on an arterial. ______19 Figure 9. Screen capture showing static ROIs on a scene video output. ______23 Figure 10. Mean feature congestion as a function of advertising condition and road type (standard errors for the mean are included in the graph). ______27 Figure 11. Distribution of fixation duration for CEVMS in the daytime and nighttime. ______30 Figure 12. Distribution of fixation duration for standard billboards in the daytime and nighttime. ______31 Figure 13. Distribution of fixation duration for road ahead (i.e., top and bottom road ahead ROIs) in the daytime and nighttime. ______31 Figure 14. Heat map for the start of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on an arterial. ______33 Figure 15. Heat map for the middle of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on an arterial. ______33 Figure 16. Heat map near the end of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on an arterial. ______33 Figure 17. Heat map for start of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on a freeway. ______34 Figure 18. Heat map for middle of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on a freeway. ______34 Figure 19. Heat map near the end of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on a freeway. ______34 Figure 20. Heat map for the start of a DCZ for a standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway. ______35 Figure 21. Heat map near the middle of a DCZ for a standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway. ______35 Figure 22. Heat map near the end of DCZ for standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway. ______35 Figure 23. Heat map at the end of DCZ for standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway. ______35 Figure 24. Example of identified salient areas in a road scene based on bottom-up analysis. ______38 Figure 25. Example of a CEVMS DCZ on a freeway. ______41 Figure 26. Example of CEVMS DCZ an arterial. ______41 Figure 27. Example of a standard billboard DCZ on a freeway. ______41 Figure 28. Example of a standard billboard DCZ on an arterial. ______42 Figure 29. Example of a control DCZ on a freeway. ______42 Figure 30. Example of a control DCZ on an arterial. ______42

v Figure 31. Mean feature congestion as a function of advertising condition and road type. ______45 Figure 32. Fixation duration for CEVMS in the day and at night. ______47 Figure 33. Fixation duration for standard billboards in the day and at night. ______48 Figure 34. Fixation duration for the road ahead in the day and at night. ______48 Figure 35. Heat map for first fixation to CEVMS with long dwell time. ______49 Figure 36. Heat map for later fixations to CEVMS with long dwell time. ______50 Figure 37. Heat map at end of fixations to CEVMS with long dwell time. ______50

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of CEVMS by roadway classification for various cities. ______15 Table 2. Inventory of target billboards with relevant parameters. ______17 2 Table 3. Summary of luminance (cd/m ) and contrast (Weber ratio) measurements. ______27 Table 4. The probability of gazing at the road ahead as a function of advertising condition and road type. ______28 Table 5. Probability of gazing at ROIs for the three advertising conditions on arterials and freeways. ______29 Table 6. Level of service as a function of advertising type, road type, and time of day. ______37 Table 7. Inventory of target billboards in Richmond with relevant parameters. ______40 2 Table 8. Summary of luminance (cd/m ) and contrast (Weber ratio) measurements. ______44 Table 9. The probability of gazing at the road ahead as a function of advertising condition and road type. ______46 Table 10. Probability of gazing at ROIs for the three advertising conditions on arterials and freeways. ______46 Table 11. Estimated level of service as a function of advertising condition, road type, and time of day.______51

vii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS

CEVMS Commercial Electronic Variable Message Sign

EB Empirical Bayes

DCZ Data Collection Zone

ROI Region of Interest

LED Light-Emitting Diode

IR Infra-Red

CCD Charge-Coupled Device

MAPPS Multiple-Analysis of Psychophysical and Performance Signals

GEE Generalized Estimating Equations

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

DOT Department of Transportation

viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study examines where drivers look when driving past commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMS), standard billboards, or no off-premise advertising. The results and conclusions are presented in response to the three research questions listed below:

1. Do CEVMS attract drivers’ attention away from the forward roadway and other driving- relevant stimuli?

2. Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety?

3. Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards?

This study follows a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) review of the literature on the possible distracting and safety effects of off-premise advertising and CEVMS in particular. The review considered laboratory studies, driving simulator studies, field research vehicle studies, and crash studies. The published literature indicated that there was no consistent evidence showing a safety or distraction effect due to off-premise advertising. However, the review also enumerated potential limitations in the previous research that may have resulted in the finding of no distraction effects for off-premise advertising. The study team recommended that additional research be conducted using instrumented vehicle research methods with eye tracking technology.

The eyes are constantly moving and they fixate (focus on a specific object or area), perform saccades (eye movements to change the point of fixation), and engage in pursuit movements (track moving objects). It is during fixations that we take in detailed information about the environment. Eye tracking allows one to determine to what degree off-premise advertising may divert attention away from the forward roadway. A finding that areas containing CEVMS result in significantly more gazes to the billboards at a cost of not gazing toward the forward roadway would suggest a potential safety risk. In addition to measuring the degree to which CEVMS may distract from the forward roadway, an eye tracking device would allow an examination of the duration of fixations and dwell times (multiple sequential fixations) to CEVMS and standard billboards. Previous research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) led to the conclusion that taking your eyes off the road for 2 seconds or more presents a safety risk. Measuring fixations and dwell times to CEVMS and standard billboards would also allow a determination as to the degree to which these advertising signs lead to potentially unsafe gaze behavior.

Most of the literature concerning eye gaze behavior in dynamic environments suggests that task demands tend to override visual salience (an object that stands out because of its physical properties) in determining attention allocation. When extended to driving, it would be expected that visual attention will be directed toward task-relevant areas and objects (e.g., the roadway, other vehicles, speed limit signs) and that other salient objects, such as billboards, would not necessarily capture attention. However, driving is a somewhat automatic process and conditions generally do not require constant, undivided attention. As a result, salient stimuli, such as CEVMS, might capture driver attention and produce an unwanted increase in driver distraction. The present study addresses this concern.

1 This study used an instrumented vehicle with an eye tracking system to measure where drivers were looking when driving past CEVMS and standard billboards. The CEVMS and standard billboards were measured with respect to luminance, location, size, and other relevant variables to characterize these visual stimuli extensively. Unlike previous studies on digital billboards, the present study examined CEVMS as deployed in two United States cities. These billboards did not contain dynamic video or other dynamic elements, but changed content approximately every 8 to 10 seconds. The eye tracking system had nearly a 2-degree level of resolution that provided significantly more accuracy in determining what objects the drivers were looking at compared to an earlier naturalistic driving study. This study assessed two data collection efforts that employed the same methodology in two cities.

In each city, the study examined eye glance behavior to four CEVMS, two on arterials and two on freeways. There were an equal number of signs on the left and right side of the road for arterials and freeways. The standard billboards were selected for comparison with CEVMS such that one standard billboard environment matched as closely as possible that of each of the CEVMS. Two control locations were selected that did not contain off-premise advertising, one on an arterial and the other on a freeway. This resulted in 10 data collection zones in each city that were approximately 1,000 feet in length (the distance from the start of the data collection zone to the point that the CEVMS or standard billboard disappeared from the data collection video).

In Reading, Pennsylvania, 14 participants drove at night and 17 drove during the day. In Richmond, Virginia, 10 participants drove at night and 14 drove during the day. Calibration of the eye tracking system, practice drive, and the data collection drive took approximately 2 hours per participant to accomplish.

The following is a summary of the study results and conclusions presented in reference to the three research questions the study aimed to address.

Do CEVMS attract drivers’ attention away from the forward roadway and other driving relevant stimuli?

• On average, the drivers in this study devoted between 73 and 85 percent of their visual attention to the road ahead for both CEVMS and standard billboards. This range is consistent with earlier field research studies. In the present study, the presence of CEVMS did not appear to be related to a decrease in looking toward the road ahead.

Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety?

• The average fixation duration to CEVMS was 379 ms and to standard billboards it was 335 ms across the two cities. The average fixation durations to CEVMS and standard billboards were similar to the average fixation duration to the road ahead.

• The longest fixation to a CEVMS was 1,335 ms and to a standard billboard it was 1,284 ms. The current widely accepted threshold for durations of glances away from the road ahead that result in higher crash risk is 2,000 ms. This value comes from a NHTSA

2 naturalistic driving study that showed a significant increase in crash odds when glances away from the road ahead were 2,000 ms or longer.

• Four dwell times (aggregate of consecutive fixations to the same object) greater than 2,000 ms were observed across the two studies. Three were to standard billboards and one was to a CEVMS. The long dwell time to the CEVMS occurred in the daytime to a billboard viewable from a freeway. Review of the video data for these four long dwell times showed that the signs were not far from the forward view while participant’s gaze dwelled on them. Therefore, the drivers still had access to information about what was in front of them through peripheral vision.

• The results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS, as deployed and tested in the two selected cities, were associated with unacceptably long glances away from the road. When dwell times longer than the currently accepted threshold of 2,000 ms occurred, the road ahead was still in the driver’s field of view. This was the case for both CEVMS and standard billboards.

Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards?

• When comparing the probability of a gaze at a CEVMS versus a standard billboard, the drivers in this study were generally more likely to gaze at CEVMS than at standard billboards. However, some variability occurred between the two locations and between the types of roadway (arterial or freeway).

• In Reading, when considering the proportion of time spent looking at billboards, the participants looked more often at CEVMS than at standard billboards when on arterials (63 percent to CEVMS and 37 percent to a standard billboard), whereas they looked more often at standard billboards when on freeways (33 percent to CEVMS and 67 percent to a standard billboard). In Richmond, the drivers looked at CEVMS more than standard billboards no matter the type of road they were on, but as in Reading, the preference for gazing at CEVMS was greater on arterials (68 percent to CEVMS and 32 percent to standard billboards) than on freeways (55 percent to CEVMS and 45 percent to standard billboards). When a gaze was to an off-premise advertising sign, the drivers were generally more likely to gaze at a CEVMS than at a standard billboard.

• In Richmond, the drivers showed a preference for gazing at CEVMS versus standard billboards at night, but in Reading the time of day did not affect gaze behavior. In Richmond, drivers gazed at CEVMS 71 percent and at standard billboards 29 percent at night. On the other hand, in the day the drivers gazed at CEVMS 52 percent and at standard billboards 48 percent.

• In Reading, the average gaze dwell time for CEVMS was 981 ms and for standard billboards it was 1,386 ms. The difference in these average dwell times was not statistically significant. In contrast, the average dwell times to CEVMS and standard billboards were significantly different in Richmond (1,096 ms and 674 ms, respectively).

3 The present data suggest that the drivers in this study directed the majority of their visual attention to areas of the roadway that were relevant to the task at hand (e.g., the driving task). Furthermore, it is possible, and likely, that in the time that the drivers looked away from the forward roadway, they may have elected to glance at other objects in the surrounding environment (in the absence of billboards) that were not relevant to the driving task. When billboards were present, the drivers in this study sometimes looked at them, but not such that overall attention to the forward roadway decreased.

It also should be noted that, like other studies in the available literature, this study adds to the knowledge base on the issues examined, but does not present definitive answers to the research questions investigated.

4 INTRODUCTION

“The primary responsibility of the driver is to operate a motor vehicle safely. The task of driving requires full attention and focus. Drivers should resist engaging in any activity that takes their eyes and attention off of the road for more than a couple of seconds. In some circumstances even a second or two can make all the difference in a driver being able to avoid a crash.” – US Department of Transportation(1)

The advent of electronic billboard technologies, in particular the digital Light-Emitting Diode (LED) billboard, has prompted a reevaluation of regulations for controlling outdoor advertising. An attractive quality of these LED billboards, which are hereafter referred to as Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS), is that advertisements can change almost instantly. Furthermore, outdoor advertising companies can make these changes from a central remote office. Of concern is whether or not CEVMS may attract drivers’ attention away from the primary task (driving) in a way that compromises safety.

The current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance recommends that CEVMS should not change content more frequently than once every 8 seconds.(2) However, according to Scenic America, the basis of the safety concern is that the “…distinguishing trait…” of a CEVMS “… is that it can vary while a driver watches it, in a setting in which that variation is likely to attract the drivers’ attention away from the roadway.”(3)This study was conducted to provide the FHWA with data to determine if CEVMS capture visual attention differently than standard off-premise advertising billboards.

BACKGROUND

A 2009 review of the literature by Molino et al. for the FHWA failed to find convincing empirical evidence that CEVMS, as currently implemented, constitutes a safety risk greater than that of conventional vinyl billboards.(4) A great deal of work has been focused in this area, but the findings of these studies have been mixed.(4,5) A summary of the key past findings is presented here, but the reader is referred to Molino et al. for a comprehensive review of studies prior to 2008.(4)

Post-Hoc Crash Studies

Post-hoc crash studies use reviews of police traffic collision reports or statistical summaries of such reports in an effort to understand the causes of crashes that have taken place in the vicinity of some change to the roadside environment. In the present case, the change of concern is the introduction of CEVMS to the roadside or the replacement of conventional billboards with CEVMS.

The literature review conducted by Molino et al. did not find compelling evidence for a distraction effect attributable to CEVMS.(4) The authors concluded that all post-hoc crash studies are subject to certain weaknesses, most of which are difficult to overcome. For example, the vast majority of crashes are never reported to police; thus, such studies are likely to underreport crashes. Also, when crashes are caused by factors such as driver distraction or inattention, the involved driver may be unwilling or unable to report these factors to a police investigator.

5 Another weakness is that police, under time pressure, are rarely able to investigate the true root causes of crashes unless they involve serious injury, death, or extensive property damage. Furthermore, to have confidence in the results, such studies need to collect comparable data before and after the change, and, in the after phase, at equivalent but unaffected roadway sections. Since crashes are infrequent events, data collection needs to span extended periods of time both before and after introduction of the change. Few studies are able to obtain such extensive data.

Two recent studies by Tantala and Tantala examined the relationship between the presence of CEVMS and crash statistics in Richmond, Virginia, and Reading, Pennsylvania.(6,7) For the Richmond area, 7 years of crash data at 10 locations with CEVMS were included in the analyses. The study used a before-after methodology where most sites originally contained vinyl billboards (before) that were converted to CEVMS (after). The quantity of crash data was not the same for all locations and ranged from 1 year before/after to 3 years before/after. The study employed the Empirical Bayes (EB) method to analyze the data.(8) The results indicated that the total number of crashes observed was consistent with what would be statistically expected with or without the introduction of CEVMS. The analysis approach for Reading locations was much the same as for Richmond other than there were 20 rather than 10 CEVMS and 8 years of crash statistics. The EB method showed results for Reading that were very similar to those of Richmond.

The studies by Tantala and Tantala appear to address many of the concerns from Molino et al. regarding the weaknesses and issues associated with crash studies.(4,6,7) For example, they include crash comparisons for locations within multiple distances of each CEVMS to address concerns about the visual range used in previous analyses. They used EB analysis techniques to correct for regression-to-mean bias. Also, the EB method would better reflect crash rate changes due to changes in average daily traffic and the interactions of these with the roadway features that were coded in the model. The studies followed approaches that are commonly used in post- hoc crash studies, though the results would have been strengthened by including before-after results for non-CEVMS locations as a control group.

Field Investigations

Field investigations include unobtrusive observation, naturalistic driving studies, on-road instrumented vehicle investigations, test track experiments, driver interviews, surveys, and questionnaires. The following focuses on relevant studies that employed naturalistic driving and on-road instrumented vehicle research methods.

Lee, McElheny, and Gibbons undertook an on-road instrumented vehicle study on Interstate and local roads near Cleveland, Ohio.(9) The study looked at driver glance behavior in the vicinity of digital billboards, conventional billboards, comparison sites (sites with buildings and other signs, including digital signs), and control sites (those without similar signage). The results showed that there were no differences in the overall glance patterns (percent eyes-on-road and overall number of glances) between the different sites. Drivers also did not glance more frequently in the direction of digital billboards than in the direction of other event types (conventional billboards, comparison events, and baseline events) but drivers did take longer glances in the direction of digital billboards and comparison sites than in the direction of conventional billboards and baseline sites. However, the mean glance length toward the digital billboards was less than

6 1,000 ms. It is important to note that this study employed a video-based approach for examining drivers’ visual behavior, which has an accuracy of no better than 20 degrees.(10) While this technique is likely to be effective in assessing gross eye movements and looks that are away from the road ahead, it may not have sufficient resolution to discriminate what specific object the driver is looking at outside of the vehicle.

