Sponsored by: In cooperation with:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

International Technology Scanning Program

Outdoor Advertising

Control Practices

in Australia, Europe, and Japan

MAY 2011
NOTICE

The Federal Highway Administration provides highquality 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. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and 

processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

This International Technology Scanning Program 

report on Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in 

Australia, Europe, and Japan, sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation's Federal Highway 

Administration in cooperation with the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials and the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, provides a summary of 

observations and implementation strategies 

developed by the scan team. It does not necessarily 

reflect the individual viewpoint(s) of any team 

member or his/her organization. 
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-10-031

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, 

Europe, and Japan

5. Report Date

May 2011

 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Mary Jane Daluge, Matthew DeLong, Laurie Hanig, Hari Kalla, 

Charlie Klauer, Kenneth Klein, Susan Klekar, Lyle McMillan, 

Cesar Quiroga, Jeffrey Soule, Mary Tracy, and Barbara Wessinger

8. Performing Organization Report No.

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Office of Policy

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials

13. Type of report and period covered 

DTFH61-99-C-005

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

Although the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) has been credited with reducing the number of 

nonconforming signs and removing illegal signs throughout the country, the law is controversial and costly 

to administer. Many have questioned whether it has controlled outdoor advertising or met the intent of the 

U.S. Congress. The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and National Cooperative Highway Research program sponsored a scanning study of 

Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to learn how they regulate outdoor advertising 

both inside and outside the roadway right-of-way. The scan team also conducted a desk scan 

of outdoor advertising practices in Japan. 

In its study, the scan team observed the following: (1) context-sensitive and safety-oriented laws and 

regulations, (2) no regulation of nonconforming signs or distinction between on-premise and off-premise 

signs, (3) emphasis on safety and environmental impacts in guidelines and permit requirements, and 

(4) more collaboration between outdoor advertising stakeholders than in the United States. The scan team 

assembled implementation ideas under the following improvement goals: streamlining the program, 

improving efficiency, improving transparency, adopting a context-sensitive approach, and enhancing safety.

17. Key Words

Advertising, billboards, city planning, 

Highway Beautification Act, illegal 

signs, landscape, nonconforming 

signs, outdoor advertising control, 

revenue generation

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public from the: 

Office of International Programs, FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif.(of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif.(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

88

22. Price

Free

 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Outdoor Advertising

Control Practices

in Australia, Europe, and Japan

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team

Mary Jane Daluge (Co-Chair)

FHWA

Matthew DeLong (Co-Chair)

Michigan DOT

Laurie Hanig

Maryland State Highway Administration

Hari Kalla

FHWA

Dr. Charlie Klauer

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

Kenneth Klein

Outdoor Advertising Association of America

Susan Klekar

FHWA

Lyle McMillan

Utah DOT

Dr. Cesar Quiroga (Report Facilitator)

Texas Transportation Institute

Jeffrey Soule

American Planning Association

Mary Tracy

Scenic America

Barbara Wessinger

South Carolina DOT

for

Federal Highway Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway

Research Program

May 2011

Acknowledgments

The study team members give a special thanks to the following host agencies from Australia, 

Denmark, Finland, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom:

Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales, Australia

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland, Australia

Roads Corporation, Victoria, Australia

Outdoor Media Association, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Danish Road Directorate (Vejdirektoratet), Denmark

Finnish Transport Agency (Liikennevirasto), Finland

Swedish Road Administration (Vägverket), Sweden

Directorate of Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat), the Netherlands

Highways Agency, England, United Kingdom

Transport Scotland, Scotland, United Kingdom

These agencies prepared and delivered a myriad of documents and spent many hours describing 

their organizations, sharing valuable information, and patiently answering questions. The study 

team expresses its gratitude to all the individuals from these agencies for their hospitality and 

contributions to the success of the scanning study.

Although the study team was not able to visit Japan as part of the scan, they are grateful for the 

valuable information provided by Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, 

which is included in the appendix of this report.

The team thanks the Federal Highway Administration Office of International Programs, the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program, and the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials for their encouragement, guidance, and support.
vi International Technology Scanning Program

The International Technology Scanning Program, 

sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 

evaluates innovative foreign technologies and practices 

that could significantly benefit U.S. highway transportation 

systems. This approach allows for advanced technology to 

be adapted and put into practice much more efficiently 

without spending scarce research funds to re-create 

advances already developed by other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from NCHRP, 

jointly determine priority topics for teams of U.S. experts 

to study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are 

formed and sent to countries where significant advances 

and innovations have been made in technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, 

and financing. Scan teams usually include representatives 

from FHWA, State departments of transportation, local 

governments, transportation trade and research groups, 

the private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate findings 

and develop comprehensive reports, including recommendations for further research and pilot projects to verify the 

value of adapting innovations for U.S. use. Scan reports, 

as well as the results of pilot programs and research, 

are circulated throughout the country to State and local 

transportation officials and the private sector. Since 1990, 

more than 85 international scans have been organized on 

topics such as pavements, bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational 

management, winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent 

transportation systems, planning, and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has 

resulted in significant improvements and savings in road 

program technologies and practices throughout the United 

States. In some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint 

research and technology-sharing projects with international 

counterparts, further conserving resources and advancing 

the state of the art. Scan studies have also exposed transportation professionals to remarkable advancements and 

inspired implementation of hundreds of innovations. 

The result: large savings of research dollars and time, 

as well as significant improvements in the Nation’s 

transportation system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of 

charge by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports 

are also available electronically and can be accessed on 

the FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.

International Technology

Scanning Program
International Technology

Scanning Program: 

Bringing Global Innovations

to U.S. Highways 

n Safety

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe (2010)

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in Australia 

 and Japan (2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in 

 Europe and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

 Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe

 (2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia

 (2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety 

 in Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice in Europe

 (2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European

 Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe

 (1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies (1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe and 

 Australia 1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New 

 Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, and the 

 Netherlands (1994) 

n Planning and Environment 

Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road 

 Pricing In Europe and Singapore (2010)

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability (2010)

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility Processes 

With Planning, Environmental, and Design Processes in 

 Australia and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

 Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to 

 U.S. Practice (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, 

 England, and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, 

 Japan, and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways

 (2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

 Technology (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

n Policy and Information 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and 

 Japan (2011)

Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and 

 Asia (2009)

Practices in Transportation Workforce Development (2003)

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in 

 Japan (2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and 

 Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information From Abroad

 (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

 (1994) 

International Technology

Scan Reports

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan vii
International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality 

 Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

 Technology (1994) 

n Operations 

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement in 

 Europe (2007)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

 Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to 

 U.S. Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

 Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications 

 in Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Performance 

 Through Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European 

 Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe

 (1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—Learning from 

 Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure 

 Manual (1990) 

n Infrastructure—General 

Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in 

 Europe (2011)

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway Infrastructure: 

 Capitalizing on International Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and Innovatively

 Funded Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe

 (2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development

 (2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe

 (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe

 (1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993) 

n Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, and 

 Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies and 

 Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 

n Infrastructure—Bridges 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and 

 Europe (2005) 

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and South 

 Africa (2005) 

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges 

 in Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan

 (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability 

 Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

All publications are available on the Internet 

at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.

viii International Technology Scan Reports
Executive Summary ....................... 1

Overview and Background .................... 1

Summary of Observations—Similarities .......... 1

Summary of Observations—Differences .......... 2

Scan Implementation Ideas ................... 3

Chapter 1: Introduction .................... 5

Background ............................... 5

History .................................. 5

2010 International Outdoor Advertising Scan ...... 7

Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control 

Practices in Australia ...................... 9

Australia—New South Wales .................. 9

Regulatory Framework ..................... 9

Design, Landscape, and Environment .......... 11

Safety ................................. 14

Revenue Generation and Public Benefit ........ 16

Australia—Queensland...................... 17

Regulatory Framework .................... 17

Safety ................................. 19

Revenue Generation ...................... 22

Australia—Victoria ......................... 22

Regulatory Framework .................... 22

Design, Landscape, and Environment ......... 24

Safety ................................. 24

Revenue Generation ...................... 26

Advertising Industry Information .............. 26

Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control 

Practices in Europe........................ 31

Denmark ................................. 31

Finland ................................. 32

Sweden ................................. 32

Regulatory Framework .................... 32

Safety ................................. 33

Revenue Generation ...................... 34

The Netherlands........................... 36

Regulatory Framework .................... 36

Design, Landscape, and Environment ......... 36

Safety ................................. 36

United Kingdom—England .................. 38

Regulatory Framework .................... 38

Safety ................................. 42

Revenue Generation ...................... 43

United Kingdom—Scotland .................. 43

Regulatory Framework .................... 43

Design, Landscape, and Environment ......... 43

Safety ................................. 45

Revenue Generation ...................... 46

Chapter 4: Summary of Observations ..... 49

Summary of Observations—Similarities.......... 49

Laws, Policies, and Enforcement .............. 49

Program Management ..................... 49

Stakeholder, Community, and Citizen 

Involvement............................. 49

Environmental Impacts, Economic Benefits, and 

Revenue Generation ....................... 49

Safety .................................. 49

Summary of Observations—Differences .......... 50

Laws, Policies, and Enforcement .............. 50

Program Management ..................... 50

Stakeholder, Community, and Citizen 

Involvement............................. 52

Environmental Impacts, Economic Benefits, and 

Revenue Generation ....................... 52

Safety .................................. 53

Chapter 5: Implementation Strategies..... 55

Ideas to Streamline Implementation of the HBA ... 55

Ideas to Improve Program Efficiency and Implement 

Best Practices ............................. 55

Ideas to Improve Transparency of Process ........ 55

Ideas for a More Comprehensive and 

Context-Sensitive Approach .................. 55

Ideas to Enhance Safety ..................... 56

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan ix

Contents
Endnotes ................................ 57

Appendix A: Scan Team Members......... 60

Appendix B: Host Country Contacts....... 64

Appendix C: Amplifying Questions........ 68

Appendix D: Outdoor Advertising Control 

Practices in Japan......................... 71

Appendix E: Studies on the Potential 

Impact of Outdoor Advertising on 

Traffic Safety ............................ 75

Figures

Figure 1. New South Wales signage and outdoor 

advertising process under SEPP 64. ................ 10

Figure 2. Sequence of signs that would be unacceptable 

under SEPP 64. .............................. 13

Figure 3. TMR advertising device restriction areas 

(excluding motorways)......................... 20

Figure 4. TMR advertising device restriction areas for 

motorways. .................................. 21

Figure 5. Examples of primary, secondary, and tertiary 

roadway design elements. ...................... 26

Figure 6. Location of proposed electronic sign in East 

Melbourne, Victoria. .......................... 27

Figure 7. Electronic sign at corner of Flinders and 

St. Kilda Streets in downtown Melbourne, Victoria. ... 28

Figure 8. Examples of signs allowed in Denmark. ..... 31

Figure 9. Trial evaluation of electronic signs on 

Highway E4 in Stockholm, Sweden................ 35

Figure 10. Signs displayed by Rijkswaterstaat along 

Highway A4 in the Netherlands. ................. 36

Figure 11. Examples of outdoor advertising signs in 

Rotterdam, Netherlands. ....................... 37

Figure 12. Sample of outdoor advertising signs in the 

London area. ................................ 41

Figure 13. Process to determine the need for street 

furniture along rural roads in Scotland. ............ 44

Figure 14. Checklist for evaluating road furniture along 

rural roads in Scotland. ........................ 45

Figure 15. Exclusion zone next to roads............ 46

Figure 16. Examples of advertising signs allowed in the 

Glasgow area. ............................... 47

Figure 17. Tourist attraction panels in Glasgow. ..... 47

Figure 18. Upgraded bus shelters in Glasgow. ....... 48

Figure 19. Public involvement process in Japan. ..... 73

Tables

Table 1. Basic information on countries, states, and cities 

visited or studied. ............................. 8

Table 2. Design assessment criteria in SEPP 64. ...... 12

Table 3. RTA safety assessment matrix. ............ 15

Table 4. Examples of signs covered by Clause 52.05. . . 23

Table 5. Proposed modified design assessment criteria 

in Victoria. ................................. 25

Table 6. Driver experience metrics used on M80 in 

Melbourne.................................. 25

Table 7. Swedish Road Administration criteria for sign 

assessment.................................. 34

Table 8. Criteria to assess potential sources of road user 

distraction. ................................. 38

Table 9. Exclusion zones beside roads and clear view 

distances for advertising signs. ................... 46

Table 10. Host country officials met during 

scanning study. .............................. 65

Table 11. Advertising sign fees in Japan............. 74

x Contents
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials

AMP advertising management plan

APA American Planning Association

ASA Advertising Standards Authority

AUA advertising utilization area

AU$ Australian dollar

CEVMS commercial electronic variable message sign

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DCP development control plan

DOT department of transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Finnish Transport Agency

HBA Highway Beautification Act

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

LED light-emitting diode

LEP local environmental plan

LPA local planning authority

MSHA Maryland State Highway Administration

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

MOU memorandum of understanding

MPO metropolitan planning organization

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NAHBA National Alliance of Highway 

Beautification Agencies

NHS National Highway System

OAAA Outdoor Advertising Association of America

OAC outdoor advertising control

OMA Outdoor Media Association

PPG Planning Policy Guidance

£ British pound

RTA Roads and Traffic Authority

SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation

SEE statement of environmental effects

SEK Swedish krona

SEP Special Experimental Process

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SRA Swedish Road Administration

SRN Strategic Road Network

TMR Department of Transport and Main Roads

TTI Texas Transportation Institute

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

US$ United States dollar

USC United States Code

VicRoads Victoria Roads Corporation

VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan xi

Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Terms
Advertising sign Advertisement (New South Wales, Victoria, Australia)

Advertising device (Queensland, Australia)

Advertisement (England, United Kingdom)

Billboard Freestanding advertisement (New South Wales, Australia)

Hoarding (Queensland, Victoria, Australia)

Hoarding (United Kingdom)

Electronic variable message sign Animated sign (Victoria, Australia)

Electronic sign (Victoria, Australia)

Fascia sign Wall advertisement (New South Wales, Australia)

Intersection Junction (United Kingdom)

Major highway Motorway (Australia)

Motorway, trunk road (United Kingdom)

On-premise sign Building identification sign (New South Wales, Australia)

Business identification sign (New South Wales, Australia)

On-premise advertising device (Queensland, Australia)

Permit Consent (Australia)

Consent (England, United Kingdom)

Poster panel Advertising panel, poster (Queensland, Australia)

Regional plan Planning scheme (Victoria, Australia)

Right-of-way Road reserve (Australia)

Roadway Carriageway (Queensland, Australia)

Sidewalk Footway (Australia)

Footway (England, United Kingdom)

Toll facility Tollway (New South Wales, Australia)

Wall mural Wall advertisement (New South Wales, Australia)

Wallscape Building wrap advertisement (New South Wales, Australia)

Term commonly used 

in the United States:

Terms commonly used in other English-speaking countries 

(in some cases, the equivalence is approximate because 

of differences in legal terminology and definitions):

xii Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Terms
Overview and Background

The purpose of this scan was to compare and contrast 

how the United States and other countries efficiently and 

effectively regulate outdoor advertising both inside and 

outside the roadway right-of-way. The scan team sought to 

learn new techniques to balance competing interests—

including the public—in developing policy, regulations, 

and enforcement; addressing safety and environmental 

concerns; and generating potential revenue. 

Forty-five years after passage of the Highway Beautification 

Act (HBA), the law is controversial, complex, and costly to 

administer. Many have questioned whether it has controlled outdoor advertising or met the original intent of 

the U.S. Congress. The HBA is credited with reducing the 

number of nonconforming signs and proliferation of 

additional signs and removing illegal signs throughout 

the country. According to Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) statistics, States reported 298,404 nonconforming 

signs in 1965. This number had dropped to 73,044 by 

1996. On the other hand, the HBA has been criticized 

for the following:

Not keeping pace with new technologies and 

on-premise signs

Inconsistent inventory practices throughout the 

country, including a wide range of years since 

individual States conducted inventories

Failure to remove remaining nonconforming signs 

(In 1996, more than 30 years after the HBA was 

enacted, States reported that 25 percent of nonconforming signs still remained.)