Beijer, Smiley, and Eizenman evaluated driver glances toward four different types of roadside advertising signs on roads in the Toronto, Canada, area.(11) The four types of signs were: (a) billboard signs with static advertisements; (b) billboard advertisements placed on vertical rollers that could rotate to show one of three advertisements in succession; (c) scrolling text signs with a minor active component, which usually consisted of a small strip of lights that formed words scrolling across the screen or, in some cases, a larger area capable of displaying text but not video; and (d) signs with video images that had a color screen capable of displaying both moving text and moving images. The study employed an on-road instrumented vehicle with a head- mounted eye tracking device. The researchers found no significant differences in average glance duration or the maximum glance duration for the various sign types; however, the number of glances was significantly lower for billboard signs than for the roller bar, scrolling text, and video signs.

Smiley, Smahel, and Eizenman conducted a field driving study that employed an eye tracking system that recorded drivers’ eye movements as participants drove past video signs located at three downtown intersections and along an urban expressway.(12) The study route included static billboards and video advertising. The results of the study showed that on average 76 percent of glances were to the road ahead. Glances at advertising, including static billboards and video signs, constituted 1.2 percent of total glances. The mean glance durations for advertising signs were between 500 ms and 750 ms, although there were a few glances of about 1,400 ms in duration. Video signs were not more likely than static commercial signs to be looked at when headways were short; in fact, the reverse was the case. Furthermore, the number of glances per individual video sign was small, and statistically significant differences in looking behavior were not found.

Kettwich, Kartsen, Klinger, and Lemmer conducted a field study where drivers’ gaze behavior was measured with an eye tracking system.(13) Sixteen participants drove an 11.5 mile (18.5 km) route comprised of highways, arterial roads, main roads, and one-way streets in Karlsruhe, Germany. The route contained advertising pillars, event posters, company logos, and video screens. Mean gaze duration for the four types of advertising was computed for periods when the vehicle was in motion and when it was stopped. Gaze duration while driving for all types of advertisements was under 1,000 ms. On the other hand, while the vehicle was stopped, the mean gaze duration for video screen advertisements was 2,750 ms. The study showed a significant difference between gaze duration while driving and while stationary: gaze duration was affected by the task at hand. That is, drivers tended to gaze longer while the car was stopped and there were few driving task demands.

The previously mentioned studies estimated the duration of glances to advertising and computed mean values of less than 1,000 ms. Klauer et al., in his analysis of the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, concluded that glances away from the roadway for any purpose lasting more than 2,000 ms increase near-crash/crash risk by at least two times that of normal, baseline driving.(14)

7 Klauer et al. also indicated that short, brief glances away from the forward roadway for the purpose of scanning the driving environment are safe and actually decrease near-crash/crash risk.(14) Using devices in a vehicle that draw visual attention away from the forward roadway for more than 2,000 ms (e.g., texting) is incompatible with safe driving. However, for external stimuli, especially those near the roadway, the evaluation of eye glances with respect to safety is less clear since peripheral vision would allow the driver to still have visual access to the forward roadway.

Laboratory Studies

Laboratory investigations related to roadway safety can be classified into several categories: driving simulations, non-driving-simulator laboratory testing, and focus groups. The review of relevant laboratory studies by Molino et al. did not show conclusive evidence regarding the distracting effects of CEVMS.(4) Moreover, the authors concluded that present driving simulators do not have sufficient visual dynamic range, image resolution, and contrast ratio capability to produce the compelling visual effect of a bright, photo-realistic LED-based CEVMS against a natural background scene. The following is a discussion of a driving simulator study conducted after the publication of Molino et al.(4) The study focused on the effects of advertising on driver visual behavior.

Chattington, Reed, Basacik, Flint, and Parkes conducted a driving simulator study in the United Kingdom (UK) to evaluate the effects of static and video advertising on driver glance behavior.(15) The researchers examined the effects of advertisement position relative to the road (left, right, center on an overhead gantry, and in all three locations simultaneously), type of advertisement (static or video), and exposure duration of the advertisement. (The paper does not provide these durations in terms of time or distance. The exposure duration had to do with the amount of time or distance that the sign would be visible to the driver.) For the advertisements presented on the left side of the road (recall that drivers travel in the left lane in the UK), mean glance durations for static and video advertisements were significantly longer (approximately 650 to 750 ms) when drivers experienced long advertisement exposure as opposed to medium and short exposures. Drivers looked more at video advertisements (about 2 percent on average of the total duration recorded) than at static advertisements (about 0.75 percent on average). In addition, the location of the advertisements had an effect on glance behavior. When advertisements were located in the center of the road or in all three positions simultaneously, the glance durations were about 1,000 ms and were significantly longer than for signs placed on the right or left side of the road. For advertisements placed on the left side of the road, there was a significant difference in glance duration between static (about 400 ms) and video (about 800 ms). Advertisement position also had an effect on the proportion of time that a driver spent looking at an advertisement. The percentage of time looking at advertisements was greatest when signs were placed in all three locations, followed by center location signs, then the left location signs, and finally the right location signs. Drivers looked more at the video advertisements relative to the static advertisements when they were placed in all three locations, placed on the left, and placed on the right side of the road. The center placement did not show a significant difference in percent of time spent looking between static and video.

8 Summary

The results from these key studies offer some insight into whether CEVMS pose a visual distraction threat. However, these same studies also reveal some inconsistent findings and potential methodological issues that are addressed in the current study. The studies conducted by Smiley et al. showed drivers glanced forward at the roadway about 76 percent of the time in the presence of video and dynamic signs where a few long glances of approximately 1,400 ms were observed.(12) However, the video and dynamic signs used in these studies portray moving objects that are not present in CEVMS as deployed in the United States. In another field study employing eye tracking, Kettwich et al. found that gaze duration while driving for all types of advertisements that they evaluated was less than 1,000 ms; however, when the vehicle was stopped, mean gaze duration for advertising was as high as 2,750 ms.(16) Collectively, these studies did not demonstrate that the advertising signs detracted from drivers’ glances forward at the roadway in a substantive manner while the vehicle was moving.

In contrast, the simulator study by Chattington et al. demonstrated that dynamic signs showing moving video or other dynamic elements may draw attention away from the roadway.(15) Furthermore, the location of the advertising sign on the road is an important factor in drawing drivers’ visual attention. Advertisements with moving video placed in the center of the roadway on an overhead gantry or in all three positions (right, left, and in the center) simultaneously are very likely to draw glances from drivers.

Finally, in a study that examined CEVMS as deployed in the United States, Lee et al. did not show any significant effects of CEVMS on driver glance behavior.(9) However, the methodology that was used likely did not employ sufficient sensitivity to determine at what specific object in the environment a driver was looking.

None of these studies combined all necessary factors to address the current CEVMS situation in the United States. Those studies that used eye tracking on real roads had animated and video- based signs, which are not reflective of current off-premise CEVMS practice in the United States.

STUDY APPROACH

Based on an extensive review of the literature, Molino et al. concluded that the most effective method to use in an evaluation of the effects of CEVMS on driver visual behavior was the instrumented field vehicle method that incorporated an eye tracking system.(4) The present study employed such an instrumented field vehicle with an eye tracking system and examined the degree to which CEVMS attract drivers’ attention away from the forward roadway.

The following presents a brief overview and discussion of studies using eye tracking methodology with complex visual stimuli, especially in natural environments (walking, driving, etc.). The review by Molino et al. recommended the use of this type of technology and method; however, a discussion laying out technical and theoretical issues underlying the use of eye tracking methods was not presented.(4) This background is important for the interpretation of the results of the studies conducted here.

9 Standard and digital billboards are often salient stimuli in the driving environment, which may make them conspicuous. Cole and Hughes define attention conspicuity as the extent to which a stimulus is sufficiently prominent in the driving environment to capture attention. Further, Cole and Hughes state that attention conspicuity is a function of size, color, brightness, contrast relative to surroundings, and dynamic components such as movement and change.(17) It is clear that under certain circumstances image salience or conspicuity can provide a good explanation of how humans orient their attention.

At any given moment a large number of stimuli reach our senses, but only a limited number of them are selected for further processing. In general, attention can be focused on a stimulus because it is important for achieving some goal, or because the properties of the stimulus can attract the attention of the observer independent of their intentions (e.g., a car horn may elicit an orienting response). When the focus of attention is goal directed, it is referred to as top-down. When the focus of attention is principally a function of stimulus attributes, it is referred to as bottom-up.(18)

In general, billboards (either standard or CEVMS) are not relevant to the driving task but are presumably designed to be salient stimuli in the environment where they may draw a driver’s attention. The question is to what degree CEVMS draw a driver’s attention away from driving- relevant stimuli (e.g., road ahead, mirrors, and speedometer) and is this different from a standard billboard? In his review of the literature Wachtel leads one to consider CEVMS as stimuli in the environment where attention to them would be drawn in a bottom-up manner; that is, the salience of the billboards would make them stand out relative to other stimuli in the environment and drivers would reflexively look at these signs.(19) Wachtel’s conclusions were in reference to research by Theeuwees who employed simple letter stimulus arrays in a laboratory task.(20) Research using simple visual stimuli in a laboratory environment are very useful for testing different theories of perception, but often lack direct application to tasks such as driving. The following discusses research using complex visual stimuli and tasks that are more relevant to natural vision as experienced in the driving task.

A recent review of stimulus salience and eye guidance by Tatler et al. shows that most of the evidence for the capture of attention by the conspicuity of stimuli comes from research in which the stimulus is a simple visual search array or in which the target is uniquely defined by simple visual features.(21) In other words, these are laboratory studies that use letters, arrays of letters, or simple geometric patterns as the stimuli. Pure salience-based models are capable of predicting eye movement endpoint in simple displays, but are less successful for more complex scenes that contain task-relevant and task-irrelevant salient areas.(22,23)

Research by Henderson et al. using photographs of actual scenes showed that subjects looked at non-salient scene regions containing a search target and rarely looked at salient non-task-relevant regions of the scenes.(24) Salience of the stimulus alone was not a good predictor of where participants looked. Additional research by Henderson using photographs of real world scenes also showed that subjects fixated on regions of the pictures that provided task-relevant information rather than visually salient regions with no task-relevant information. However, Henderson acknowledges that static pictures have many shortcomings when used as surrogates for real environments.(25)

10 Land’s review of eye movements in dynamic environments concluded that the eyes are proactive and typically seek out information required in the second before each new activity commences.(26) Specific tasks (e.g., driving) have characteristic but flexible patterns of eye movement that accompany them, and these patterns are similar between individuals. Land concluded that the eyes rarely visit objects that are irrelevant to the task, and the conspicuity of objects is less important than the objects’ roles in the task. In a subsequent review of eye movement and natural behavior, Land concluded that in a task that requires fixation on a sequence of specific objects, the capture of gaze by irrelevant salient objects would, in general, be an obtrusive nuisance.(22)

The literature examining gaze control under natural behavior suggests that it is principally top- down driven, or intentional.(24,25,26,22,21,27) However, top-down processing does not explain all gaze control or eye movements. For example, imagine driving down a two-lane country road and a deer jumps into the road. It is most likely that you will attend and react to this deer. Unplanned or unexpected stimuli capture our attention as we engage in complex natural tasks. Research by Jovancevic-Misic and Hayhoe showed that human gaze patterns are sensitive to the probabilistic nature of the environment.(28) In this study, participants’ eye movement behavior was observed while walking among other pedestrians. The other pedestrians were confederates and were either safe, risky, or rogue pedestrians. When the study began, the risky pedestrian took a collision course with the participant 50 percent of the time, and the rogue pedestrian always assumed a collision course as he approached the participant, whereas the safe pedestrian never took a collision course. Midway through the study the rogue and safe pedestrians exchanged roles but the risky pedestrian role remained the same. The participants were not informed about the behavior of the other pedestrians. Participants were asked to follow a circular path for several laps and to avoid other pedestrians. The study showed that the participants modified their gaze behavior in response to the change in the other pedestrians’ behavior. Jovancevic-Misic concluded that participants learned new priorities for gaze allocation within a few encounters and looked both sooner and longer at potentially dangerous pedestrians.(28)

Gaze behavior in natural environments is affected by expectations that are derived through long- term learning. Using a virtual driving environment, Shinoda et al. asked participants to look for stop signs while driving an urban route.(29) Approximately 45 percent of the fixations fell in the general area of intersections during the simulated drive, and participants were more likely to detect stop signs placed near intersections than those placed in the middle of a block. Over time, drivers have learned that stop signs are more likely to appear near intersections and, as a result, drivers prioritize their allocation of gazes to these areas of the roadway.

The Tatler et al. review of the literature concludes that in natural vision, a consistent set of principles underlies eye guidance. These principles include relevance or reward potential, uncertainty about the state of the environment, and learned models of the environment.(21) Salience of environmental stimuli alone typically does not explain most eye gaze behavior in naturalistic environments.

In sum, most of the literature concerning eye gaze behavior in dynamic environments suggests that task demands tend to override visual salience in determining attention allocation. When extended to driving, it would be expected that visual attention will be directed toward task- relevant areas and objects (e.g., the roadway, other vehicles, speed limit signs, etc.) and other

11 salient objects, such as billboards, will not necessarily capture attention. However, driving is a somewhat automatic process and conditions generally do not require constant undivided attention. As a result, salient stimuli, such as CEVMS, might capture driver attention and provide an unwarranted increase in driver distraction. The present study addresses this concern.

Research Questions

The present research evaluated the effects of CEVMS on driver visual behavior under actual roadway conditions in the daytime and at night. Roads containing CEVMS, standard billboards, and areas not containing off-premise advertising were selected. The CEVMS and standard billboards were measured with respect to luminance, location, size, and other relevant visual characteristics. The present study examined CEVMS as deployed in two United States cities. Unlike previous studies, the signs did not contain dynamic video or other dynamic elements. In addition, the eye tracking system used in this study has approximately a 2-degree level of resolution. This provided significantly more accuracy in determining what objects the drivers were looking at than in previous on-road studies examining looking behavior (recall that Lee et al. used video recordings of drivers’ faces that, at best, examined gross eye movements).(9)

Two studies are reported. Each study was conducted in a different city. The two studies employed the same methodology. The studies’ primary research questions were:

1. Do CEVMS attract drivers’ attention away from the forward roadway and other driving relevant stimuli?

2. Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety?

3. Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards?

12 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The study used a field research vehicle equipped with a non-intrusive eye tracking system. The vehicle was a 2007 Jeep® Grand Cherokee Sport Utility Vehicle. The eye tracking system used (SmartEye® vehicle-mounted infrared (IR) eye-movement measuring system) is shown in figure 1.(30) The system consists of two IR light sources and three face cameras mounted on the dashboard of the vehicle. The cameras and light sources are small in size, and are not attached to the driver in any manner. The face cameras are synchronized to the IR light sources and are used to determine the head position and gaze direction of the driver.

Figure 1. Eye tracking system camera placement.

As a part of this eye tracking system, the vehicle was outfitted with a three-camera panoramic scene monitoring system for capturing the forward driving scene. The scene cameras were mounted on the roof of the vehicle directly above the driver’s head position. The three cameras together provided an 80-degree wide by 40-degree high field of forward view. The scene cameras captured the forward view area available to the driver through the left side of the windshield and a portion of the right side of the windshield. The area visible to the driver through the rightmost area of the windshield was not captured by the scene cameras.

The vehicle was also outfitted with equipment to record GPS position, vehicle speed, and vehicle acceleration. The equipment also recorded events entered by an experimenter and synchronized those events with the eye tracking and vehicle data. The research vehicle is pictured in figure 2.

Figure 2. FHWA’s field research vehicle.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW

The approach entailed the use of the instrumented vehicle in which drivers navigated routes in cities that presented CEVMS and standard billboards as well as areas without off-premise advertising. The participants were instructed to drive the routes as they normally would. The drivers were not informed that the study was about outdoor advertising, but rather that it was about examining drivers’ glance behavior as they followed route guidance directions.

Site Selection

More than 40 cities were evaluated in the selection of the test sites. Locations with CEVMS displays were identified using a variety of resources that included State department of transportation contacts, advertising company Web sites, and a popular geographic information system. A matrix was developed that listed the number of CEVMS in each city. For each site, the number of CEVMS along limited access and arterial roadways was determined.

One criterion for site selection was whether the location had practical routes that pass by a number of CEVMS as well as standard off-premise billboards and could be driven in about 30 minutes. Other considerations included access to vehicle maintenance personnel/facilities, proximity to research facilities, and ease of participant recruitment. Two cities were selected: Reading, and Richmond.

Table 1 presents the 16 cities that were included on the final list of potential study sites.

14 Table 1. Distribution of CEVMS by roadway classification for various cities.

State Area Limited Access Arterial Other (1) Total VA Richmond 4 7 0 11 PA Reading 7 11 0 18 VA Roanoke 0 11 0 11 PA Pittsburgh 0 0 15 15 TX San Antonio 7 2 6 15 WI Milwaukee 14 2 0 16 AZ Phoenix 10 6 0 16 MN St. Paul/Minneapolis 8 5 3 16 TN Nashville 7 10 0 17 FL Tampa-St. Petersburg 7 11 0 18 NM Albuquerque 0 19 1 20 PA Scranton-Wilkes Barre 7 14 1 22 OH Columbus 1 22 0 23 GA Atlanta 13 11 0 24 IL Chicago 22 2 1 25 CA Los Angeles 3 71 4 78 (1) Other includes roadways classified as both limited access and arterial or instances where the road classification was unknown. Source: www.lamar.com and www.clearchannel.com

In both test cities, the following independent variables were evaluated:

• The type of advertising. This included CEVMS, standard billboards, and no off-premise advertising. (It should be noted that in areas with no off-premise advertising, it was still possible to encounter on-premise advertising; e.g., for gas stations, restaurants, and other miscellaneous stores and shops.)

• Time of day. This included driving in the daytime and at night.

• The functional class of roadways in which off-premise advertising signs were located. Roads were classified as either freeway or arterial. It was observed that the different road classes were correlated with the presence of other visual information that could affect the driver’s glance behavior. For example, the visual environment on arterials may be more complex or cluttered than on freeways because of the close proximity of buildings, driveways, and on-premise advertising, etc.

15 READING

The first on-road study was conducted in Reading. This study examined the type of advertising (CEVMS, standard billboard, or no off-premise advertising), time of day (day or night) and road type (freeway or arterial) as independent variables. Eye tracking was used to assess where participants gazed and for how long while driving. The luminance and contrast of the advertising signs were measured to characterize the billboards in the current study.

METHOD

Selection of Data Collection Zone Limits

Data collection zones (DCZ) were defined on the routes that participants drove where detailed analyses of the eye tracking data were planned. The DCZ were identified that contained a CEVMS, a standard billboard, or no off-premise advertising.

The rationale for selecting the DCZ limits took into account the geometry of the roadway (e.g., road curvature or obstructions that blocked view of billboards) and the capabilities of the eye tracking system (2 degrees of resolution). At a distance of 960 ft (292.61 m), the average billboard in Reading was 12.8 ft (3.90 m) by 36.9 ft (11.25 m) and would subtend a horizontal visual angle of 2.20 degrees and a vertical visual angle of 0.76 degrees, and thus glances to the billboard would just be resolvable by an eye tracking system with 2 degrees of accuracy. Therefore 960 ft was chosen as the maximum distance from billboards at which a DCZ would begin. If the target billboard was not visible from 960 ft (292.61 m) due to roadway geometry or other visual obstructions, such as trees or an overpass, the DCZ was shortened to a distance that prevented these objects from interfering with the driver’s vision of the billboard. In DCZs with target off-premise billboards, the end of the DCZ was marked when the target billboard left the view of the scene camera. If the area contained no off-premise advertising, the end of the DCZ was defined by a physical landmark leaving the view of the eye tracking systems’ scene camera.

Table 2 shows the data collection zone limits used in this study.

Advertising Conditions

The type of advertising present in DCZs was examined as an independent variable. DCZs fell into one of the following categories, which are listed in the second column of table 2:

• CEVMS. These were DCZs that contained one target CEVMS. Two CEVMS DCZs were located on freeways and two were located on arterials. Figure 3 and figure 4 show examples of CEVMS DCZs with the CEVMS highlighted in the pictures.

• Standard billboard. These were DCZs that contained one target standard billboard. Two standard billboard DCZs were located on freeways and two were located on arterials. Figure 5 and figure 6 show examples of standard billboard DCZs; the standard billboards are highlighted in the pictures.

16 • No off-premise advertising conditions. These DCZs contained no off-premise advertising. One of these DCZs was on a freeway (see figure 7) and the other was on an arterial (see figure 8).

Table 2. Inventory of target billboards with relevant parameters. Copy Setback Other Advertising Side of Approach Type of DCZ Dimensions from Road Standard Type Road Length (ft) Roadway (ft) (ft) Billboards 1 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/A 786 Freeway 6 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/A 308 Arterial 3 CEVMS 10'6" x 22'9" L 12 0 375 Arterial 5 CEVMS 14'0" x 48'0" L 133 1 853 Freeway 9 CEVMS 10'6" x 22'9" R 43 0 537 Arterial 10 CEVMS 14'0" x 48'0" R 133 1 991 Freeway 2 Standard 14'0" x 48'0" L 20 0 644 Arterial 7 Standard 14'0" x 48'0" R 35 1 774 Freeway 8 Standard 10'6" x 22'9" R 40 1 833 Arterial 4 Standard 14'0" x 48'0" L 10 0 770 Freeway *N/A indicates that there were no off-premise advertising in these areas and these values are undefined.

Figure 3. DCZ with a target CEVMS on a freeway.

Figure 4. DCZ with a target CEVMS on an arterial.

Figure 5. DCZ with a target standard billboard on a freeway.

Figure 6. DCZ with a target standard billboard on an arterial.

Figure 7. DCZ for the control condition on a freeway.

Figure 8. DCZ for the control condition on an arterial.

Photometric Measurement of Signs

Two primary metrics were used to describe the photometric characteristics of a sample of the CEVMS and standard billboards present at each location: luminance (cd/m2) and contrast (Weber contrast ratio).

Photometric Equipment

Luminance was measured with a Radiant Imaging ProMetric 1600 Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) photometer with both a 50 mm and a 300 mm lenses. The CCD photometer provided a method of capturing the luminance of an entire scene at one time.

The photometric sensors were mounted in a vehicle of similar size to the eye tracking research vehicle. The photometer was located in the experimental vehicle as close to the driver’s position as possible and was connected to a laptop computer that stored data as the images were acquired.

Measurement Methodology

Images of the billboards were acquired using the photometer manufacturer’s software. The software provided the mean luminance of each billboard message. To prevent overexposure of

19 images in daylight, neutral density filters were manually affixed to the photometer lens and the luminance values were scaled appropriately. Standard billboards were typically measured only once; however, for CEVMS multiple measures were taken to account for changing content.

Photometric measurements were taken during day and night. Measurements were taken by centering the billboard in the photometer’s field of view with approximately the equivalent of the width of the billboard on each side and the equivalent of the billboard height above and below the sign. The areas outside of the billboards were included to enable contrast calculations.

Standard billboards were assessed at a mean distance of 284 ft (ranging from 570 ft to 43 ft). The CEVMS were assessed at a mean distance of 479 ft (ranging from 972 ft to 220 ft). To include the background regions of appropriate size, the close measurement distances required the use of the 50 mm lens whereas measurements made from longer distances required the 300 mm lens. A significant determinant of the measurement locations was the availability of accessible and safe places from which to measure.

The Weber contrast ratio was used because it characterizes a billboard as having negative or positive contrast when compared to its background area.(31) A negative contrast indicates the background areas have a higher mean luminance than the target billboard. A positive contrast indicates the target billboard has a higher mean luminance than the background. Overall, the absolute value of a contrast ratio simply indicates a difference in luminance between an item and its background. From a perceptual perspective luminance and contrast are directly related to the perception of brightness. For example, two signs with equal luminance may be perceived differently with respect to brightness because of differences in contrast.

Visual Complexity

Regan, Young, Lee and Gordon presented a taxonomic description of the various sources of driver distraction.(32) Potential sources of distraction were discussed in terms of: things brought into the vehicle; vehicle systems; vehicle occupants; moving objects or animals in the vehicle; internalized activity; and external objects, events, or activities. The external objects may include buildings, construction zones, billboards, road signs, vehicles, and so on. Focusing on the potential for information outside the vehicle to attract (or distract) the driver’s attention, Horberry and Edquist developed a taxonomy for out-of-the-vehicle visual information. This suggested taxonomy includes four groupings of visual information: built roadway, situational entities, natural environment, and built environment.(33) These two taxonomies provide an organizational structure for conducting research; however, they do not currently provide a systematic or quantitative way of classifying the level of clutter or visual complexity present in a visual scene.

The method proposed by Rozenholtz, Li, and Nakano provides quantitative and perhaps reliable measures of visual clutter.(34) Their approach measures the feature congestion in a visual image. The implementation of the feature congestion measure involves four stages: (1) compute local feature covariance at multiple scales and compute the volume of the local covariance ellipsoid, (2) combine clutter across scale, (3) combine clutter across feature types, and (4) pool over space to get a single measure of clutter for each input image. The implementation that was used employed color, orientation and luminance contrast as features. Presumably, less cluttered

20 images can be visually coded more efficiently than cluttered images. For example, visual clutter can cause decreased recognition performance and greater difficulty in performing visual search.(35)

Participants

In the present study participants were recruited at public libraries in the Reading area. A table was set up so that recruiters could discuss the requirements of the experiment with candidates. Individuals who expressed interest in participating were asked to complete a pre-screening form, a record of informed consent, and a department of motor vehicles form consenting to release of their driving record.

All participants were between 18 and 64 years of age and held a valid driver’s license. The driving record for each volunteer was evaluated to eliminate drivers with excessive violations. The criteria for excluding drivers were as follows: (a) more than one violation in the preceding year; (b) more than three recorded violations; and (c) any driving while intoxicated violation.

Forty-three individuals were recruited to participate. Of these, five did not complete the drive because the eye tracker could not be calibrated to track their eye movements accurately. Data from an additional seven participants were excluded as the result of equipment failures (e.g., loose camera). In the end, usable data was collected from 31 participants (12 males, M = 46 years; 19 females, M = 47 years). Fourteen participants drove at night and 17 drove during the day.

Procedures

Data were collected from two participants per day (beginning at approximately 12:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.). Data collection began on September 18, 2009, and was completed on October 26, 2009.

Pre-Data Collection Activities

Participants were greeted by two researchers and asked to complete a fitness to drive questionnaire. This questionnaire focused on drivers’ self-reports of alertness and use of substances that might impair driving (e.g., alcohol). All volunteers appeared fit.

Next, the participant and both researchers moved to the eye tracking calibration location and the test vehicle. The calibration procedure took approximately 20 minutes. Calibration of the eye tracking system entailed development of a profile for each participant. This was accomplished by taking multiple photographs of the participant’s face as they slowly rotate their head from side to side. The saved photographs include points on the face for subsequent real-time head and eye tracking. Marked coordinates on the face photographs were edited by the experimenter as needed to improve the real-time face tracking. The procedure also included gaze calibration in which participants gazed at nine points on a wall. These points had been carefully plotted on the wall and correspond to the points in the eye tracking system’s world model. Gaze calibration relates the individual participant’s gaze vectors to known points in the real world. The eye tracking system uses two pulsating infrared sources mounted on the dashboard to create two corneal glints that are used to calculate gaze direction vectors. The glints were captured at 60 Hz. A second set

21 of cameras (scene cameras), fixed on top of the car close to the driver’s viewpoint, were used to produce a video scene of the area ahead. The scene cameras recorded at 25 Hz. A parallax correction algorithm compensated for the distance between the driver’s viewpoint and the scene cameras so that later processing could use the gaze vectors to show where in the forward scene the driver was gazing.

If it was not possible to calibrate the eye tracking system to a participant, the participant was dismissed and paid for their time. Causes of calibration failure included reflections from eye glasses, participant height (which put their eyes outside the range of the system), and eyelids that obscure a portion of the pupil.

Practice

After eye-tracker calibration, a short practice drive was made. Participants were shown a map of the route and written turn-by-turn directions prior to beginning the practice drive. Throughout the drive, verbal directions were provided by a GPS device.

During the practice drive, a researcher in the rear seat of the vehicle monitored the accuracy of eye tracking. If the system was tracking poorly, additional calibration was performed. If the calibration could not be improved, the participant was paid for their time and dismissed.

Data Collection

Participants drove two test routes (referred to as route A and B). Each route required 25 to 30 minutes to complete and included both freeway and arterial segments. Route A was 13 miles long and contained 6 DCZs. Route B was 16 miles long and contained 4 DCZs. Combined, participants drove in a total of 10 DCZs. Similar to the practice drive, participants were shown a map of the route and written turn-by-turn directions. A GPS device provided turn-by-turn guidance during the drive. Roughly one half of the participants drove route A first and the remaining participants began with route B. A 5 minute break followed the completion of the first route.

During the drives, a researcher in the front passenger seat assisted the driver when additional route guidance was required. The researcher was also tasked with recording near misses and driver errors if these occurred. The researcher in the rear seat monitored the performance of the eye tracker. If the eye tracker performance became unacceptable (i.e., loss of calibration), then the researcher in the rear asked the participant to park in a safe location so that the eye tracker could be recalibrated. This recalibration typically took a minute or two to accomplish.

Debriefing

After driving both routes, the participants provided comments regarding their drives. The comments were in reference to the use of a navigation system. No questions were asked about billboards. The participants were given $120.00 in cash for their participation.

22 DATA REDUCTION

Eye Tracking Measures

The Multiple-Analysis of Psychophysical and Performance Signals (MAPPS™) software was used to reduce the eye tracking data.(36) The software integrates the video output from the scene cameras with the output from the eye tracking software (e.g., gaze vectors). The analysis software provides an interface in which the gaze vectors determined by the eye tracker can be related to areas or objects in the scene camera view of the world. Analysts can indicate regions of interest (ROIs) in the scene camera views and the analysis software then assigns gaze vectors to the ROIs.

Figure 9 shows a screen capture from the analysis software in which static ROIs have been identified. These static ROIs slice up the scene camera views into six areas. The software also allows for the construction of dynamic ROIs. These are ROIs that move in the video because of own-vehicle movement (e.g., a sign changes position on the display as it is approached by the driver) or because the object moves over time independent of own-vehicle movement (e.g., pedestrian walking along the road, vehicle entering or exiting the road).

Static ROIs need only be entered once for the scenario being analyzed whereas dynamic ROIs need to be entered several times for a given DCZ depending on how the object moves along the video scene; however, not every frame needs to be coded with a dynamic ROI since the software interpolates across frames using the 60-Hz data to compute eye movement statistics.

Figure 9. Screen capture showing static ROIs on a scene video output.

The following ROIs were defined with the analysis software:

Static ROIs

These ROIs were entered once into the software for each participant. The static ROIs for the windshield were divided into top and bottom to have more resolution during the coding process. The subsequent analyses in the report combines the top and bottom portion of these ROIs since it appeared that this additional level of resolution was not needed in order to address research questions:

• Road ahead: bottom portion (approximately 2/3) of the area of the forward roadway (center camera).