Lack of adequate funding and staffing resources at 

the Federal and State levels to fulfill HBA objectives

From March 11-28, 2010, a scan team traveled first to 

three state transportation agencies in Australia: the Roads 

and Traffic Authority in Sydney, New South Wales; the 

Department of Transport and Main Roads in Brisbane, 

Queensland; and the Roads Corporation in Melbourne, 

Victoria. Then, in Stockholm, Sweden, the team met 

with the Swedish Road Administration (Vägverket) 

and representatives from the Danish Road Directorate 

(Vejdirektoratet) and the Finnish Transport Agency 

(Liikennevirasto). Next, it visited the Directorate of 

Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat) in 

Rotterdam, Netherlands; the Highways Agency in London, 

England; and Transport Scotland in Glasgow, Scotland.

On several field visits, the team observed emerging outdoor 

advertising technologies, advertising in the right-of-way, 

and signs both in and out of compliance with regulations 

and permits. In addition to visiting the countries listed, 

the team conducted a desk scan of outdoor advertising 

practices in Japan. 

Before the trip, the team sent a set of amplifying questions 

to the host countries to frame the discussion around five 

major topics:

Laws, policies, and enforcement

Program management

Stakeholder, community, and citizen involvement 

Environmental impacts, economic benefits, 

and revenue generation

Safety

Summary of Observations—

Similarities

Issues and common interests between the countries 

visited and the United States included the following:

Laws, policy, and enforcement:

yEnforcement between regions and states is 

inconsistent.

yRegulators attempt to develop less subjective 

(more objective) criteria for decisionmakers 

with mixed success.

Program management:

yInterest is growing in commercial advertising 

(street furniture) in transportation corridors. 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 1

Executive Summary
y

Time and staffing costs exceed funds generated 

from permit fees. 

yAccurate, up-to-date inventories are lacking in 

many jurisdictions. 

Stakeholder, community, and citizen involvement:

yDecisionmakers experience political pressure at 

many levels. 

yStakeholders question approval and denial 

decisions. 

yIn all countries except Japan, policymaking and 

permit decisions are between regulators and the 

regulated with little or no input from 

communities. 

Environmental impacts, economic benefits, and 

revenue generation:

yLocal agencies and urban areas form partnerships 

for significant revenue-generating projects. 

yThere is interest in generating revenue inside the 

right-of-way and removing some of the restrictions 

to commercial use of the right-of-way. 

Safety:

yCommon interest exists in regulating new technologies to minimize driver distraction, such as 

use of and rules to govern commercial electronic 

variable message signs (CEVMS).

yThe major focus is reducing crashes and fatalities.

ySigns that resemble official signs are prohibited.

yAll are seeking reliable research on the safety 

impacts of outdoor advertising and CEVMS.

Summary of Observations—

Differences

Key differences between practices abroad and those in the 

United States included the following:

Laws, policies, and enforcement:

yWhere outdoor advertising is allowed in the 

countries visited, state and federal responsibility 

is limited to high-level and national routes.

yFor permitting purposes, on-premise and 

off-premise signs are regulated.

yThe national/federal government has a lesser 

role in the state’s administration and program 

compliance.

yNew laws and amendments are only applied to 

existing signs when legal permits are renewed, 

so there are few or no nonconforming signs.

yFor regulatory control purposes, signs can be 

removed without compensation (permit is 

treated as a privilege, not a property right). 

ySign businesses, site owners, and sign owners 

can incur penalties for noncompliance.

ySome, but not all, countries reimbursed sign 

owners for actual removal costs.

Program management:

yAgencies 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. 

yAgencies 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. 

yPermit terms are longer, but finite (most often 

5 to 15 years). 

yOutdoor advertising control is not administered 

by right-of-way or maintenance departments, but 

by safety, corridor access, urban design, road user, 

human factors, traffic, spatial planning, or other 

departments.

Stakeholder, community, and citizen involvement:

yCollaboration between regulators and industry 

is early and continuous, but the understanding is 

that certain topics are not negotiable. 

yLocal 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. 

yEngland and Japan use comprehensive campaigns 

to remove illegal signs in neighborhoods as part of 

a broader economic regeneration and revitalization effort. 

yJapanese law mandates citizen involvement and 

local community landscape control plans with 

signing requirements enforced through an outdoor 

advertising management council.

yStakeholder and other advertising management 

plans are required. One Australian state is reevaluating its policy to formalize and include 

2 Executive Summary
community input on billboards as it does on other 

transportation projects.

Environmental impacts, economic benefits, and 

revenue generation:

yUse 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-ofway, but most countries visited are waiting until 

more conclusive research is done on driver distraction. Sweden is beginning a pilot.

yThe countries visited emphasize context-sensitive 

design. They give greater consideration to the 

visual effect outdoor advertising has on viewscapes 

and how it blends into surrounding landscapes 

and environments. 

ySome countries allow private investment (using a 

public benefit test) in infrastructure improvements 

and naming rights, such as pedestrian bridges over 

freeways or near schools. 

Safety:

ySigns 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. 

yThe 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.

Scan Implementation Ideas

The scan team assembled a list of ideas to develop a scan 

implementation plan.

Ideas to streamline implementation of the HBA:

ySimplify the HBA regulations and enforcement 

process.

yDevelop model regulations for States to use.

yEvaluate the effect of reducing the number of 

controlled advertising miles on State highway 

agency costs and operations. 

yStudy potential cost savings that could come from 

eliminating the control and monitoring of nonconforming signs. This could involve looking at 

the legal aspects of term or probationary permits 

or potential criteria for safety or public benefit 

audits.

yIdentify ways to encourage stakeholder agreement 

on fundamental ways to streamline control.

yStudy control measures for certified cities to use. 

Ideas to improve program efficiency and implement 

best practices:

yStudy fee schedules that would enable agencies to 

cover regulation and enforcement costs.

yDevelop safety criteria that could be used when 

evaluating permit applications.

yDevelop model regulations that synthesize safety 

criteria with longer fixed-term permits and other 

criteria observed in the countries visited.

yStudy the legal aspects of or develop criteria for 

term or probationary permits.

yDevelop criteria to trigger a safety audit of a sign 

or public benefit needs.

yPrepare a best-practices document and training 

materials for agencies to use to maximize revenue 

from outdoor advertising that could also address 

public needs. 

yStudy the feasibility of generating revenue from 

advertising in the right-of-way, including an 

evaluation of costs and benefits of advertising and 

the potential uses or use restrictions of any revenue 

generated.

Ideas to improve transparency of process:

yDevelop a process and tools to improve notification and participation of local governments in 

outdoor advertising control decisions and 

enforcement.

yDevelop methods to encourage public participation at the outdoor advertising control policymaking and permitting stages and improve consultation with jurisdictional authorities.

yDecrease dependence on zoning considerations 

when issuing permits by emphasizing other 

decision factors, such as jurisdiction of roads, 

safety factors, and scenic and public benefit factors.

Ideas for a more comprehensive and contextsensitive approach:

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 3
y

Encourage States to work with local public 

agencies to develop advertising management 

plans. 

yDevelop guidelines to incorporate livability 

concepts into permit applications in heavy 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic areas.

yDevelop architectural and graphic design principles to integrate outdoor advertising signs into 

the context of the surrounding area.

yEncourage the use of green initiatives and 

technologies.

yLaunch intensive local campaigns to remove illegal 

billboards as part of a broader economic revitalization effort.

yStudy the true costs, benefits, and risks of revenue 

generation in rights-of-way.

yResearch scenic roads and interstates on the HBA 

system and how scenic roads are regulated by local 

governments, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis 

on regulating only scenic roads and interstates.

Ideas to enhance safety:

yDevelop 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. 

yUpdate the assessment criteria used to review 

permit applications to reflect design, planning, 

environmental, and public and traffic safety criteria 

used by several countries visited.

yUpdate permitting requirements to include an 

analysis of the technical feasibility, benefits, safety 

impacts, and other effects of a proposed outdoor 

advertising installation.

yConduct 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.

yAssess 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.

yStudy the effects of full-motion video on driver 

attention.

4 Executive Summary
Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

Although the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) of 1965 

(23 United States Code (USC) 131)(1) has been credited 

with reducing the number of nonconforming signs and 

removing illegal signs throughout the country, the law is 

highly controversial and costly to administer. Many have 

questioned whether it has controlled outdoor advertising 

or met the intent of the U.S. Congress. 