23 • Road ahead top: top portion (approximately 1/3) of the area of the forward roadway (center camera).

• Right side of road bottom: bottom portion (approximately 2/3) of the area to the right of the forward roadway (right camera).

• Right side of road top: top portion (approximately 1/3) of the area to the right of the forward roadway (right camera).

• Left side of road bottom (LSR_B): bottom portion (approximately 2/3) of the area to the left of the forward roadway (left camera).

• Left side of road bottom (LSR_T): top portion (approximately 1/3) of the area to the left of the forward roadway (left camera).

• Inside vehicle: below the panoramic video scene (outside of the view of the cameras, but eye tracking is still possible).

• Top: above the panoramic video scene (outside of the view of the cameras, but eye tracking is still possible).

Dynamic ROIs

These ROIs are created multiple times within a DCZ for stimuli that move relative to the driver:

• Driving-related safety risk: vehicle which posed a potential safety risk to the driver, defined as a car that is/may turn into the driver’s direction of travel at a non-signalized or non-stop-controlled intersection (e.g., a car making a U-turn, a car waiting to turn right, or a car waiting to turn left). These vehicles were actively turning or entering the roadway or appeared to be in a position to enter the roadway.

• Target standard billboard: target standard billboard that defines the start and end of the DCZ.

• Other standard billboard: standard billboard(s) located in the DCZ, other than the target standard billboard or the target digital billboard.

• CEVMS: target digital billboard that defines the start and end of the DCZ.

The software determines the gaze intersection for each 60 Hz frame and assigns it to an ROI. In subsequent analyses and discussion, gaze intersections are referred to as gazes. Since ROIs may overlap, the software allows for the specification of priority for each ROI such that the ROI with the highest priority gets the gaze vector intersection assigned to it. For example, an ROI for a CEVMS may also be in the static ROI for the road ahead.

24 The 60 Hz temporal resolution of the eye tracking software does not provide sufficient information to make detailed analysis of saccade characteristics,1 such as latency or speed. The analysis software uses three parameters in the determination of a fixation: a fixation radius, fixation duration, and a time out. The determination begins with a single-gaze vector intersection. Any subsequent intersection within a specified radius will be considered part of a fixation if the minimum fixation duration criterion is met. The radius parameter used in this study was 2 degrees and the minimum duration was 100 ms. The 2-degree selection was based on the estimated accuracy of the eye tracking system, as recommended by Recarte and Nunes.(37) The 100 ms minimum duration is consistent with many other published studies; however, some investigators use minimums of as little as 60 ms.(37,38) Because of mini-saccades and noise in the eye tracking system, it is possible to have brief excursions outside the 2 degree window for a fixation. In this study, an excursion time outside the 2-degree radius of less than 90 ms was ignored. Once the gaze intersection fell outside the 2-degree radius of a fixation for more than 90 ms, the process of identifying a fixation began anew.

Other Measures

Driving Behavior Measures

During data collection, the front-seat researcher observed the driver’s behavior and the driving environment. The researcher used the following subjective categories in observing the participant’s driving behavior:

• Driver Error: signified any error on behalf of the driver in which the researcher felt slightly uncomfortable, but not to a significant degree (e.g., driving on an exit ramp too quickly, turning too quickly).

• Near Miss: signified any event in which the researcher felt uncomfortable due to driver response to external sources (e.g., slamming on brakes, swerving). A near miss is the extreme case of a driver error.

• Incident: signified any event in the roadway which may have had a potential impact on the attention of the driver and/or the flow of traffic (e.g., crash, emergency vehicle, animal, construction, train).

These observations were entered into a notebook computer linked to the research vehicle data collection system.

Level of Service Estimates

For each participant and each DCZ the analyst estimated the level of service of the road as they reviewed the scene camera video. One location per DCZ was selected (approximately halfway through the DCZ) where the number of vehicles in front of the research vehicle was counted. The procedure entailed (1) counting the number of travel lanes visible in the video, (2) using the

1 During visual scanning, the point of gaze alternates between brief pauses (ocular fixations) and rapid shifts (saccades).

25 skip lines on the road to estimate the approximate distance in front of the vehicle that constituted the analysis zone, and (3) counting the number of vehicles present within the analysis zone. Vehicle density was calculated with the formula:

Vehicle Density = [(Number of Vehicles in Analysis Zone)/(Distance of Analysis Zone in ft/5280)]/Number of Lanes.

Vehicle density is the number of vehicles per mile per lane.

Vehicle Speed

The speed of the research vehicle was recorded with GPS and a distance measurement instrument. Vehicle speed was used principally to ensure that the eye tracking data was recorded while the vehicle was in motion.

RESULTS

Results are presented with respect to the photometric measures of signs, the visual complexity of the DCZs, and the eye tracking measures. Photometric measurements were taken and analyzed to characterize the billboards in the study based on their luminance and contrasts, which are related to how bright the signs are perceived to be by drivers.

Photometric Measurements

Luminance

The mean daytime luminance of both the standard billboards and CEVMS was greater than at night. Nighttime luminance measurements reflect the fact that CEVMS use illuminating LED components while standard billboards are often illuminated from below by metal halide lamps. At night, CEVMS have a greater average luminance than standard billboards. Table 3 presents summary statistics for luminance as a function of time of day for the CEVMS and standard billboards.

Contrast

The daytime and nighttime Weber contrast ratios for both types of billboards are shown in table 3. Both CEVMS and standard billboards had contrast ratios that were close to zero (the surroundings were about equal in brightness to the signs) during the daytime. On the other hand, at night the CEVMS and standard billboards had positive contrast ratios (the signs were brighter than the surrounding), with the CEVMS having higher contrast than the standard billboards.

26 Table 3. Summary of luminance (cd/m2) and contrast (Weber ratio) measurements. Luminance (cd/m2) Contrast Day Mean St. Dev. Mean St .Dev. CEVMS 2126 798.81 -0.10 0.54 Standard Billboard 2993 2787.22 -0.27 0.84 Night CEVMS 56.00 23.16 73.72 56.92 Standard Billboard 17.80 17.11 36.01 30.93

Visual Complexity

The DCZs were characterized by their overall visual complexity or clutter. For each DCZ, five pictures were taken from the driver’s viewpoint at various locations within the DCZ. In Reading, the pictures were taken from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. In Richmond, one route was photographed from 11:00 a.m. to noon and the other from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The pictures were taken at the start of the DCZ, quarter of the way through, half of the way through, three quarters of the way through, and at the end of the DCZ. The photographs were analyzed with MATLAB® routines that computed a measure of feature congestion for each image. Figure 10 shows the mean feature congestion measures for each of the DCZ environments. The arterial control condition was shown to have the highest level of clutter as measured by feature congestion. An analysis of variance was performed on the feature congestion measure to determine if the conditions differed significantly from each other. The four conditions with off-premise advertising did not differ significantly with respect to feature congestion; F(3,36) = 1.25, p > 0.05. Based on the feature congestion measure, the results indicate that the four conditions with off-premise advertising were equated with respect to the overall visual complexity of the driving scenes.

Figure 10. Mean feature congestion as a function of advertising condition and road type (standard errors for the mean are included in the graph).

27 Effects of Billboards on Gazes to the Road Ahead

For each 60 Hz frame, a determination was made as to the direction of the gaze vector. Previous research has shown that gazes do not need to be separated into saccades and fixations before calculating such measures as percent of time or the probability of looking to the road ahead.(39) This analysis examines the degree to which drivers gaze toward the road ahead across the different advertising conditions as a function of road type and time of day. Gazing toward the road ahead is critical for driving, and so the analysis examines the degree to which gazes toward this area are affected by the independent variables (advertising type, type of road, and time of day) and their interactions.

Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to analyze the probability of a participant gazing at driving-related information.(40,41) The data for these analyses were not normally distributed and included repeated measures. The GEE model is appropriate for these types of data and analyses. Note that for all results included in this report, Wald statistics were the chosen alternative to likelihood ratio statistics because GEE uses quasi-likelihood instead of maximum likelihood.(42) For this analysis, road ahead included the following ROIs (as previously described and displayed in figure 9): road ahead, road ahead top, and driving-related risks. A logistic regression model for repeated measures was generated by using a binomial response distribution and Logit (i.e., log odds) link function. Only two possible outcomes are allowed when selecting a binomial response distribution. Thus, a variable (RoadAhead) was created to classify a participant’s gaze behavior. If the participant gazed toward the road ahead, road ahead top, or driving-related risks, then the value of RoadAhead was set to one. If the participant gazed at any other object in the panoramic scene, then the value of RoadAhead was set to zero. Logistic regression typically models the probability of a success. In the current analysis, a success would be a gaze to road ahead information (RoadAhead = 1) and a failure would be a gaze toward non- road ahead information (RoadAhead = 0). The resultant value was the probability of a participant gazing at road-ahead information.

Time of day (day or night), road type (freeway or arterial), advertising condition (CEVMS, standard billboard, or control), and all corresponding second-order interactions were explanatory variables in the logistic regression model. The interaction of advertising condition by road type was statistically significant, χ2 (2) = 6.3, p = 0.043. Table 4 shows the corresponding probabilities for gazing at the road ahead as a function of advertising condition and road type.

Table 4. The probability of gazing at the road ahead as a function of advertising condition and road type. Advertising Condition Arterial Freeway Control 0.92 0.86 CEVMS 0.82 0.73 Standard 0.80 0.77

Follow-up analyses for the interaction used Tukey-Kramer adjustments with an alpha level of 0.05. The arterial control condition had the greatest probability of looking at the road ahead (M = 0.92). This probability differed significantly from the remaining five probabilities. On

28 arterials, the probability of gazing at the road ahead did not differ between the CEVMS (M = 0.82) and the standard billboard (M = 0.80) DCZs. In contrast, there was a significant difference in this probability on freeways, where standard billboard DCZs yielded a higher probability (M = 0.77) than CEVMS DCZs (M = 0.73). The probability of gazing at the road ahead was also significantly higher in the freeway control DCZ (M = 0.86) than in either of the corresponding freeway off-premise advertising DCZs. The probability of gazing at road-ahead information in arterial CEVMS DCZs was not statistically different from the same probability in the freeway control DCZ.

Additional descriptive statistics were computed to determine the probability of gazing at the various ROIs that were defined in the panoramic scene. Some of the ROIs depicted in figure 9 were combined in the following fashion for ease of analysis:

• Road ahead, road ahead top, and driving-related risks combined to form road ahead. • Left side of road bottom and left side of road top combined to form left side of vehicle. • Right side of road bottom and right side of road top combined to form right side of vehicle. • Inside vehicle and top combined to form participant vehicle.

Table 5 presents the probability of gazing at the different ROIs.

Table 5. Probability of gazing at ROIs for the three advertising conditions on arterials and freeways.

Standard Road Type ROI CEVMS Billboard Control Arterial CEVMS 0.07 N/A N/A Left Side of Vehicle 0.06 0.06 0.02 Road ahead 0.82 0.80 0.92 Right Side of Vehicle 0.03 0.06 0.04 Standard Billboard N/A 0.03 N/A Participant Vehicle 0.03 0.05 0.02 Freeway CEVMS 0.05 N/A N/A Left Side of Vehicle 0.08 0.07 0.04 Road ahead 0.73 0.77 0.86 Right Side of Vehicle 0.09 0.02 0.05 Standard Billboard 0.02* 0.09 N/A Participant Vehicle 0.04 0.05 0.05 * The CEVMS DCZs on freeways each contained one visible standard billboard.

The probability of gazing away from the forward roadway ranged from 0.08 to 0.27. In particular, the probability of gazing toward a CEVMS was greater on arterials (M = 0.07) than on freeways (M = 0.05). In contrast, the probability of gazing toward a target standard billboard was greater on freeways (M = 0.09) than on arterials (M = 0.03).

29 Fixations to CEVMS and Standard Billboards

About 2.4 percent of the fixations were to CEVMS. The mean fixation duration to a CEVMS was 388 ms and the maximum duration was 1,251 ms. Figure 11 shows the distribution of fixation durations to CEVMS during the day and night. In the daytime, the mean fixation duration to a CEVMS was 389 ms and at night it was 387 ms. Figure 12 shows the distribution of fixation durations to standard billboards. Approximately 2.4 percent of fixations were to standard billboards. The mean fixation duration to standard billboards was 341 ms during the daytime and 370 ms at night. The maximum fixation duration to standard billboards was 1,284 ms (which occurred at night). For comparison purposes, figure 13 shows the distribution of fixation durations to the road ahead (i.e., top and bottom road ahead ROIs) during the day and night. In the daytime, the mean fixation duration to the road ahead was 365 ms and at night it was 390 ms.

Figure 11. Distribution of fixation duration for CEVMS in the daytime and nighttime.

Figure 12. Distribution of fixation duration for standard billboards in the daytime and nighttime.

Figure 13. Distribution of fixation duration for road ahead (i.e., top and bottom road ahead ROIs) in the daytime and nighttime.

31 Dwell times on CEVMS and standard billboards were also examined. Dwell time is the duration of back-to-back fixations to the same ROI.(43,44) The dwell times represent the cumulative time for the back-to-back fixations. Whereas there may be no long, single fixation to a billboard, there might still be multiple fixations that yield long dwell times. There were a total of 25 separate instances of multiple fixations to CEVMS with a mean of 2.4 fixations (minimum of 2 and maximum of 5). The 25 dwell times came from 15 different participants distributed across four different CEVMS. The mean duration of these dwell times was 994 ms (minimum of 418 ms and maximum of 1,467 ms).

For standard billboards, there were a total of 17 separate dwell times with a mean of 3.47 sequential fixations (minimum of 2 fixations and maximum of 8 fixations). The 17 dwell times came from 11 different participants distributed across 4 different standard billboards. The mean duration of these multiple fixations was 1,172 ms (minimum of 418 ms and maximum of 3,319 ms). There were three dwell-time durations that were greater than 2,000 ms. These are described in more detail below.

In some cases several dwell times came from the same participant. In order to compute a statistic on the difference between dwell times for CEVMS and standard billboards, average dwell times were computed per participant for the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions. These average values were used in a t-test assuming unequal variances. The difference in average dwell time between CEVMS (M = 981 ms) and standard billboards (M= 1,386 ms) was not statistically significant, t(12) = -1.40, p > .05.

Figure 14 through figure 23 show heat maps for the dwell-time durations to the standard billboards that were greater than 2,000 ms. These heat maps are snapshots from the DCZ and attempt to convey in two dimensions the pattern of gazes that took place in a three dimensional world. The heat maps are set to look back approximately one to two seconds and integrate over time where the participant was gazing in the scene camera video. The green color in the heat map indicates the concentration of gaze over the past one to two seconds. The blue line indicates the gaze trail over the past one to two seconds.

Figure 14 through figure 16 are for a DCZ on an arterial at night. The standard billboard was on the right side of the road (indicated by a pink rectangle). There were eight fixations to this billboard, and the single fixations were between 200 to 384 ms in duration. The dwell time for this billboard was 2,019 ms. At the start of the DCZ (see figure 14), the driver was directing his/her gaze to the forward roadway. Approaching the standard billboard, the driver began to fixate on the billboard. However, the billboard was still relatively close to the road ahead ROI.

Figure 14. Heat map for the start of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on an arterial.

Figure 15. Heat map for the middle of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on an arterial.

Figure 16. Heat map near the end of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on an arterial.

Figure 17 through figure 19 are for a DCZ on a freeway at night. The standard billboard was on the right side of the road (indicated by a green rectangle). There were six consecutive fixations to this billboard, and the single fixations were between 200 and 801 ms in duration. The dwell time for this billboard was 2,753 ms. At the start of the DCZ (see figure 17), the driver was directing his/her gaze to a freeway guide sign in the road ahead and the standard billboard was to the left of the freeway guide sign. As the driver approached the standard billboard, his/her gaze was directed toward the billboard. The billboard was relatively close to the top and bottom road ahead ROIs. Near the end of the DCZ (see figure 19), the billboard was accurately portrayed as being on the right side of the road.