At the Federal level, 23 USC 131 provides the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) with the authority to 

oversee outdoor advertising control by States. Providing 

effective control of outdoor advertising is a condition of the 

Federal-Aid Highway Program that a State must comply 

with or lose 10 percent of Federal-aid highway funds. 

FHWA promulgated regulations that contain the administrative details to enforce the HBA, which are in 23 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 750.(2) Signs allowed under 

the HBA include on-premise commercial signs, off-premise 

commercial signs, and directional and other official signs. 

Commercial advertising is not allowed in the right-of-way, 

with the exception of logo signs and tourist-oriented 

directional signs.(3) In addition to differentiating between 

legal and illegal signs, the HBA included a third category 

called nonconforming signs to designate signs that were 

erected legally but became nonconforming under Federal 

and State laws or regulations enacted later.

History

Before the HBA, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 

provided for a voluntary program that enabled States to 

enter into agreements with the Federal government to 

control outdoor advertising within 660 feet (ft) (201 meters 

(m)) of the Interstate System.(4) A bonus payment of 0.5 

percent of construction costs was offered for such control. 

However, by 1965, only 25 States had entered into bonus 

agreements (with two dropping out of the program shortly 

after joining).

The intent of the HBA is described in 23 USC 131(a):

The Congress hereby finds and declares that the 

erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising 

signs, displays, and devices in areas adjacent to 

the Interstate System and the primary system 

should be controlled in order to protect the 

public investment in such highways, to promote 

the safety and recreational value of public travel, 

and to preserve natural beauty.

Junkyards are also controlled by the HBA (see 23 USC 

136).(5) Another often-overlooked aspect of the HBA is its 

emphasis on preserving scenic landscapes through the 

purchase of scenic easements. An internal FHWA review in 

2008 revealed that all 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico had obligated $110 million in Federal-aid 

funds for landscape and enhancement, which underscores 

the beautification intent of the HBA as it relates to scenic, 

zoning, landscaping, and environmental concerns.

A 1967 letter from the undersecretary for transportation to 

Lady Bird Johnson reported on HBA program costs and the 

issues involved in establishing standards to control outdoor 

advertising. The letter highlighted the importance placed 

on this program at the time because it stated that a highlevel position (GS-17 level on the Federal Government pay 

scale, now Senior Executive Service) had been established 

for a “highway beauty coordinator” with background in 

resource conservation and aesthetic considerations in 

public work projects.

Since the HBA’s passage 45 years ago, many entities have 

analyzed the act and most have reached similar conclusions 

and recommendations. Many studies have recognized the 

difficulty of enacting and administering an outdoor 

advertising control law that would be satisfactory to all 

parties concerned because of their widely divergent and 

incompatible views. 

As early as 1974, a study of the HBA for the U.S. Senate 

Subcommittee on Roads recommended continuing the 

program with adequate funding “to carry out its purposes 

within a reasonable length of time, say 5 to 6 years.” That 

study discussed the alternative of controlling billboards only 

along the Interstate System to reduce the cost of the program, but did not recommend doing so because it would be 

a “step backwards and evidence of bad faith to the States and 

small sign operators who have relied on the Federal mandate 

of the 1965 Act.” An alternative proposed by the Roadside 

Business Association would declare 10 to 25 percent of a 

State’s Federal-aid highway system scenic, where signs would 

be prohibited. That law was not recommended because 
“scenic area designation is subjective and arbitrary, whereas, 

by comparison, commercial and industrial areas can be 

determined by much more objective criteria.”

In 1978, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now U.S. 

Government Accountability Office) concluded that the 

outdoor advertising control program was not very likely 

to achieve its objectives because of lack of support, legal 

complexities, numerous exemptions, and differences in 

State and local rules.(6)

The National Advisory Committee on Outdoor Advertising 

and Motorist Information assessed the highway beautification program in 1981 and offered four options for the 

program’s future direction:(7)

Complete repeal of the HBA

Retention of only the bonus controls (affecting the 

Interstate System in 23 States)

A reduced program that would impose then-current 

(1982), but simplified, control and acquisition 

requirements in all States, but would apply them 

only to rural interstates and certain scenic primary 

highways

Repeal of the requirement to remove or pay for 

signs, while retaining control requirements in a 

simplified form

Based on the committee report, in 1982 the FHWA Office 

of Right-of-Way and Environment drafted an agency 

position and recommended a legislative proposal to repeal 

the HBA, leaving the program to be administered by State 

governments. An option discussed was to retain the bonus 

program and outdoor advertising control along rural 

interstates and primary highways designated as scenic. 

None of these proposals were enacted. FHWA administers 

the law as enacted by Congress. Repeal or revision of the 

HBA must come from Congress itself.

A 1985 GAO report concluded the following:(4)

Without additional Federal funding or a change 

in the compensation requirement of the Highway Beautification Act, as amended, the 1965 

act’s goal—to control outdoor advertising along 

federally funded interstate and primary highways—will not be accomplished. GAO recommends, therefore, that the Congress reassess the 

outdoor advertising control program. In making 

this reassessment, the Congress will need to 

weigh the program’s goals and requirements 

against program costs and, if warranted, consider 

changes to the goal and requirements which 

reflect an appropriate level of funding.

The Congressional Research Service issued a 1986 report 

on outdoor advertising control along Federal-aid highways.(8) It included a 1965 inventory of about 1.1 million 

off-premise signs, including billboards, farm signs, and 

political signs. In 1996, an estimated 500,000 billboards 

were on Federal-aid interstate and primary highways, 

which encompass less than 10 percent of the total U.S. 

road mileage.(9)

In December 1984, there were about 43,000 miles (mi) 

(69,000 kilometers (km)) on the Interstate System and 

261,000 mi (420,000 km) on the Federal-aid primary 

system, for a total of 304,000 mi (489,000 km) of controlled outdoor advertising. In 1991, the National Highway 

System (NHS) was created with about 164,000 mi 

(264,000 km). The 141,000 mi (227,000 km) of primarysystem roads not on the NHS on June 1, 1991, remain 

controlled for outdoor advertising and account for nearly 

one-half of the control route miles.

The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

(ISTEA) provided that up to 10 percent of surface transportation program funds could be used for transportation 

enhancement projects, which included the removal of 

nonconforming signs, but few States chose to use those 

funds for billboard removal. In a 1992 Federal Register

notice, FHWA informed the States that, because ISTEA had 

made removal of nonconforming signs eligible for Federalaid highway funds, States were required to remove all 

remaining nonconforming signs. However, Congress halted 

this effort by amending section 131(n) of the HBA to make 

use of Federal funds to remove nonconforming signs 

discretionary for States.

Since ISTEA, FHWA has contemplated issuing advanced 

notices of proposed rulemaking to solicit input on and 

attempt to clarify the outdoor advertising rules and regulations. However, the process to revise the regulation is 

complicated and it was determined that further background 

studies were needed.

In 2007, FHWA contracted with the U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution to assess the outdoor 

advertising control program.(10) Its report stated the 

following:

The HBA has engendered conflict on a range of 

issues over the years from if and how nonconforming billboards are removed to the definition 

of commercial businesses. Some issues have 

been addressed legislatively and some through 

6 Chapter 1: Introduction
rulemaking. However, there remain a number of 

issues that create controversy.

The report reiterated that HBA-related conflicts involve 

a large number of stakeholders, including the traveling 

public, the outdoor advertising industry (sign owners, 

advertisers, suppliers, and landowners), groups concerned 

about maintaining and improving scenic views, local 

governments, and State and Federal regulators. It identified 

organizational, substantive, attitudinal, and relationship 

issues hindering the effectiveness of the outdoor advertising 

control program. The following issues were identified as 

most important to stakeholders and having reasonable 

potential for agreement:

Use of new technology in outdoor advertising

Abuses of signage in commercial and industrial 

areas

The future of nonconforming signs

Control of vegetation around billboards in public 

rights-of-way

Inconsistent regulation and enforcement

Organization of the outdoor advertising control 

program in FHWA

Based on the conclusions reached in the neutral assessment 

report, FHWA has completed several activities to address 

issues that make implementation of the program difficult 

and inefficient. To help eliminate regulators’ confusion on 

terms not defined in the law, FHWA scheduled stakeholder 

workshops to develop a definition for “destroyed signs.” 

The resulting guidance was issued in 2009. Additional work 

has included development of a definition for “customary 

maintenance” and criteria to determine whether a “substantial change” has occurred that terminates a sign’s 

nonconforming status.