Figure 17. Heat map for start of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on a freeway.

Figure 18. Heat map for middle of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on a freeway.

Figure 19. Heat map near the end of a DCZ for a standard billboard at night on a freeway.

Figure 20 through figure 23 are for a DCZ on a freeway during the day. The standard billboard was on the right side of the road (indicated by a pink rectangle). This is the same DCZ that was discussed in figure 17 through figure 19. There were six consecutive fixations to this billboard, and the single fixations were between 217 and 767 ms in duration. The dwell time for this billboard was 3,319 ms. At the start of the DCZ (see figure 20), the driver was principally directing his/her gaze to the road ahead. Figure 21 and figure 22 show the location along the DCZ where gaze was directed toward the standard billboard. The billboard was relatively close to the top and bottom road-ahead ROIs. As the driver passed the standard billboard, his/her gaze returned to the road ahead (see figure 23).

Figure 20. Heat map for the start of a DCZ for a standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway.

Figure 21. Heat map near the middle of a DCZ for a standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway.

Figure 22. Heat map near the end of DCZ for standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway.

Figure 23. Heat map at the end of DCZ for standard billboard in the daytime on a freeway.

35 Comparison of Gazes to CEVMS and Standard Billboards

The GEE were used to analyze whether a participant gazed more toward CEVMS than toward standard billboards, given that the participant was gazing at off-premise advertising. With this analysis method, a logistic regression model for repeated measures was generated by using a binomial response distribution and Logit link function. First, the data was partitioned to include only those instances when a participant was gazing toward off-premise advertising (either to a CEVMS or to a standard billboard); all other gaze behavior was excluded from the input data set. Only two possible outcomes are allowed when selecting a binomial response distribution. Thus, a variable (SBB_CEVMS) was created to classify a participant’s gaze behavior. If the participant gazed toward a CEVMS, the value of SBB_CEVMS was set to one. If the participant gazed toward a standard billboard, then the value of SBB_CEVMS was set to zero.

Logistic regression typically models the probability of a success. In the current analysis, a success would be a gaze to a CEVMS (SBB_CEVMS = 1) and a failure would be a gaze to a standard billboard (SBB_CEVMS = 0).2 A success probability greater than 0.5 indicates there were more successes than failures in the sample. Therefore, if the sample probability of the response variable (i.e., SBB_CEVMS) was greater than 0.5, this would show that participants gazed more toward CEVMS than toward standard billboards when the participants gazed at off- premise advertising. In contrast, if the sample probability of the response variable was less than 0.5, then participants showed a preference to gaze more toward standard billboards than toward CEVMS when directing gazes to off-premise advertising.

Time of day (i.e., day or night), road type (i.e., freeway or arterial), and the corresponding interaction were explanatory variables in the logistic regression model. Road type was the only predictor to have a significant effect, χ2 (1) = 13.17, p < 0.001. On arterials, participants gazed more toward CEVMS than toward standard billboards (M = 0.63). In contrast, participants gazed more toward standard billboards than toward CEVMS when driving on freeways (M = 0.33).

Observation of Driver Behavior

No near misses or driver errors were observed in Reading.

Level of Service

The mean vehicle densities were converted to level of service as shown in table 6.(45) As expected, less congestion occurred at night than in the day. In general, there was traffic during the data collection runs. Review of the scene camera data verified that all eye tracking data within the DCZs were recorded while the vehicle was in motion.

2 Success and failure are not used to reflect the merits of either type of sign, but only for statistical purposes.

36 Table 6. Level of service as a function of advertising type, road type, and time of day. Arterial Freeway Day Night Day Night Control B A C B CEVMS C A B A Standard A A B A

DISCUSSION OF READING RESULTS

Overall the probability of gazing at the road ahead was high and similar in magnitude to what has been found in other field studies addressing billboards.(11,9,12) For the DCZs on freeways, CEVMS showed a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the standard billboard condition, and both off-premise advertising conditions had lower probability of gazes to the road ahead than the control. On the other hand, on the arterials, the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions did not differ from each other but were significantly different from their respective control condition. Though the CEVMS condition on the freeway had the lowest proportion of gazes to the road ahead, in this condition there was a lower proportion of gazes to CEVMS as compared to the arterials (see table 5 for the trade-off of gazes to the different ROIs). A greater proportion of gazes to other ROIs (left side of the road, right side of the road, and participant vehicle) contributed to the decrease in proportion of gazes to the road ahead. Also, for the CEVMS on freeways, there were a few gazes to a standard billboard located in the same DCZ and there were more gazes distributed to the left and right side of the road than in standard billboard and control conditions. The gazes to ROIs other than CEVMS contributed to the lower probability of gazes to the road ahead in this condition.

The control condition on the arterial had buildings along the sides of the road and generally presented a visually cluttered area. As was presented earlier, the feature congestion measure computed on a series of photographs from each DCZ showed a significantly higher feature congestion score for the control condition on arterials as compared to all of the other DCZs. Nevertheless, the highest probability for gazing at the road ahead was seen in the control condition on the arterial.

The area with the highest feature congestion, especially on the sides of the road, had the highest probability for drivers looking at the road ahead. Bottom-up or stimulus driven measures of salience or visual clutter have been useful in predicting visual search and the effects of visual salience in laboratory tasks.(34,46) These measures of salience basically consider the stimulus characteristics (e.g., size, color, brightness) independent of the requirements of the task or plans that an individual may have. Models of visual salience may predict that buildings and other prominent features on the side of the road may be visually salient objects and thus would attract a driver’s attention.(47) Figure 24 shows an example of a roadway photograph that was analyzed with the Salience Toolbox based on the Itti et al. implementation of a saliency based model of bottom-up attention.(48,49) The numbered circles in figure 24 are the first through fifth salient areas selected by the software. Based on this software, the most salient areas in the photographs are the buildings on the sides of the road where the road ahead (and a car) is the fifth selected salient area.

Figure 24. Example of identified salient areas in a road scene based on bottom-up analysis.

It appears that in the present study participants principally kept their eyes on the road even in the presence of visual clutter on the sides of the road, which supports the hypothesis that drivers tend to look toward information relevant to the task at hand.(50,26,22) In the case of the driving task, visual clutter may be more of an issue with respect to crowding that may affect the driver’s ability to detect visual information in the periphery.(51) Crowding is generally defined as the negative effect of nearby objects or features on visual discrimination of a target.(52) Crowding impairs the ability to recognize objects in clutter and principally affects perception in peripheral vision. However, crowing effects were not analyzed in the present study.

Stimulus salience, clutter, and the nature of the task at hand interact in visual perception. For tasks such as driving, the task demands tend to outweigh stimulus salience when it comes to gaze control. Clutter may be more of an issue with the detection and recognition of objects in peripheral vision (e.g., detecting a sign on the side of the road) that are surrounded by other stimuli that result in a crowding effect.

The mean fixation durations to CEVMS, standard billboards, and the road ahead were found to be very similar. Also, there were no long fixations (greater than 2,000 ms) to CEVMS or standard billboards. The examination of multiple sequential fixations to CEVMS yielded average dwell times that were less than 1,000 ms. However, when examining the tails of the distribution, there were three dwell times to standard billboards that were in excess of 2,000 ms (the three dwell times came from three different participants to two different billboards). These three standard billboards were dwelled upon when they were near the road ahead area but drivers quit gazing at the signs as they neared them and the signs were no longer near the forward field of view. Though there were three dwell times for standard billboards greater than 2,000 ms, the difference in average dwell times for CEVMS and standard billboards was not significant.

Using a gaze duration of 2,000 ms away from the road ahead as a criterion indicative of increased risk has been developed principally as it relates to looking inside the vehicle to in- vehicle information systems and other devices (e.g., for texting) where the driver is indeed looking completely away from the road ahead.(14,53,54) The fixations to the standard billboards in the present case showed a long dwell time for a billboard. However, unlike gazing or fixating inside the vehicle, the driver’s gaze was within the forward roadway where peripheral vision could be used to monitor for hazards and for vehicle control. Peripheral vision has been shown to be important for lane keeping, visual search orienting, and monitoring of surrounding objects.(55,56)

38 The results showed that drivers were more likely to gaze at CEVMS on arterials and at standard billboards on freeways. Though every attempt was made to select CEVMS and standard billboard DCZs that were equated on important parameters (e.g., which side of the road the sign was located on, type of road, level of visual clutter), the CEVMS DCZs on freeways had a greater setback from the road (133 ft for both CEVMS) than the standard billboards (10 and 35 ft). Signs with greater setback from the road would in a sense move out of the forward view (road ahead) more quickly than signs that are closer to the road. The CEVMS and standard billboards on the arterials were more closely matched with respect to setback from the road (12 and 43 ft for CEVMS and 20 and 40 ft for standard billboards).

The differences in setback from the road for CEVMS and standard billboards may also account for differences in dwell times to these two types of billboards. However, on arterials where the CEVMS and standard billboards were more closely matched there was only one long dwell time (greater than 2,000 ms) and it was to a standard billboard at night.

39 RICHMOND

The objectives of the second study were the same as those in the first study, and the design of the Richmond data collection effort was very similar to that employed in Reading. This study was conducted to replicate as closely as possible the design of Reading in a different driving environment. The independent variables included the type of DCZ (CEVMS, standard billboard, or no off-premise advertising), time of day (day or night) and road type (freeway or arterial). As with Reading, the time of day was a between-subjects variable and the other variables were within subjects.

METHOD

Selection of DCZ Limits

Selection of the DCZ limits procedure was the same as that employed in Reading.

Advertising Type

Three DCZ types (similar to those used in Reading) were used in Richmond:

• CEVMS. DCZs contained one target CEVMS.

• Standard billboard. DCZs contained one target standard billboard.

• Control conditions. DCZs did not contain any off-premise advertising.

There were an equal number of CEVMS and standard billboard DCZs on freeways and arterials. Also, there two DCZ that did not contain off-premise advertising with one located on a freeway and the other on an arterial.

Table 7 is an inventory of the target employed in this second study.

Table 7. Inventory of target billboards in Richmond with relevant parameters. Copy Setback Other Advertising Side of Approach Roadway DCZ Dimensions from Road Standard Type Road Length (ft) Type (ft) (ft) Billboards 5 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/A 710 Arterial 3 CONTROL N/A N/A N/A N/A 845 Freeway 9 CEVMS 14'0" x 28'0" L 37 0 696 Arterial 13 CEVMS 14'0" x 28'0" R 37 0 602 Arterial 2 CEVMS 12'5" x 40'0" R 91 0 297 Freeway 8 CEVMS 11'0 x 23'0" L 71 0 321 Freeway 10 Standard 14'0" x 48'0" L 79 1 857 Arterial 12 Standard 10'6" x 45'3" R 79 2 651 Arterial 1 Standard 14'0" x 48'0" L 87 0 997 Freeway 7 Standard 14'0" x 48'0" R 88 0 816 Freeway * N/A indicates that there were no off-premise advertising in these areas and these values are undefined.

40 Figure 25 through figure 30 below represent various pairings of DCZ type and road type. Target off-premise billboards are indicated by red rectangles.

Figure 25. Example of a CEVMS DCZ on a freeway.

Figure 26. Example of CEVMS DCZ an arterial.

Figure 27. Example of a standard billboard DCZ on a freeway.

Figure 28. Example of a standard billboard DCZ on an arterial.

Figure 29. Example of a control DCZ on a freeway.

Figure 30. Example of a control DCZ on an arterial.

Photometric Measurement of Signs

The methods and procedures for the photometric measures were the same as for Reading.

Visual Complexity

The methods and procedures for visual complexity measurement were the same as for Reading.

42 Participants

A total of 41 participants were recruited for the study. Of these, 6 participants did not complete data collection because of an inability to properly calibrate with the eye tracking system, and 11 were excluded because of equipment failures. A total of 24 participants (13 male, M = 28 years; 11 female, M = 25 years) successfully completed the drive. Fourteen people participated during the day and 10 participated at night.

Procedures

Research participants were recruited locally by means of visits to public libraries, student unions, community centers, etc. A large number of the participants were recruited from a nearby university, resulting in a lower mean participant age than in Reading.

Participant Testing

Two people participated each day. One person participated during the day beginning at approximately 12:45 p.m. The second participated at night beginning at around 7:00 p.m. Data collection ran from November 20, 2009, through April 23, 2010. There were several long gaps in the data collection schedule due to holidays and inclement weather.

Pre-Data Collection Activities

This was the same as in Reading.

Practice Drive

Except for location, this was the same as in Reading.

Data Collection

The procedure was much the same as in Reading. On average, each test route required approximately 30 to 35 minutes to complete. As in Reading, the routes included a variety of freeway and arterial driving segments. One route was 15 miles long and contained two target CEVMS, two target standard billboards, and two DCZs with no off-premise advertising. The second route was 20 miles long and had two target CEVMS and two target standard billboards.

The data collection drives in this second study were longer than those in Reading. The eye tracking system had problems dealing with the large files that resulted. To mitigate this technical difficulty, participants were asked to pull over in a safe location during the middle of each data collection drive so that new data files could be initiated.

Upon completion of the data collection, the participant was instructed to return to the designated meeting location for debriefing.

Debriefing

This was the same as in Reading.

43 DATA REDUCTION

Eye Tracking Measures

The approach and procedures were the same as used in Reading.

Other Measures

The approach and procedures were the same as used in Reading.

RESULTS

Photometric Measurement of Signs

The photometric measurements were performed using the same equipment and procedures that were employed in Reading with a few minor changes. Photometric measurements were taken during the day and at night. Measurements of the standard billboards were taken at an average distance of 284 ft, with maximum and minimum distances of 570 ft and 43 ft, respectively. The average distance of measurements for the CEVMS was 479 ft, with maximum and minimum distances of 972 ft and 220 ft, respectively. Again, the distances employed were significantly affected by the requirement to find a safe location on the road from which to take the measurements.

Luminance

The mean luminance of CEVMS and standard billboards, during daytime and nighttime are shown below in table 8. The results here are similar to those for Reading.

Contrast

The daytime and nighttime Weber contrast ratios for both types of billboards are shown in table 8. During the day, the contrast ratios of both CEVMS and standard billboards were close to zero (the surroundings were about equal in brightness to the signs). At night, the CEVMS and standard billboards had positive contrast ratios. Similar to Reading, the CEVMS showed a higher contrast ratio than the standard billboards at night.

Table 8. Summary of luminance (cd/m2) and contrast (Weber ratio) measurements. Luminance (cd/m2) Contrast Day Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. CEVMS 2134 798.70 -0.20 0.53 Standard Billboard 3063 2730.92 0.03 0.32 Night CEVMS 56.44 16.61 69.70 59.18 Standard Billboard 8.00 5.10 6.56 3.99

44 Visual Complexity

As with Reading, the feature congestion measure was used to estimate the level of visual complexity/clutter in the DCZs. The analysis procedures were the same as for Reading.

Figure 31 shows the mean feature congestion measures for each of the advertising types (standard errors are included in the figure). Unlike the results for Reading, the selected off- premise advertising DCZs for Richmond differed in terms of mean feature congestion; F(3, 36) = 3.95, p = 0.016. Follow up t-tests with an alpha of 0.05 showed that the CEVMS DCZs on arterials had significantly lower feature congestion than all of the other off-premise advertising conditions. None of the remaining DCZs with off-premise advertising differed from each other. The selection of DCZs for the conditions with off-premise advertising took into account the type of road, the side of the road the target billboard was placed, and the perceived level of visual clutter. Based on the feature congestion measure, these results indicated that the conditions with off-premise advertising were not equated with respect to level of visual clutter.

Figure 31. Mean feature congestion as a function of advertising condition and road type.