Concurrently, FHWA proposed an international scan 

to study outdoor advertising control practices in other 

countries. The scan would identify successful policies and 

approaches used in other countries to control outdoor 

advertising both inside and outside the right-of-way. It also 

would determine to what extent private interests influence 

advertising and what technologies, such as commercial 

electronic variable message signs (CEVMS), have been 

allowed. The purpose was also to gather information that 

would be needed by decisionmakers to form a solid basis 

for future actions that could include preparing statutory 

changes to the HBA for consideration by Congress or 

regulatory changes by FHWA. It sought to identify more 

cost-effective and efficient ways to administer the HBA, 

build consensus among stakeholders, and develop a more 

consistent national approach for outdoor advertising 

control policies at the Federal, State, and local levels.

2010 International Outdoor 

Advertising Scan

In March 2010, the scan team visited Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom to compare and 

contrast how other countries regulate outdoor advertising 

both inside and outside the roadway right-of-way (table 1). 

As Appendix A shows, the study team included three 

representatives from FHWA, four from State departments 

of transportation (DOTs), one from the transportation 

planning community, one from the Outdoor Advertising 

Association of America (OAAA), one from Scenic America, 

and two from academia.

From March 11 to 28, 2010, the team traveled first to three 

state transportation agencies in Australia: the Roads and 

Traffic Authority (RTA) in Sydney, New South Wales; the 

Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) in 

Brisbane, Queensland; and the Roads Corporation (VicRoads) in Melbourne, Victoria. Then, in Stockholm, Sweden, 

the team met with the Swedish Road Administration 

(SRA—Vägverket) and representatives from the Danish 

Road Directorate (Vejdirektoratet) and the Finnish Transport Agency (FTA—Liikennevirasto). Next, it visited the 

Directorate of Public Works and Water Management 

(Rijkswaterstaat) in Rotterdam, Netherlands; the Highways 

Agency in London, England; and Transport Scotland in 

Glasgow, Scotland. The team also conducted a desk scan 

of outdoor advertising practices in Japan. 

On several field visits, the team observed emerging outdoor 

advertising technologies, advertising in the right-of-way, 

and signs both in and out of compliance with regulations 

and permits. Appendix B lists contacts in the countries the 

team visited. 

A set of questions (see Appendix C) was sent to the host 

countries before the team visited them to frame the 

discussion around five major topics:

Laws, policies, and enforcement 

Program management 

Stakeholder, community, and citizen involvement 

Environmental impacts, economic benefits, and 

revenue generation 

Safety

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 7
Table 1. Basic information on countries, states, and cities visited or studied.

Country State Roads (Controlled)*

(x 1,000 km/mi) City Visited

Australia: 126/78

 • New South Wales 21/13 Sydney

 • Queensland 33/20 Brisbane

 • Victoria 22/14 Melbourne

Denmark** 4/2

Finland** 78/49

Japan*** n/a

Sweden 98/61 Stockholm

The Netherlands 3/2 Rotterdam

United Kingdom: n/a

 • England 7/4 London

 • Scotland 3/2 Glasgow

United States**** 489/304

* This column represents the length of the state road network for which outdoor 

advertising control applies.

** The study team did not visit Denmark or Finland. A representative from each country 

traveled to Sweden and attended the meetings with the Swedish Road Administration 

(Vägverket) in Stockholm.

*** A visit to Japan was not possible because of scheduling conflicts. The study team sent 

the amplifying questions to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism 

in Japan.

****Information about the United States is provided as a reference.

8 Chapter 1: Introduction
Australia—New South Wales

Regulatory Framework

In New South Wales, the Roads Act 1993(11) determines 

who controls and manages different types of roads. RTA 

is the road authority for all freeways and unincorporated 

roads, totaling some 21,000 km (13,000 mi). Local councils are the road authorities for regional and local roads 

(except where some other public authority is designated 

as the road authority).

The Roads Act 1993 includes a requirement to request 

consent from a road authority before placing any structure 

in the right-of-way. The law also enables RTA to require the 

removal of signs and other objects or obstructions that 

constitute a traffic safety hazard. This authority extends to 

the removal of signs located on land next to the right-ofway. The action to require removal of a sign can start at RTA 

or at the request of another public agency, regardless of 

when the structure was erected or any approval, permit, or 

license associated with the structure. Road Transport (Safety 

and Traffic Management) Regulation 1999 prohibits the 

installation of any object or structure likely to prevent 

drivers from clearly seeing traffic control devices.(12)

In 2001, New South Wales implemented a policy under the 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (13) to 

regulate all signage (including advertising) visible from 

any public space in the state (unless the signage is exempt 

under a specific environmental planning instrument). 

The purpose of this policy, called the State Environmental 

Planning Policy (SEPP) 64—Advertising and Signage,(14)

is as follows:

Ensure that all signage (including advertising) is 

compatible with the desired visual character of the 

area, provides effective communication in suitable 

locations, and is of high-quality design and finish.

Regulate signage (but not content) under the 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Provide time-limited consent to advertising.

To complement SEPP 64, in 2007 the Ministry of Planning 

published a set of best practices called Transport Corridor 

Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines: Assessing Development Applications Under SEPP 64.

(15) The guidelines outline 

best practices for planning and designing outdoor advertising along transportation corridors. These corridors include 

classified roads, freeways, tolled highways, transit routes, 

and rail corridors, as well as advertising on bridges and 

road or rail overpasses. RTA provided much of the content 

for both SEPP 64 and the guidelines.

SEPP 64 makes a distinction among the following sign 

categories:

Advertisement. Advertisement is any sign (including its supporting structure) that is subject to the 

regulatory provisions in SEPP 64. SEPP 64 does not 

cover building identification signs, business identification signs, exempt signs, or signage on vehicles.

Building identification sign. A building identification sign is one that identifies or names a building. 

The sign can include the name of a business or 

building, the street number of the building, the 

nature of the business, and a logo or other symbol 

that identifies the business. This type of sign does 

not include general advertising of products, goods, 

or services.

Business identification sign. A business identification sign is one that provides information about 

the business activity, services, and products at the 

location where the sign is displayed. This type of 

sign does not include advertising of businesses 

located elsewhere.

Examples of signs that are considered exempt and are not 

covered by SEPP 64 include advertising in underground 

rail stations, rail tunnels, rail or bus stations (as long as 

the advertising is primarily visible from inside the stations), and election-related signs (as long as the signs 

meet certain criteria).

Consent by a designated authority is necessary to display 

advertising signs. As figure 1 (see next page) shows, the 

consent authority, associated review, and approval process 

are functions of the type of transportation facility and who 

controls or manages the land. The Ministry of Planning is 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 9

Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising 

Control Practices in Australia
 DCP: development control plan

Figure 1. New South Wales signage and outdoor advertising process under SEPP 64.(15)

10 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
responsible for signs located in the right-of-way of motorways (mainly freeways and tollroads), rail corridors, and 

structures or land controlled by RTA. Local councils are 

responsible for signs on other land where advertising is 

permissible. 

The review and approval process can also include consultation with other agencies. For example, the local council is 

the consent authority in areas outside the right-of-way, but 

RTA has a concurrence role within 250 m (820 ft) of a 

“classified road” (as defined in Part 5 of the Roads Act 

1993, which can include roads such as main roads, highways, freeways, tollroads, secondary roads, and tourist 

roads). More specifically, local councils must seek RTA 

concurrence if any part of an advertising structure located 

within 250 m (820 ft) of a classified road is visible from the 

classified road and the sign display area is greater than 20 

square m (215 square ft) or higher than 8 m (26 ft) above 

the ground. The council must forward the application to 

RTA to provide concurrence along with an AU$250 

(US$220) concurrence fee payable to RTA. In deciding 

whether concurrence under SEPP 64 should be granted, 

RTA must consider the impact of the advertising sign on 

road safety and other relevant provisions in the guidelines 

(see section below) or other relevant guidelines (e.g., bridge 

design guidelines).

Design, Landscape, and Environment

Responsibilities of the consent authority under SEPP 64 

include the following:

Use the design assessment criteria in table 2 to assess 

the feasibility of the proposed sign.

For signs on bridges or signs within 250 m (820 ft) 

of a road requiring RTA’s concurrence, conduct a 

public benefit test for the proposed sign.

If the Ministry of Planning is the consent authority, 

consider all relevant design and road safety requirements, in addition to the public benefit test.

As shown in table 2 (see next page), the design assessment 

criteria to assess the feasibility of a proposed sign cover 

items such as character of the area, special area needs, views 

and vistas, streetscape and landscape, character of the site 

and building, associated devices and logos, illumination, 

and safety. These design criteria fall into three general 

categories: macroscale planning principles, sign clutter 

controls, and site-specific and structural criteria.

SEPP 64 emphasizes the need to ensure compatibility 

between the proposed sign and land use characteristics. 

Examples of relevant SEPP 64 provisions include the 

following:

Outdoor advertising should be consistent with land 

use objectives outlined in the development control 

plan (DCP) or the local environmental plan (LEP).

Outdoor advertising is not allowed in environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas (excluding rail 

stations), natural or other conservation areas, open 

spaces, waterways, residential areas (except mixed 

residential and business areas), scenic protection 

areas, or national parks.

Advertising structures should not dominate or 

protrude significantly above the skyline or compromise significant scenic views or views that add to the 

character of the area.

Advertising structures should not diminish the value 

of areas of heritage significance.

Advertising structures should be placed in the 

context of other built structures.

Signage should be used to enhance the visual 

landscape (e.g., to screen unsightly aspects of a 

landscape, industrial sites, or infrastructure such 

as rail lines or power lines).

In rural areas where the Ministry of Planning is the 

consent authority, sign placements are only considered 

within 5 km (3 mi) of a freeway exit, within 5 km (3 mi) 

of an urban center (or larger distance if allowed in the 

local DCP or LEP), or along industrial corridors. In urban 

areas, the SEPP 64 guideline recommends that advertising 

be restricted to rail corridors, freeways, tollroads, or other 

classified roads in or next to strategic corridors passing 

through enterprise zones, business development zones, 

commercial zones, mixed-use zones, industrial zones, 

entertainment districts, or other urban locations where 

advertising is appropriate.

To reduce sign clutter, the Transport Corridor Outdoor 

Advertising and Signage Guidelines recommend the 

following strategies:(15)

Discourage multiple advertising signs on a single 

block of land, structure, or building.

If there is advertising clutter, reduce the overall 

number of individual signs on a site. Replacing 

many small signs with a larger single sign is 

advantageous if the overall advertising display 

area does not increase.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 11
Table 2. Design assessment criteria in SEPP 64.(14,15)

Design Assessment Criteria

Character of the area:

• Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality 

where it is proposed to be located?

• Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

Special areas:

• Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive 

areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural 

landscapes, or residential areas?

Views and vistas:

• Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

• Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

• Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

Streetscape, setting, or landscape:

• Are the scale, proportion, and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting, or 

landscape?

• Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting, or landscape?

• Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalizing and simplifying existing advertising?

• Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

• Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures, or tree canopies in the area or locality?

• Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

Site and building:

• Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion, and other characteristics of the site or 

building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

• Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

• Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or 

both?

Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures:

• Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices, or logos been designed as an integral part of 

the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

Illumination:

• Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

• Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles, or aircraft?

• Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

• Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

• Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

Safety:

• Would the proposal reduce the safety of any public road?

• Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

• Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sight 

lines from public areas?

12 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
In rural areas and along freeways and toll 

roads, do not allow more than one advertising 

structure to be visible along a given sight line.

The guidelines include specific design and location 

criteria for different types of signs, including wall 

signs, rooftop signs, freestanding billboards, bridge 

signs, posters, and special promotion signs. To assist 

with the presentation and discussion of topics, the 

guidelines include pictures with examples of acceptable (and unacceptable) sign configurations. As an 

illustration, figure 2 shows a sequence of signs that 

would be unacceptable according to the SEPP 64 

guidelines under the premise that too many signs 

contribute to clutter (although each individual sign, 

if not presented in a sequence, might be acceptable 

on the grounds that it does not protrude above 

buildings or dominate the skyline).

Note: These signs are located along Joyce Drive on 

the east side of the Sydney International Airport, 

which is owned by the government of Australia, not 

New South Wales.

The SEPP 64 guidelines include the following requirements 

for new advertising sign applications: 

Completed application form.

Statement of environmental effects (SEE) detailing 

the proposed development and its impacts. The SEE 

should include elements such as the following:

ySummary statement.

yDetails of the proposed sign location, including 

information about zoning, permissibility and 

planning controls for the specific site, location of 

existing buildings, structures and vegetation near 

the sign, and surrounding land use, including any 

trends in changing land uses.

yDescription of the proposed sign, including site 

details, color pictures or photomontages, and 

proposed sign management. Color pictures should 

show views of the proposed sign when viewed at 

ground level within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the site and 

all critical viewpoints. The pictures should also 

show any traffic control devices located within 100 

m (328 ft) of approaches to the proposed site and 

any traffic control devices that would be visible 

beyond the proposed site. Photomontages should 

show accurate perspectives of the proposed sign at 

driver’s eye level, taken from critical viewing points 

before the sign in each approaching direction. If 

view corridors or vistas are impacted, the photomontage should clearly demonstrate the impact 

of the proposed sign.

yIf the Ministry of Planning is the consent authority, an assessment of how the proposed sign 

addresses relevant SEPP 64 provisions, land use 

compatibility requirements, design criteria for 

transportation corridors, road safety considerations, and the public benefit test.

yIf a local council is the consent authority, an 

assessment of how the proposed sign addresses 

relevant SEPP 64 provisions, relevant DCP requirements, road safety considerations, a public benefit 

test (if it is a proposal for an advertising sign on a 

bridge or requires RTA’s concurrence), and RTA 

requirements (if RTA concurrence is required). The 

application should also include an assessment of 

other advertising proposals in or next to the 

transportation corridor.

yA justification for the proposal that considers the 

design assessment criteria (table 2) and any 

mitigation or management measures to minimize 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

advertisement.

Typically, consent for approved signs is given for 15 years 

(or less under certain circumstances, such as if the area is 

undergoing changes in response to an environmental 

planning initiative).

Figure 2. Sequence of signs that would be

unacceptable under SEPP 64.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 13
Safety

SEPP 64 recognizes that advertising signs visible from the 

road are designed to attract the attention of drivers and 

passengers. SEPP 64 also recognizes that drawing driver 

attention away from the road has the potential to create a 

traffic safety hazard. To minimize this hazard and improve 

road safety for all drivers, the SEPP 64 guidelines include 

a set of minimum traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian safety 

assessment criteria that must be addressed for all outdoor 

advertising proposals. The safety assessment criteria include 

items such as sign location and design, variable message 

signs, moving signs, video and animated electronic signs, 

illumination and reflectance, crash history, and sign 

content. To assist with the analysis, RTA uses the safety 

assessment matrix in table 3.

Examples of sign location and design safety criteria include 

the following:

An advertising sign must not obstruct a driver’s view 

of the road, other vehicles, bicycle riders, or pedestrians, particularly at crossings.

An advertising sign must not obstruct a pedestrian’s 

or cyclist’s view of the road.

The placement of a sign should not distract a driver 

at a critical time. In particular, signs should not 

obstruct a driver’s view of a road hazard, an intersection, a traffic control device, or an emergency vehicle 

access point or driveway.

An advertising sign must not distract a driver from 

or reduce the visibility and effectiveness of traffic 

control devices, or obscure information about the 

road alignment.

An advertising sign should not give visual clues 

to the driver suggesting that the road alignment 

is different from the actual alignment.

An advertising sign should not be located less than 

the safe sight distance from intersections, ramps, 

traffic control signals, or sharp curves; less than the 

safe stopping sight distance from pedestrian or 

bicycle crossings or hazards in the road environment; or so that it is visible from the stem of a 

T intersection.

An advertising sign must not interfere with the 

effectiveness of a traffic control device (e.g., by 

imitating a traffic control device, by including 

content that can be construed as giving traffic 

instructions, or by using flashing lights in the 

vicinity of traffic lights).

An advertising sign should not draw a driver’s 

attention away from the road environment for 

an extended time period. For example, a driver 

should not have to turn his or her head away from 

the road and the components of the traffic stream 

to view the sign display or message. When viewing 

a sign, all drivers should be able to see both the 

road and the main components of the traffic 

stream in peripheral view. Likewise, the sign 

should not create headlight reflections in the 

driver’s line of sight.