Effects of Billboards on Gazes to the Road Ahead

As was done for the data from Reading, GEE were used to analyze the probability of a participant gazing at the road ahead. A logistic regression model for repeated measures was generated by using a binomial response distribution and Logit link function. The resultant value was the probability of a participant gazing at the road ahead (as previously defined).

Time of day (day or night), road type (freeway or arterial), advertising type (CEVMS, standard billboard, or control), and all corresponding second-order interactions were explanatory variables in the logistic regression model. The interaction of advertising type by road type was statistically significant, χ2 (2) = 14.19, p < 0.001. Table 9 shows the corresponding probability of gazing at the road ahead as a function of advertising condition and road type.

45 Table 9. The probability of gazing at the road ahead as a function of advertising condition and road type. Advertising Condition Arterial Freeway Control 0.78 0.92 CEVMS 0.76 0.82 Standard 0.81 0.85

Follow-up analyses for the interaction used Tukey-Kramer adjustments with an alpha level of 0.05. The freeway control had the greatest probability of gazing at the road ahead (M = 0.92). This probability differed significantly from the remaining five probabilities. On arterials, there were no significant differences among the probabilities of gazing at the road ahead among the three advertising conditions. On freeways, there was no significant difference between the probability associated with CEVMS DCZs and the probability associated with standard billboard DCZs.

Additional descriptive statistics were computed for the three advertising types to determine the probability of gazing at the ROIs that were defined in the panoramic scene. As was done with the data from Reading, some of the ROIs were combined for ease of analysis. Table 10 presents the probability of gazing at the different ROIs.

Table 10. Probability of gazing at ROIs for the three advertising conditions on arterials and freeways.

Standard Road Type ROI CEVMS Billboard Control Arterial CEVMS 0.06 N/A N/A Left Side of Vehicle 0.03 0.05 0.04 Road ahead 0.76 0.81 0.78 Right Side of Vehicle 0.07 0.06 0.09 Standard Billboard N/A 0.02 N/A Participant Vehicle 0.07 0.06 0.09 Freeway CEVMS 0.05 N/A N/A Left Side of Vehicle 0.03 0.01 0.01 Road ahead 0.82 0.85 0.92 Right Side of Vehicle 0.04 0.04 0.03 Standard Billboard N/A 0.04 N/A Participant Vehicle 0.06 0.06 0.05

The probability of gazing away from the forward roadway ranged from 0.08 to 0.24. In particular, the probability of gazing toward a CEVMS was slightly greater on arterials (M = 0.06) than on freeways (M = 0.05). In contrast, the probability of gazing toward a standard billboard was greater on freeways (M = 0.04) than on arterials (M = 0.02). In both situations, the probability of gazing at the road ahead was greatest on freeways.

46 Fixations to CEVMS and Standard Billboards

About 2.5 percent of the fixations were to CEVMS. The mean fixation duration to a CEVMS was 371 ms and the maximum fixation duration was 1,335 ms. Figure 32 shows the distribution of fixation durations to CEVMS during the day and at night. In the daytime, the mean fixation duration to a CEVMS was 440 ms and at night it was 333 ms. Approximately 1.5 percent of the fixations were to standard billboards. The mean fixation duration to standard billboards was 318 ms and the maximum fixation duration was 801 ms. Figure 33 shows the distribution of fixation durations for standard billboards. The mean fixation duration to a standard billboard was 313 ms and 325 ms during the day and night, respectively. For comparison purposes, figure 34 shows the distribution of fixation durations to the road ahead during the day and night. In the daytime, the mean fixation duration to the road ahead was 378 ms and at night it was 358 ms.

Figure 32. Fixation duration for CEVMS in the day and at night.

Figure 33. Fixation duration for standard billboards in the day and at night.

Figure 34. Fixation duration for the road ahead in the day and at night.

48 As was done with the data for Reading, the record of fixations was examined to determine dwell times to CEVMS and standard billboards. There were a total of 21 separate dwell times to CEVMS with a mean of 2.86 sequential fixations (minimum of 2 fixations and maximum of 6 fixations). The 21 dwell times came from 12 different participants and four different CEVMS. The mean dwell time duration to the CEVMS was 1,039 ms (minimum of 500 ms and maximum of 2,720 ms). There was one dwell time greater than 2,000 ms to CEVMS. To the standard billboards there were 13 separate dwell times with a mean of 2.31 sequential fixations (minimum of 2 fixations and maximum of 3 fixations). The 13 dwell times came from 11 different participants and four different standard billboards. The mean dwell time duration to the standard billboards was 687 ms (minimum of 450 ms and maximum of 1,152 ms). There were no dwell times greater than 2,000 ms to standard billboards.

In some cases several dwell times came from the same participant. To compute a statistic on the difference between dwell times for CEVMS and standard billboards, average dwell times were computed per participant for the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions. These average values were used in a t-test assuming unequal variances. The difference in average dwell time between CEVMS (M = 1,096 ms) and standard billboards (M= 674 ms) was statistically significant, t(14) = 2.23, p = .043.

Figure 35 through figure 37 show heat maps for the dwell-time durations to the CEVMS that were greater than 2,000 ms. The DCZ was on a freeway during the daytime. The CEVMS is located on the left side of the road (indicated by an orange rectangle). There were three fixations to this billboard, and the single fixations were between 651 ms and 1,335 ms. The dwell time for this billboard was 2,270 ms. Figure 35 shows the first fixation toward the CEVMS. There are no vehicles near the participant in his/her respective travel lane or adjacent lanes. In this situation, the billboard is relatively close to the road ahead ROI. Figure 36 shows a heat map later in the DCZ where the driver continues to look at the CEVMS. The heat map does not overlay the CEVMS in the picture since the heat map has integrated over time where the driver was gazing. The CEVMS has moved out of the area because of the vehicle moving down the road. However, visual inspection of the video and eye tracking statistics showed that the driver was fixating on the CEVMS. Figure 37 shows the end of the sequential fixations to the CEVMS. The driver returns to gaze directly in front of the vehicle. Once the CEVMS was out of the forward field of view, the driver quit looking at the billboard.

Figure 35. Heat map for first fixation to CEVMS with long dwell time.

Figure 36. Heat map for later fixations to CEVMS with long dwell time.

Figure 37. Heat map at end of fixations to CEVMS with long dwell time.

Comparison of Gazes to CEVMS and Standard Billboards

As was done for the data from Reading, GEE were used to analyze whether a participant gazed more toward CEVMS than toward standard billboards, given that the participant was looking at off-premise advertising. Recall that a sample probability greater than 0.5 indicated that participants gazed more toward CEVMS than standard billboards when the participants gazed at off-premise advertising. In contrast, if the sample probability was less than 0.5, participants showed a preference to gaze more toward standard billboards than CEVMS when directing visual attention to off-premise advertising.

Time of day (i.e., day or night), road type (i.e., freeway or arterial), and the corresponding interaction were explanatory variables in the logistic regression model. Time of day had a significant effect on participant gazes toward off-premise advertising, χ2 (1) = 4.46, p = 0.035. Participants showed a preference to gaze more toward CEVMS than toward standard billboards during both times of day. During the day the preference was only slight (M = 0.52), but at night the preference was more pronounced (M = 0.71). Road type was also a significant predictor of where participants directed their gazes at off-premise advertising, χ2 (1) = 3.96, p = 0.047. Participants gazed more toward CEVMS than toward standard billboards while driving on both types of roadways. However, driving on freeways yielded a slight preference for CEVMS over standard billboards (M = 0.55), but driving on arterials resulted in a larger preference in favor of CEVMS (M = 0.68).

50 Observation of Driver Behavior

No near misses or driver errors occurred.

Level of Service

Table 11 shows the level of service as a function of advertising type, type of road, and time of day. As expected, there was less congestion during the nighttime runs than in the daytime. In general, there was traffic during the data collection runs; however, the eye tracking data were recorded while the vehicles were in motion.

Table 11. Estimated level of service as a function of advertising condition, road type, and time of day. Arterial Freeway Day Night Day Night Control B A C B CEVMS B A B A Standard C A C C

DISCUSSION OF RICHMOND RESULTS

Overall the probability of looking at the forward roadway was high across all conditions and consistent with the findings from Reading and previous related research.(11,9,12) In this second study the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions did not differ from each other. For the DCZs on arterials there were no significant differences among the control, CEVMS, and standard billboard conditions. On the other hand, while the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions on the freeways did not differ from each other, they were significantly different from their respective control conditions. The control condition on the freeway principally had trees along the sides of the road and the signs that were present were freeway signs located in the road ahead ROI.

Measures such as feature congestion rated the three DCZs on freeways as not being statistically different from each other. These types of measures have been useful in predicting visual search and the effects of visual salience in laboratory tasks.(34) Models of visual salience may predict that, at least during the daytime, trees on the side of the road may be visually salient objects that would attract a driver’s attention.(47) However, it appears that in the present study, participants principally kept their eyes on the road ahead.

The mean fixations to CEVMS, standard billboards, and the road ahead were found to be similar in magnitude with no long fixations. Examination of dwell times showed that there was one long dwell time for a CEVMS greater than 2,000 ms and it occurred in the daytime on a sign located on the left side of the road on a freeway DCZ. Furthermore, when averaging among participants the mean dwell time for CEVMS was significantly longer than to standard billboards, but still under 2,000 ms. For the dwell time greater than 2,000 ms, examination of the scene camera video and eye tracking heat maps showed that the driver was initially looking toward the forward roadway and made a first fixation to the sign. Three fixations were made to the sign and then the

51 driver started looking back to the road ahead as the sign moved out of the forward field of view. On the video there were no vehicles near the subject driver’s own lane or in adjacent lanes.

Only the central 2 degrees of vision, foveal vision, provide resolution sharp enough for reading or recognizing fine detail.(57) However, useful information for reading can be extracted from parafoveal vision, which encompasses the central 10 degrees of vision.(57) More recent research on scene gist recognition3 has shown that peripheral vision (beyond parafoveal vision) is more useful than central vision for recognizing the gist of a scene.(58) Scene gist recognition is a critically important early stage of scene perception, and influences more complex cognitive processes such as directing attention within a scene and facilitating object recognition, both of which are important in obtaining information while driving.

The results of this study do show one duration of eyes off the forward roadway greater than 2,000 ms, the duration at which Klauer et al. observed near-crash/crash risk at more than twice those of normal, baseline driving.(14,53) When looking at the tails of the fixation distributions, few fixations were greater than 1,000 ms, with the longest fixation being equal to 1,335 ms.(53,54) The one long dwell time on a CEVMS that was observed was a rare event in this study, and review of the video and eye tracking data suggests that the driver was effectively managing acquisition of visual information while driving and fixated on the advertising. However, additional work needs to be done to derive criteria for gazing or fixating away from the forward road view where the road scene is still visible in peripheral vision.

The results showed that drivers are more likely to look at CEVMS than standard billboards during the nighttime across the conditions tested (at night the average probability of gazing at CEVMS was M= 0.71). CEVMS do have greater luminance than standard billboards at night and also have higher contrast. The CEVMS have the capability of being lit up so that they would appear as very bright signs to drivers (for example, up to about10,000 cd/m2 for a white square on the sign.). However, our measurements of these signs showed an average luminance of about 56 cd/m2. These signs would be conspicuous in a nighttime driving environment but significantly less so than other light sources such as vehicle headlights. Drivers were also more likely to look at CEVMS than standard billboards on both arterials and freeways, with a higher probability of gazes on arterials.

In this second study, CEVMS and standard billboards were more nearly equated with respect to setback from the road. Gazes to the road ahead were not significantly different between CEVMS and standard billboard DCZs across conditions and the proportion of gazes to the road ahead were consistent with previous research. One long dwell time for a CEVMS was observed in this study; however, it occurred in the daytime where the luminance and contrast (affecting the perceived brightness) of these signs are similar to those for standard billboards.

3 “Scene gist recognition” refers to the element of human cognition that enables us to determine the meaning of a scene and categorize it by type (e.g., a beach, an office) almost immediately upon seeing it.

52 GENERAL DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of CEVMS on driver visual behavior in a roadway driving environment. An instrumented vehicle with an eye tracking system was used. Roads containing CEVMS, standard billboards, and control areas with no off-premise advertising were selected. The CEVMS and standard billboards were measured with respect to luminance, location, size, and other relevant variables to characterize these visual stimuli. Unlike previous studies on digital billboards, the present study examined CEVMS as deployed in two United States cities and did not contain dynamic video or other dynamic elements. The CEVMS changed content approximately every 8 to 10 seconds, consistent within the limits provided by FHWA guidance.(2) In addition, the eye tracking system used had nearly a 2-degree level of resolution that provided significantly more accuracy in determining what objects the drivers were gazing or fixating on as compared to some previous field studies examining CEVMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Do CEVMS attract drivers’ attention away from the forward roadway and other driving relevant stimuli?

Overall, the probability of looking at the road ahead was high across all conditions. In Reading, the CEVMS condition had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the standard billboard condition on the freeways. Both of the off-premise advertising conditions had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the control condition on the freeway. The lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead can be attributed to the overall distribution of gazes away from the road ahead and not just to the CEVMS. On the other hand, for the arterials the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions did not differ from each other, but both had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead compared to the control. In Richmond there were no differences among the three advertising conditions on the arterials. However, for the freeways the CEVMS and standard billboard conditions did not differ from each other but had a lower proportion of gazes to the road ahead than the control.

The control conditions differed across studies. In Reading, the control condition on arterials showed 92 percent for gazing at the road ahead while on the freeway it was 86 percent. On the other hand, in Richmond the control condition for arterials was 78 percent and for the freeway it was 92 percent. The control conditions on the freeway differed across the two studies. In Reading there were businesses off to the side of the road; whereas in Richmond the sides of the road were mostly covered with trees. The control conditions on the arterials also differed across cities in that both contained businesses and on-premise advertising; however, in Reading arterials had four lanes and in Richmond arterials had six lanes. The reason for these differences across cities was that these control conditions were selected to match the other conditions (CEVMS and standard billboards) that the drivers would experience in the two respective cities. Also, the selection of DCZs was obviously constrained by what was available on the ground in these cities.

The results for the off-premise advertising conditions are consistent with Lee et al., who observed that 76 percent of drivers’ time was spent looking at the road ahead in the CEVMS scenario and 75 percent in the standard billboard scenario.(9) However, it should be kept in mind

53 that drivers did gaze away from the road ahead even when no off-premise advertising was present and that the presence of clutter or salient visual stimuli did not necessarily control where drivers gazed.

Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety?

In DCZs containing CEVMS, about 2.5 percent of the fixations were to CEVMS (about 2.4 percent to standard billboards). The results for fixations are similar to those reported in other field data collection efforts that included advertising signs.(12,11,9,13) Fixations greater than 2,000 ms were not observed for CEVMS or standards billboards.

However, an analysis of dwell times to CEVMS showed a mean dwell time of 994 ms (maximum of 1,467 ms) for Reading and a mean of 1,039 ms (maximum of 2,270 ms) for Richmond. Statistical comparisons of average dwell times between CEVMS and standard billboards were not significant in Reading; however, in Richmond the average dwell times to CEVMS were significantly longer than to standard billboards, though below 2,000 ms. There was one dwell time greater than 2,000 ms to a CEVMS across the two cities. On the other hand, for standard billboards there were three long dwell times in Reading; there were no long dwell times to these billboards in Richmond. Review of the video data for these four long dwell times showed that the signs were not far from the forward view when participants were fixating. Therefore, the drivers still had access to information about what was in front of them through peripheral vision.

As the analyses of gazes to the road ahead showed, drivers distributed their gazes away from the road ahead even when there were no off-premise billboards present. Also, drivers gazed and fixated on off-premise signs even though they were generally irrelevant to the driving task. However, the results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS were associated with long glances away from the road that may reflect an increase in risk. When long dwell times occurred to CEVMS or standard billboards, the road ahead was still in the driver’s field of view.

Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards?

The drivers were generally more likely to gaze at CEVMS than at standard billboards. However, there was some variability between the two locations and between type of roadway (arterial or freeway). In Reading, the participants looked more often at CEVMS when on arterials, whereas they looked more often at standard billboards when on freeways. In Richmond, the drivers looked at CEVMS more than standard billboards no matter the type of road they were on, but as in Reading the preference for gazing at CEVMS was greater on arterials (68 percent on arterials and 55 percent on freeways). The slower speed on arterials and sign placement may present drivers with more opportunities to gaze at the signs.

In Richmond, the results showed that drivers gazed more at CEVMS than standard billboards at night; however, for Reading no effect for time of day was found. CEVMS do have higher luminance and contrast than standard billboards at night. The results showed mean luminance of about 56 cd/m2 in the two cities where testing was conducted. These signs would appear clearly visible but not overly bright.

54 SUMMARY

The results of these studies are consistent with a wealth of research that has been conducted on vision in natural environments.(26,22,21) In the driving environment, gaze allocation is principally controlled by the requirements of the task. Consistent results were shown for the proportion of gazes to the road ahead for off-premise advertising conditions across the two cities. Average fixations were similar to CEVMS and standard billboards with no long single fixations evident for either condition. Across the two cities, four long dwell times were observed: one to a CEVMS on a freeway in the day, two to the same standard billboard on a freeway (once at night and once in the daytime), and one to a standard billboard on an arterial at night. Examination of the scene video and eye tracking data indicated that these long dwell times occurred when the billboards were close to the forward field of view where peripheral vision could still be used to gather visual information on the forward roadway.

The present data suggest that the drivers in this study directed the majority of their visual attention to areas of the roadway that were relevant to the task at hand (i.e., the driving task). Furthermore, it is possible, and likely, that in the time that the drivers looked away from the forward roadway, they may have elected to glance at other objects in the surrounding environment (in the absence of billboards) that were not relevant to the driving task. When billboards were present, the drivers in this study sometimes looked at them, but not such that overall attention to the forward roadway decreased.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

In this study the participants drove a research vehicle with two experimenters on board. The participants were provided with audio turn-by-turn directions and consequently did not have a taxing navigation task to perform. The participants were instructed to drive as they normally would. However, the presence of researchers in the vehicle and the nature of the driving task do limit the degree to which one may generalize the current results to other driving situations. This is a general limitation of instrumented vehicle research.

The two cities employed in the study appeared to follow common practices with respect to the content change frequency (every 8 to 10 seconds) and the brightness of the CEVMS. The current results would not generalize to situations where these guidelines are not being followed.

Participant recruiting was done through libraries, community centers and at a university. This recruiting procedure resulted in a participant demographic distribution that may not be representative of the general driving population.

The study employed a head-free eye tracking device to increase the realism of the driving situation (no head-mounted gear). However, the eye tracker had a sampling rate of 60 Hz, which made determining saccades problematic. The eye tracker and analyses software employed in this effort represents a significant improvement in technology over previous similar efforts in this area.

The study focused on objects that were 1,000 feet or less from the drivers. This was dictated by the accuracy of the eye tracking system and the ability to resolve objects for data reduction. In addition, the geometry of the roadway precluded the consideration of objects at great distances.

55 The study was performed on actual roadways, and this limited the control of the visual scenes except via the route selection process. In an ideal case, one would have had roadways with CEVMS, standard billboards, and no off-premise advertising and in which the context surrounding digital and standard billboards did not differ. This was not the case in this study, although such an exclusive environment would be inconsistent with the experience of most drivers. This presents issues with the interpretation of the specific contributions made by billboards and the environment to the driver’s behavior.

Sign content was not investigated (or controlled) in the present study, but may be an important factor to consider in future studies that investigate the distraction potential of advertising signs. Investigations about the effect of content could potentially be performed in driving simulators where this variable could be systematically controlled and manipulated.

56 REFERENCES

1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Policy Statement. [Available online at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Distracted+Driving/ci.Policy+Statement+and+Co mpiled+FAQs+on+Distracted+Driving.print.] Accessed 7/27/2012. 2. Shepherd, G. M., 2007: Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/offprmsgsnguid.htm. 3. Scenic America. Position Paper Regarding the Propriety of Permitting Digital Billboards on Interstate and Federal-Aid Highways under the Highway Beautification Act. 2010. 4. Molino, J. A., J. Wachtel, J. E. Farbry, M. B. Hermosillo, and T. M. Granda. . The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (Cevms) on Driver Attention and Distraction: An Update., FHWA-HRT-09-018. Federal Highway Administration, 2009. 5. Farbry, J., Wochinger, K., Shafer, T., Owens, N, & Nedzesky, A. Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC, 2001. 6. Tantala, M. W., and A. M. Tantala. A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Henrico County and Richmond, Virginia. The Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE), 2010. 7. Tantala, M. W., and A. M. Tantala. An Examination of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Reading, Pennsylvania Using Empirical Bayes Analyses. Moving Toward Zero 2100. ITE Technical Conference and Exhibit, Buena Vista, FL, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2011. 8. Elvik, R. The Predictive Validity of Empirical Bayes Estimates of Road Safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 2008, 1964-1969. 9. Lee, S. E., McElheny, M.J., & Gibbons, R. . Driving Performance and Digital Billboards. Report prepared for Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute., 2007. 10. Society of Automotive Engineers. Definitions and Experimental Measures Related to the Specification of Driver Visual Behavior Using Video Based Techniques. 2000. 11. Beijer, D., A. Smiley, and M. Eizenman. Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,, No. 1899, 2004, 96-103. 12. Smiley, A., T. Smahel, and M. Eizenman. Impact of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Patters. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,, No. 1899, 2004, 76-83. 13. Kettwich, C., K. Klinger, and U. Lemmer. Do Advertisements at the Roadside Distract the Driver? Optical Sensors 2008, San Diego, CA, SPIE, 2008. 14. Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J.D., & Ramsey, D.J. The Impact of Driver Inattention on near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data, DOT HS 810 594. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006. 15. Chattington, M., N. Reed, D. Basacik, A. Flint, and A. Parkes. Investigating Driver Distraction: The Effects of Video and Static Advertising, PPR409. Transport Research Laboratory, 2009.

16. Kettwich, C., K. Klinger, and U. Lemmer, 2008: Do Advertisements at the Roadside Distract the Driver? Optical Sensors 2008, F. Berghmans, A. G. Mignani, A. Cutolo, P. P. Moyrueis, and T. P. Pearsall, Eds., SPIE. 17. Cole, B. L., and P. K. Hughes. A Field Trial of Attention and Search Conspicuity. Human Factors, 26, 1984, 299-313. 18. Ruz, M., and J. Lupiáñez. A Review of Attentional Capture: On Its Automaticity and Sensitivity to Endogenous Control. Psicológica, 23, 2002, 283-309. 19. Wachtel, J. Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs. The Veridian Group, Inc, 2009. 20. Theeuwes, J., and R. Burger. Attentional Control During Visual Search: The Effect of Irrelevant Singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1998, 1342-1353. 21. Tatler, B. W., M. M. Hayhoe, M. F. Land, and D. H. Ballard. Eye Guidance in Natural Vision: Reinterpreting Salience. Journal of Vision, 11, 2011, 1-23. 22. Land, M. F. Vision, Eye Movements, and Natural Behavior. Visual Neuroscience, 26, 2009, 51-62. 23. Eckstein, M. P. Visual Search: A Retrospective. Journal of Vision, 11, 2011, 1-36. 24. Henderson, J., G. Malcolm, and C. Schandl. Searching in the Dark: Cognitive Relevance Drives Attention in Real-World Scenes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 2009, 850- 856. 25. Henderson, J. M., J. R. Brockmole, M. S. Castelhano, and M. Mack, 2007: Visual Saliency Does Not Account for Eye Movements During Visual Search in Real-World Scenes. Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain, R. P. G. v. Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, and R. L. Hill, Eds., Elsevier, 537-562. 26. Land, M. F. Eye Movements and the Control of Actions in Everyday Life. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, 25, 2006, 296-324. 27. Hayhoe, M., and D. Ballard. Eye Movements in Natural Behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 2005, 188-194. 28. Jovancevic-Misic, J., and M. Hayhoe. Adaptive Gaze Control in Natural Environments. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 2009, 6234-6238. 29. Shinoda, H., M. M. Hayhoe, and A. Shrivastava. What Controls Attention in Natural Environments? Vision Research, 41, 2001, 3535-3545. 30. SmartEye. Smarteye. [Available online at http://www.smarteye.se/.] Accessed June 22, 2012. 31. Whittle, P., Ed., 1994: The Psychophysics of Contrast Brightness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 32. Regan, M. A., K. L. Young, J. D. Lee, and C. P. Gordon, 2009: Sources of Driver Distraction. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation., M. A. Regan, J. D. Lee, and K. L. Young, Eds., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 33. Horberry, T., & Edquist, J., 2009: Distractions Outside the Vehicle. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation., M. A. Regan, Lee, J.D., & Young, K.L., Ed., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 34. Rosenholtz, R., Y. Li, and L. Nakano. Measuring Visual Clutter. J Vis, 7, 2007, 17 11-22. 35. Bravo, M. J., and H. Farid. A Scale Invariant Measure of Clutter. Journal of Vision, 8, 2008, 1-9.

58 36. EyesDx. Multiple-Analysis of Psychophysical and Performance Signals (Mapps) [Available online at http://www.eyesdx.com/.] Accessed June 22, 2012. 37. Recarte, M. A., and L. M. Nunes. Effects of Verbal and Spatial-Imagery Tasks on Eye Fixations While Driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 2000, 31-43. 38. Manor, B. R., and E. Gordon. Defining the Temporal Threshold for Ocular Fixation in Free-Viewing Visuocognitive Tasks. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 128, 2003, 85- 93. 39. Ahlstrom, C., K. Kircher, and A. Kircher. Considerations When Calculating Percent Road Centre from Eye Movement Data in Driver Distraction Monitoring. Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 2009, 132-139. 40. Agresti, A., 2002: Analyzing Repeated Categorical Response Data. Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, D. J. Balding, Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 41. Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. Categorical Data Analysis Using the Sas System (2nd Ed.). SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, 2000. 42. Molenbergs, G., and G. Verbeke. Likelihood Ratio, Score, and Wald Tests in a Constrained Parameter Space. The American Statistican, 61, 2007, 22-27. 43. ISO, 2002: Road Vehicles — Measurement of Driver Visual Behaviour with Respect to Transport Information and Control Systems —Part 1: Definitions and Parameters. ISO. 44. ISO, 2001: Road Vehicles — Measurement of Driver Visual Behaviour with Respect to Transport Information and Control Systems — Part 2: Equipment and Procedures. ISO. 45. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2000. 46. Itti, L., and C. Koch. A Saliency-Based Search Mechanism for Overt and Covert Shifts of Visual Attention. Vision Research, 40, 2000, 1489-1506. 47. Walther, D., and C. Koch. Modeling Attention to Salient Proto-Objects. Neural Networks, 19, 2006, 1395-1407. 48. Itti, L., C. Koch, and E. Niebur. A Model of Saliency-Based Visual Attention for Rapid Scene Analysis. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 20, 1998, 1254-1259. 49. Walther, D. B. Saliency Toolbox. [Available online at http://www.saliencytoolbox.net/index.html.] Accessed 6/27/2012. 50. Land, M. F. Predictable Eye-Head Coordination During Driving. Nature, 359, 1992, 318- 320. 51. Balas, B., L. Nakano, and R. Rosenholtz. A Summary-Statistic Representation in Peripheral Vision Explains Visual Crowding. Journal of Vision, 9, 2009, 1-18. 52. Levi, D. M. Crowding--an Essential Bottleneck for Object Recognition: A Mini-Review. Vision Research, 48, 2008, 635-654. 53. Horrey, W. J., and C. D. Wickens. In-Vehicle Glance Duration: Distributions,Tails, and Model of Crash Risk. Transportation Research Record, 2018, 2007, 22-28. 54. Wierwille, W. W., 1993: Visual and Manual Demands of in-Car Controls and Displays. Automotive Ergonomics, B. Peacock, and W. Karwowsk, Eds., Taylor and Francis, 299- 320. 55. Strasburger, H., I. Rentschler, and M. Jüttner. Peripheral Vision and Pattern Recognition: A Review. Journal of Vision, 11, 2011, 1-82.

59 56. Reimer, B. Impact of Cognitive Task Complexity on Drivers’ Visual Tunneling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2138, 2009, 13–19. 57. Rayner, K., A. W. Inhoff, R. E. Morrison, M. L. Slowiaczek, and J. H. Bertera. Masking of Foveal and Parafoveal Vision During Eye Fixations in Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1981, 167-179. 58. Larson, A. M., and L. C. Loschky. The Contributions of Central Versus Peripheral Vision to Scene Gist Recognition. Journal of Vision, 9, 2009, 1-16.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 792 August 13, 2104 Page 2 of 7

III. BACKGROUND

The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Ballot Measure 67) was adopted by voters in the November 1998 general election, and amended in the 1999, 2005, and 2007 legislative sessions (OAR 333-008-0000). The Oregon Health Authority was assigned rulemaking authority for its implementation and administration. The act did not seek to change civil and criminal laws governing use of marijuana for non-medical purposes. Rather, it was intended to allow Oregonians with debilitating medical conditions to use small amounts of marijuana without fear of civil or criminal penalties, when advised by a doctor. Qualified patients were required to either grow their own medical marijuana or designate an individual to grow it for them. Medical marijuana dispensaries began to operate throughout Oregon, existing in what is widely considered a legal “gray area.”

In 2013, Oregon House Bill 3460 required the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities.

Senate Bill 1531, signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber on March 19, 2014, amended Oregon's medical marijuana dispensary law. It allows local governments to adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on operation of medical marijuana facilities, with reasonable regulation described as including “ reasonable limitations on the hours during which a medical marijuana facility may be operated, reasonable limitations on where a medical marijuana facility may be located within a zone described in ORS 475.314 (3)(a), and reasonable conditions on the manner in which a medical marijuana facility may dispense medical marijuana.” The bill also allowed for temporary prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries, subject to adoption of a moratorium ordinance by May 1, 2014. Ordinance No. 781, adopted on April 22, 2014 and effective May 22, 2014, implemented such a moratorium within unincorporated areas of Washington County until May 1, 2015.

Ordinance Notification Ordinance No. 792 and an accompanying summary were mailed to citizen participation organizations (CPOs) and interested parties on July 15, 2014. A display advertisement regarding the proposed ordinance was published in The Oregonian and Hillsboro Argus newspapers on August 1, 2014. Individual Notice 2014-13 describing proposed Ordinance No. 792 was mailed to 434 people on the General Notification List on August 6, 2014. A copy of this notice was also mailed to the Planning Commission at that time.

IV. ANALYSIS

Current Status According to information released by the state as of July 22, 2014, the Oregon Health Authority has approved 158 medical marijuana dispensary applications statewide. Additionally, 49 provisional licenses have been granted (allowing dispensary operation after installation and state approval of a security system). Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 792 August 13, 2104 Page 3 of 7

Of the 158 licensed dispensaries in Oregon, 133 have allowed the Health Authority to release their names and locations, three of which are located within unincorporated Washington County. Confidentiality provisions in the law, however, make it difficult to know where the remainder of licensed or provisionally licensed dispensaries are located. All provisional licenses are confidential. The three known approved dispensaries within unincorporated Washington County propose to operate from leased space on Canyon Road (one) and Tualatin Valley Highway (two). Others may exist in Washington County and the state continues to issue licenses. To what extent, if any, a license to dispense medical marijuana is a property right remains an open question. The initial ability to dispense medical marijuana was granted by the Legislature and the Legislature has also empowered local governments to regulate dispensaries under certain circumstances.

The Oregon Health Authority formalized temporary rules on March 31, 2014 related to regulating medical marijuana products and the time, place, and manner in which medical marijuana facilities may operate. These new dispensary regulations include the following:  Must be located in an area zoned for commercial, industrial, mixed use, or agricultural use;  May not be located at the same address as a marijuana grow site;  Not allowed within 1,000 feet of a primary or secondary school;  Not allowed within 1,000 feet of another dispensary;  A city or county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations including restrictions on hours of operation, location (zone/land use district), and how marijuana may be dispensed; and  A city or county may adopt an ordinance that applies a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, provided adoption occurred by May 1, 2014.

Outreach Efforts Outreach undertaken during preparation of Ordinance No. 792 included discussions with:

 Washington County Sheriff’s Office  Washington County Department of Health and Human Services  Planning Commission work session briefing  A representative of a state-approved medical marijuana facility located on Tualatin Valley Highway  Staff from the Cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, and Clackamas County.

Staff also considered testimony given at the Planning Commission and Board hearings on the medical marijuana moratorium.

While staff notes that a mix of approaches have been considered by various jurisdictions, including defining medical marijuana facilities as a retail use (Hillsboro and Clackamas County), Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 792 August 13, 2104 Page 4 of 7

and the implementation of additional buffers around schools, parks, residential areas, and public buildings (Tigard, Hillsboro, Portland), staff is not aware of any local jurisdictions who have formally adopted time, place and manner regulations as of the date of writing this report.

Options for Regulation Subsequent to the outreach described above, staff considered the following four options for regulating the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within unincorporated Washington County: 1. Prohibition; 2. Define medical marijuana dispensaries as a retail use, and therefore allowed anywhere retail uses are permitted; 3. Allow medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use within defined land use districts; and 4. Allow medical marijuana dispensaries as a special use within defined land use districts, subject to special use restrictions on time, place and manner. The only option that allows the county to address the issues identified during outreach efforts, and to allow the application of reasonable restrictions pursuant to Senate Bill 1531, was the fourth option. Staff is therefore recommending that medical marijuana dispensaries be allowed as a special use, and that special use regulations be adopted to apply specified restrictions.

Allowed Land Use Districts Staff recommends that the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries be allowed as a Type II use within specified commercial and industrial land use districts in unincorporated Washington County Staff.

Specifically, staff recommends that medical marijuana dispensaries be allowed to locate within the following districts since these land use districts are intended to provide the community with retail, service, and business type establishments on a medium-to-large scale:

 Community Business District (CBD)  Transit Oriented Retail Commercial District (TO:RC)  Transit Oriented Business District (TO:BUS)  Transit Oriented Employment District (TO:EMP)  Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use District North Bethany (NCMU NB)

Further, staff recommends medical marijuana dispensaries be allowed within the General Commercial (GC), Industrial (IND), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) districts to create additional options for the location of medical marijuana facilities in urban and rural areas, as well as to accommodate an existing facility within the IND district. Medical marijuana dispensaries are proposed to be limited in size in these districts, as discussed below. Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 792 August 13, 2104 Page 5 of 7

Special Use Regulations Special use regulations are proposed to be included in CDC Section 430 to address specific time, place, and manner concerns that have been raised through the hearings process and discussions with the Sheriff’s Office, as follows:

A. All State requirements must be met. Prior to issuing land use permits for the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary, an applicant shall demonstrate compliance with State requirements, and be required to maintain State certification at all times. State regulations provide that medical marijuana dispensaries are not allowed within 1,000 feet of a primary or secondary school, or another dispensary, among other requirements.

B. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Limits potential impacts to surrounding residents and businesses associated with late night and continuous operation, including noise, lighting, and traffic generation. The 10:00 p.m. closing time corresponds with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission liquor store hours.

C. Entrances and off-street parking areas for the medical marijuana dispensary shall be well-lit and not visually obscured from public view/right-of-way. Addresses concerns raised by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office regarding the ability of law enforcement officials, the public, and dispensary staff to monitor on-site activity, and to provide safe access for medical marijuana program patients.

D. In the Industrial (IND), General Commercial (GC), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) Land Use Districts, the maximum allowed gross floor area for a Medical Marijuana Dispensary is 3,000 square feet. Limits the amount of IND, GC, and R-COM land utilized for medical marijuana dispensaries in order to address concerns regarding the use of industrial land for retail type uses. This limitation models the 3,000 square foot gross floor area limit for new retail type uses currently found in Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIA) established in Title 4 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. In addition, the above limitation assists applicants in the R-COM District to demonstrate that the facility will remain small in size, as required by CDC Section 352-3.2.B.

E. In addition to State requirements for location, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries must be located:

1) At least 2,000 feet away from any other registered Medical Marijuana Dispensary. Due to the long linear nature of most commercial and industrial centers within unincorporated Washington County, including for example along Tualatin Valley Highway, Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, and Canyon Road, concerns have been raised by the Washington County Sheriff’s Department and Washington County Health and Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 792 August 13, 2104 Page 6 of 7

Human Services about the potential for a high concentration of medical marijuana dispensaries to establish in certain areas of unincorporated Washington County. This requirement seeks to limit the concentration of dispensaries in such areas, by increasing the separation of dispensaries over and above the State standard of 1,000 feet.

2) At least 1,500 feet away from any light rail station platform. Restricts the location of medical marijuana dispensaries in proximity to light rail station platforms, to address concerns identified by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office has concerns that station platforms located close to medical marijuana dispensaries may experience increased criminal activity and distribution of illegal and “gray market” marijuana.

Note that all distances are measured by a straight line between any point on the boundary line of the real property containing a Medical Marijuana Dispensary to any point on the boundary line of the real property containing another Medical Marijuana Dispensary or any point on the boundary line of a station platform.

Additional restrictions considered In addition to the above special use restrictions, staff also considered the imposition of additional buffers around daycare facilities, parks, and residential areas. In the case of daycare facilities, additional buffers were not included due to difficulty identifying the location of such uses, family day care facilities being exempt from land use permit requirements pursuant to CDC Section 201-2.14 and ORS 657A.280, making enforcement impractical and unreasonable. Parks and residential areas were not included, since initial mapping showed that inclusion of such buffers covered almost all commercial, industrial, and mixed use districts within unincorporated Washington County, effectively creating a prohibition which may be considered unreasonable regulation.

Public Comment Prior to the completion of this staff report, several emailed comments were received regarding the provision of medical marijuana dispensaries within unincorporated Washington County. Each of these emails requested that the county adopt regulations to provide reasonable access to medical marijuana dispensaries for those in need of such prescribed medication. This ordinance addresses those requests by allowing medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use.

Summary of Proposed Changes Ordinance No. 792 Staff proposes to amend the following sections of the Community Development Code:

 Section 313 – Community Business District (CBD)  Section 314 – General Commercial District (GC)  Section 320 – Industrial District (IND)  Section 352 – Rural Commercial District (R-COM) Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 792 August 13, 2104 Page 7 of 7

 Section 375 – Transit Oriented Districts (TO:RC, TO:BUS, TO:EMP)  Section 390-14 – Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use District North Bethany (NCMU NB)  Section 430 - Special Use standards  Repeal of Ordinance No. 781, an ordinance that imposed a temporary moratorium on the business and sale of medical marijuana as provided by SB 1531.

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2014ord\Ord792_Dispensaries\Staff_Reports\PC\Ord792_PC_SR_FINAL_082014TC.docx Attachment A Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 792 Exhibit 1 August 20, 2014 Page 1 of 5

Sections of the Community Development Code are amended to reflect the following:

1. Section 313 – COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)

313-3 Uses Permitted Through a Type II Procedure

***

313-3.40 Medical Marijuana Dispensary - Section 430-80.

2. Section 314 – GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (GC)

314-3 Uses Permitted Through a Type II Procedure

***

314-3.45 Medical Marijuana Dispensary - Section 430-80.

3. Section 320 – INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (IND)

320-3 Uses Permitted Through a Type II Procedure

***

320-3.20 Medical Marijuana Dispensary - Section 430-80.

4. Section 352 – RURAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (R-COM)

352-3 Uses Which May Be Permitted Through a Type II Procedure

***

352-3.1 Permitted Uses:

*** DD. Medical Marijuana Dispensary - Section 430-80.

abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed new language Attachment A Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 792 Exhibit 1 August 20, 2014 Page 2 of 5

5. Section 375 – TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS

375-7 Development Limitations for Permitted Uses in Transit Oriented Districts

***

33. Medical marijuana dispensaries shall be subject to the standards of Section 430-80.

*** [see table on next page]

abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed new language Attachment A Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 792

Exhibit 1 August 20, 2014 Page 3 of 5

Table A. Permitted and Prohibited Uses in Transit Oriented Districts

DISTRICT USE TO:RC TO:BUS TO:EMP TO:R9-12 TO:R12-18 TO:R18-24 TO:R24-40 TO:R40-80 TO:R80-120 Commercial Uses: (1) (2) (3) (3) (3) Retail Business < 5,000 sq. ft. II II II N N N III III III floor area (23.b.) Retail Business > 5,000 sq. ft. II II III (4) N N N N N N floor area Food Market (5) II or III II N N N N N N N Bulk Product Sales N N N N N N N N N Hotels II (6) II II N N N N N N Medical Marijuana Dispensary II II II N N N N N N (33) Motels N N N N N N N N N

***

abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed new language Attachment A Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 792 Exhibit 1 August 20, 2014 Page 4 of 5

6. Section 390 – NORTH BETHANY SUBAREA OVERLAY DISTRICT

390-14 Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use District (NCMU NB)

***

390-14.3 Uses Permitted Through a Type II Procedure

The following uses are permitted subject to the specific standards for the use set forth below and in applicable Special Use Sections of Section 390 and Section 430, as well as the general standards for the District, the Development Standards of Article IV and all other applicable standards of the Code. Approval may be further conditioned by the Review Authority pursuant to Section 207-5.

***

U. Medical Marijuana Dispensary – Section 390-16.15.

***

390-16 Special Use Standards

***

390-16.15 Medical Marijuana Dispensary

A Medical Marijuana Dispensary is a facility, registered by the Oregon Health Authority, that is allowed to receive marijuana or immature marijuana plants and transfer that marijuana to a patient or a patient’s caregiver if the patient or caregiver has an Oregon Medical Marijuana Program card.

Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are permitted subject to the following:

A. All State requirements must be met;

B. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;

C. Entrances and off-street parking areas for the Medical Marijuana Dispensary shall be well lit and not visually obscured from public view/right of way; and,

D. In addition to State requirements for location, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries must be located:

(1) At least 2,000 feet away from any other registered Medical Marijuana Dispensary; and,

(2) At least 1,500 feet away from any light rail station platform. abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed new language Attachment A Proposed Amendments to Ordinance No. 792 Exhibit 1 August 20, 2014 Page 5 of 5

Distances are measured by a straight line between any point on the boundary line of the real property containing a Medical Marijuana Dispensary to any point on the boundary line of the real property containing another Medical Marijuana Dispensary or any point on the boundary line of a station platform.

7. Section 430 – SPECIAL USE STANDARDS

430-80 Medical Marijuana Dispensary

Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are permitted subject to the following:

430-80.1 All State requirements must be met;

430-80.2 Hours of operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;

430-80.3 Entrances and off-street parking areas for the Medical Marijuana Dispensary shall be well lit and not visually obscured from public view/right of way;

430-80.4 In the Industrial (IND), General Commercial (GC), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) Land Use Districts, the maximum allowed gross floor area for a Medical Marijuana Dispensary is 3,000 square feet; and,

430-80.5 In addition to State requirements for location, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries must be located:

A. At least 2,000 feet away from any other registered Medical Marijuana Dispensary; and,

B. At least 1,500 feet away from any light rail station platform.

***

abcdef Proposed additions abcdef Proposed deletions abcdef Proposed new language

A request from a Washington County web site user has been made. See the information below:

A request for action for: Board of Commissioners [email protected] who does not require a response about:

Issue: Suggestion

Dear Board of Commissioners,

I am contacting all of you in regards to the access of dispensaries in Washington County. I feel it is to the benefit to the medical patients unable to travel far from their homes, as a result of their condition(s) or the treatment(ts) to their condition(s). Secondly it is beneficial to the ecosystem by allowing medical consumers to spend less gas, resulting in less emissions and less traffic, due to the time it would take to arrive at their destination to be able to obtain the necessary medication(s) for their purposes. Thirdly it would provide safe access and might be the deciding factor in a patient continuing the medical cannabis approach or reverting back to the normative medications provided through rite aid pharmacy. This would reduce the amount of medical cannabis patients from ever attempt to produce their own medicine, because their is an alternative. This is analogous to that of cigarettes, beer, wine, cereal, eggs, and most vegetables all which can be bought at the nearest store to provide safe access, reliability, reasonable prices, jobs and reduced emissions and traffic, and most importantly localized and designated establishments that meet all of the legal requirements.

I do not expect a response; I just would like all of you to take these words into consideration. I trust that the county will make the appropriate decision after viewing all of the pros and cons, by which I mean beyond the scope of what I've listed. As I am sure there is much more that I am not even aware of, and thought I'd just share my humble opinion.

Sincerely,

Michael P. Callaway [email protected] From: Pat Garrett Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:51 AM To: Chris Matthews; County Administrative Office Cc: Marcy Allie Subject: RE: Retraction of email sent to Washington County Sheriffs email list

Hi Chris

Fair question, however taking the entire sentence together is factual. True that OHA issues a license for the facility and the PRF, there are no additional requirements to license or regulate others who distribute MJ at the facility. In that way it's clear that dispensaries are not licensed or regulated like pharmacies (pharmacies have many more licensing differences) or places that serve alcohol.

It was good to hear the myriad of citizens last night at the hearing. We'll start working hard with county staff and our jurisdictional partners to craft balanced regulations to enable dispensaries to open in the future.

Thanks again

Sheriff Garrett

From: Chris Matthews [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:20 AM To: County Administrative Office; Pat Garrett Subject: Retraction of email sent to Washington County Sheriffs email list

It would be great if you could retract the misrepresented information in the email sent asking for people to come support ordinance 781 that says dispensaries are unlicensed and unregulated.

Dispensaries have been licensed since March 3rd and you have seen the 30+ pages of regulations.

Products created through potentially flammable or explosive extraction techniques are unregulated. What does this have to do with dispensaries? These are extractions and are not allowed to be made in a dispensary. I will be the first to admit that there have been plenty of idiots making extractions that do not meet the grade for the low level chemistry required. These folks give people who actually know what they are doing a bad name. But at the same time I think this should be removed in the dispensary discussion. Extracts are a vital part of the healing process for many. For people with cancer RSO oil is a lifesaver. RSO in its many different flavors is effective in fighting cancer and epilepsy.

Regarding the 1000 feet from Schools I know numerous locations in Washington county that there are bars and convenience and liquor stores located directly across the street or next door to school or daycare. People are allowed to drink alcohol in bars so I’m not sure how that is any safer than allowing a dispensary where you are not allowed to use on site.

I urge you to be expedient and lift the moratorium before October. Patients are waiting. The people spoke this evening and I see this moratorium as a failure of government who didn’t listen to their citizens

From email sent out to residents by Sheriff Garret

1. Only 6 employees run the whole program for the state

2. Dispensers are unlicensed and unregulated, unlike pharmacies and places that serve alcohol

3. Background checks on only the dispensary operator, but not all employees

4. Products created through potentially flammable or explosive extraction techniques are unregulated (think marijuana extraction explosions in Forest Grove)

5. Locations must be 1,000 feet from schools (3 football fields), but they can be next to playgrounds, transit centers, libraries, parks, etc.

6. Obstacles to effective regulation of marketing, producing, and processing marijuana for sale

Chris Matthews Managing Member Cascadian Care Group Llc Oregon Medical Cannabis Patient Resource

Phone: 503-330-3108 Fax: 503-303-8932 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.cascadiancare.com