An advertising sign must not create a physical 

obstruction or hazard. For example, a sign must 

not obstruct the movement of pedestrians or bicycle 

riders and should not protrude horizontally or 

vertically in a way that it could be struck by tall 

or wide vehicles.

Signs with nonbreakaway supports must be placed 

outside the clear zone or behind an approved crash 

barrier. If a sign is proposed within the clear zone 

but behind an approved crash barrier, the sign must 

comply with relevant standards on lateral clearances, 

dynamic deflection, and width.

Variable message (nonscrolling) sign safety criteria include 

the following:

The speed limit of the road must not be greater 

than 70 kilometers per hour (km/h) (44 miles 

per hour (mi/h)).

The time to change the display must not be 

greater than 1 second.

The display must be completely static from its 

first appearance to the start of the transition to 

another display.

The illumination level must adjust to ambient 

light levels.

The sign must not contain any scrolling messages 

(e.g., text or graphics that move up, down, or 

across the screen).

Other criteria may apply as described in RTA’s 

Guidelines for the Location and Placement of 

Variable Message Signs.(16)

Scrolling sign safety criteria include the following:

The speed limit of the road must not be greater 

than 70 km/h (44 mi/h).

14 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
Table 3. RTA safety assessment matrix.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 15
The display must be completely static from its first 

appearance to the start of the transition to another 

display.

Under normal driving conditions, a driver should 

not expect to see more than one message during the 

exposure period.

The current policy on video and animated electronic signs, 

including signs that contain any portion of video or 

animated content, is that those signs are not approved if 

they face the road and are visible to drivers. New South 

Wales is revising the policy on electronic signs with input 

from various stakeholders, including RTA, local councils, 

and advertisers.

Although SEPP 64 does not regulate the content displayed 

on the sign (subject to community obscenity objections), 

it does provide content guidelines, including the following:

An advertising sign must not imitate a traffic control 

device, must not instruct drivers to perform an 

action such as stop or yield, and must not invite 

traffic to move contrary to any traffic control device 

or turn where there is fast-moving traffic.

An advertising sign must not contain reflectors that 

could be mistaken for a traffic control device at 

night. The permissible level of reflectance of a sign 

also applies to the sign content.

An illuminated sign should not contain large areas 

of red display. At night, particularly in wet conditions, an illuminated red display could be confused 

with a traffic signal, a stop sign, or the taillights of a 

moving vehicle.

Messages should not be distractive or inconsistent 

with road safety.

Signs should be legible. The font size should be at 

least 150 millimeters (6 inches) tall.

To minimize the time to read and understand a sign, 

the sign should not contain more than six units of 

information in total, using the following measures 

as a guideline:

yWord up to eight letters long = one unit

yNumber up to four digits long = 0.5 unit

yNumber five to eight digits long = one unit

ySymbol, picture, logo, or abbreviation = 0.5 unit

An advertising sign should not spread the message 

across more than one adjoining sign.

According to the SEPP 64 guidelines, RTA may review crash 

records after 3 years to determine whether a sign on a new 

site has had an adverse impact on road safety. In addition, 

as mentioned previously, the Roads Act 1993 enables RTA 

to require the removal of signs and other elements that 

constitute a traffic hazard. This act defines a traffic hazard 

as a structure or object that is likely to limit or obscure the 

driver’s view, be mistaken for a traffic control device, cause 

inconvenience or danger in the use of a public road, or 

otherwise be hazardous to traffic.

Revenue Generation and Public Benefit

The public benefit test in SEPP 64 is an assessment of how 

the local community could benefit from the deployment of 

a proposed advertising sign. The public benefit test applies 

if the sign is by or on behalf of RTA or RailCorp, or if the 

sign is to be displayed along a tollroad or on a bridge. It 

also applies if the proposed sign requires RTA concurrence 

under SEPP 64.

The public benefit, which can be in the form of a monetary 

or an in-kind contribution, is to be negotiated between the 

consent authority and the applicant. Both monetary and 

in-kind contributions must be linked to improvements in 

local community services and facilities (e.g., improved 

traffic safety, improved public transportation services, 

improved public amenity in or next to the transportation 

corridor, and support for school safety infrastructure and 

programs).

For advertising applications for which the council is the 

consent authority, advertising proposals are subject to 

standard application fees (including the AU$250 (US$220) 

concurrence fee payable to RTA) and upfront or annual fees 

for the duration of the consent (normally 15 years). 

However, the council may not require fee payments if the 

council is satisfied that adequate public benefits will be 

generated. Councils are responsible for collecting, distributing, and spending revenue from the fees. These fees must 

fund a public program developed in partnership with 

RTA or the Ministry of Transport in areas that require 

investments in safety, public transportation, or amenity 

improvements.

For signs installed by or on behalf of RTA and RailCorp, 

the agencies must demonstrate that revenue raised from 

outdoor advertising is directly linked to a public benefit. 

On tollroads, the operator must enter into an agreement 

with RTA to meet public benefit requirements. The 

requirements may include payment of an annual or 

upfront fee negotiated with RTA. RTA and RailCorp must 

record the total amount of outdoor advertising revenue 

received each year in their financial accounts and annual 

reports. These reports must also outline investments in 

16 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
transportation safety or other relevant improvements. RTA 

must consult with the relevant councils to identify and 

prioritize any improvements to be delivered through the 

program on a regional or subregional basis (in the Sydney 

metropolitan area).

Typically, RTA writes a letter to the local council to communicate its intent to use an advertising sign in the right-ofway to fund an infrastructure improvement (e.g., a pedestrian bridge). The council uses a newspaper ad to provide 

written notice to the community. At a council meeting, RTA 

has an opportunity to present and discuss the proposal and 

the public has an opportunity to provide comments. For 

the discussion, RTA lists items that are not negotiable 

(usually constraints that cannot be modified, such as the 

location of an existing school or road) and items that are 

negotiable. RTA’s task is to demonstrate a direct benefit or 

nexus of the sign to the community (e.g., if a pedestrian 

bridge to a school is needed, RTA must demonstrate the 

advantage of using a well-designed advertising sign on 

the pedestrian bridge to help pay for the bridge).

RTA owns and operates a number of billboards in the 

right-of-way. RTA outsources the marketing displayed, sign 

maintenance, and compliance with planning regulations. 

There are currently three major operators and a few smaller 

ones. The basis for selection is maximum valuation, which 

in practice is the highest bid. The duration of a typical 

license to build and maintain signs is 15 years. RTA is a 

member of Australia’s Outdoor Media Association (OMA), 

which gives RTA access to data to estimate the value of signs 

under various conditions. In practice, RTA bundles signs 

into packages, which limits RTA’s ability to determine the 

value of individual signs precisely.

From 2007 to 2010, the number of RTA-owned sites in the 

right-of-way increased from 40 to 75 and revenue increased 

from AU$9 million to AU$15 million (US$8 million to 

US$13 million). Signs in the Sydney metropolitan area 

account for 54 percent of the total number and 99 percent 

of the revenue. This revenue goes to the state’s general fund, 

unless the license provides for a specific use of the revenue. 

Until recently, RTA did not have a community consultation 

process for billboards in the right-of-way. RTA is now 

developing this process.

For transparency purposes, contracts are normally fixedincome rather than profit-sharing arrangements. This 

business model worked well before the recent recession. 

The global financial crisis hit the outdoor advertising 

market hard, resulting in a downward pressure on rent. RTA 

is exploring ways to operate the signs it owns to reduce its 

reliance on outdoor advertising companies. Part of the plan 

includes upgrading some traditional signs to electronic 

signs to consolidate information and reduce clutter.

Australia—Queensland

Regulatory Framework

In Queensland, TMR controls about 33,000 km (21,000 

mi) of roadways, or 17 percent of the roadway network. 

Local governments control about 156,000 km (97,500 mi) 

of local roads.

Outside the right-of-way of state-controlled roads, the 

Integrated Planning Act 1997(17) does not include outdoor 

advertising as a trigger for consultation with TMR. However, 

according to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994,(18) all 

“ancillary works and encroachments,” which include traffic 

and service signs as well as advertising devices, are subject 

to provisions related to driver distraction and operation 

and maintenance responsibilities. In particular, a local 

government must obtain TMR’s approval if it intends to 

approve an advertising device outside the right-of-way that 

would be visible from a motorway and would reasonably 

create a traffic hazard on the motorway. This requirement 

does not extend to nonmotorway state-controlled roads. 

However, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995(19) prohibits the use of any sign that may be 

confused with an official traffic sign, reduces the clarity or 

effectiveness of an official traffic sign, or encourages traffic 

to move contrary to an official traffic sign. Also, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Accreditation 

and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005(20) enables TMR to 

require modification or removal of a sign if, in TMR’s 

opinion, it is a traffic hazard.

In practice, proving in court that a sign is a distraction or a 

traffic hazard is not always straightforward. According to 

TMR officials, they use court cases from other jurisdictions 

to help prove their case.

In the right-of-way, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 

and the Transport Infrastructure (State-Controlled Roads) 

Regulation 2006 specify types of structures or activities that 

require a road corridor permit.(18,21,22) Examples of structures 

that require a permit include advertising signs, bicycle 

paths, bridges, culverts, utility facilities, mailboxes, solar 

panels, monuments, statues, fences, and gates. Examples 

of activities that require a permit include clearing, drilling, 

landscaping, promotional activities, tree removal, and 

painting. Currently, TMR waives permit fees except for 

those on some roadside advertising.

In 2002, TMR published a guide to assist with the evaluation of proposals for roadside advertising, both inside and 

outside the right-of-way of state-controlled roads. The 

guide, now called the Roadside Advertising Guide,(23) focuses 

mainly on safety and traffic efficiency while recognizing the 

role of advertising in promoting business and economic 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 17
activity. In general, the policy aims to control advertising 

sign structures and spacing, but not content (which is 

self-regulated by the advertising industry).

The guide uses the term “advertising device” to represent 

the sign and the structure that supports it. The guide 

makes a distinction among the following categories of 

advertising devices:

Category 1. This category includes large freestanding devices, devices attached to buildings or overhead transportation infrastructure, and temporary 

charity and event banners. Examples include 

billboards, trivision signs, and signs on overhead 

bridges (which may be in the right-of-way of a 

state-controlled road or next to, but visible from, a 

state-controlled road). TMR does not have a policy 

on electronic signs.

Category 2. This category includes static illuminated signs on street name posts (located within 

state-controlled roads).

Category 3. This category includes devices attached 

to transportation infrastructure other than overhead 

transportation infrastructure (e.g., bus shelters and 

seats).

Category 4. This category includes business signs, 

community signs, road user signs, and small miscellaneous signs on (or above) state-controlled roads. 

Examples include devices on premises, awnings, and 

fences (except those considered Category 1 devices) 

and sidewalk, real estate, charity prize home, 

roadside vendor, service organization, welcome, 

neighborhood watch, safety house, road service 

club, election, and utility signs.

The guide describes specific permission criteria for each 

sign category and outlines procedures for compliance, 

enforcement, and removal of unauthorized devices. The 

guide also describes review processes, outlines various fees 

in connection with advertising devices, provides details on 

the private sponsorship of pedestrian bridges, includes a 

template for a license agreement for advertising signs in the 

right-of-way, and provides information about the advertising industry self-regulation process. Not included in the 

guide is a license agreement template that TMR developed 

recently to handle Category 2 signs. 

Outdoor advertising control is decentralized. TMR is 

divided into 12 regions that coordinate activities with 74 

local governments, each with different attitudes toward and 

policies on outdoor advertising. This amount of coordination makes it necessary to adopt standardized protocols 

and procedures while being sensitive to the needs of local 

agencies. Although TMR uses a road corridor permit system 

to facilitate the management of corridor permits at the 

district level, outdoor advertising review and enforcement 

is a fairly manual process. Using corridor video logs, TMR 

can identify the local and surrounding environment 

associated with each sign. TMR also has a geographic 

information system viewer that enables officials to 

pinpoint the approximate location of individual signs.

The guide describes a tool called advertising management 

plans (AMPs) for implementing outdoor advertising 

policies in concert with local agencies and other stakeholders. The purpose of AMPs is to develop a structure and 

document processes to manage and control advertising, set 

parameters against which proposals are assessed, address 

vegetation and landscaping concerns, and ensure that the 

location of all proposed devices is consistent with the 

location of both existing and anticipated advertising 

devices. Ultimately, the goal of implementing AMPs is 

the following:

Reduce the uncoordinated proliferation of Category 

1 advertising devices both in and outside the 

right-of-way.

Increase the effectiveness of a select number of 

Category 1 advertising devices in an aesthetically 

pleasing manner.

Reduce clutter.

Facilitate regional, trade, and economic 

development.

Provide financial returns to the relevant state and 

local agencies.

The current outdoor advertising policy was developed 

after legislation was enacted in the 1990s. The restriction 

distances in the current guide were established in 2002. 

TMR officials have identified the need to review the guide 

to address new technologies and developments more 

effectively. For example, they are examining restriction areas 

(see next section) with Australia’s Outdoor Media Association. They have also identified the need for greater guidance 

in the case of on-premise signs and the need to address the 

limitation of not being able to apply the guide retroactively 

to existing approved signs. They are also evaluating examples of policies from other jurisdictions, including New 

South Wales.

While TMR has adequate control on outdoor advertising 

on motorways, the level of control is much lower on 

corridors with posted speed limits of 80 km/h (50 mi/h) 

or lower, where there is a multiplicity of signs, and it is 

frequently difficult to bring signs up to current standards. 

18 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
TMR is considering whether to develop a guideline to 

supplement the guide and work with local councils to 

allow them to take on the responsibility to handle those 

cases on behalf of TMR. In general, for signs inside the 

right-of-way, TMR specifies a sunset clause (e.g., 15 years). 

TMR was not aware of sunset clauses applied at the 

local level.

Safety

According to the Roadside Advertising Guide, an advertising 

device may be considered a traffic hazard if any of the 

following apply:

Interferes with road safety or traffic efficiency

Interferes with the effectiveness of a traffic control 

device

Distracts a driver at a critical time (e.g., while 

making a decision at an intersection)

Obscures a driver’s view of a road hazard 

(e.g., at corners or bends in the road)

Gives instructions to traffic to stop, halt, yield, 

or merge

Imitates a traffic control device

Is a dangerous obstruction to a road or other 

infrastructure, traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, or 

other road users

Is in an area where several devices are located and 

the cumulative effect of those devices may be 

potentially hazardous

In general, the traffic hazard potential depends on sign size, 

location, luminance, background, and distance from the 

road. The guide also recognizes that (1) frequent changes 

to advertising content are more likely to distract a driver 

than a static sign and (2) well-known symbols and logos 

are less likely to distract a driver than words. 

To maintain safety and traffic efficiency for road users, the 

guide recommends controlling two critical aspects:

Site location. Site selection includes control for 

lateral and longitudinal placement. To control for 

lateral placement, the guide uses the clear zone 

guidelines in the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials’ Roadside 

Design Guide.(24) With the exception of corridors with 

wide medians in which oncoming traffic is not 

visible because of topography or dense vegetation, 

advertising on medians is not allowed. To control 

for longitudinal placement, the guide considers 

advertising device density constraints and restriction 

distances on designated traffic situations and official 

traffic signs. To assist with analysis of specific 

situations, the guide includes diagrams and restriction areas and distances for a variety of road speeds, 

device locations, and device types and sizes (figures 

3 and 4, see next page).

Physical characteristics. Physical characteristics 

include shape, illumination, color, and font size.

Where both lateral and longitudinal placement requirements are provided for by a particular restriction distance, 

the guide recommends using the greater value. The guide 

also highlights that, in addition to the restriction areas 

identified in figures 3 and 4, further restrictions may be 

warranted if additional driver attention and decisionmaking are required. Examples of this type of situation include 

the following:

High-speed diverging, merging, or weaving at 

intersections, such as Y intersections or large 

high-speed roundabouts

Near intersections where lanes merge or a divided 

motorway becomes a two-way road

Complex intersections or road sections that 

require an increased level of driver concentration 

(e.g., five-way intersections, back-to-back 

horizontal curves)

Advertising on the outside curve of a divided road 

that is directed at traffic traveling in the opposite 

direction

Sections of road displaying several traffic control 

devices that, when considered individually or in 

combination, are significantly more complex 

than normal

Sections of road with a crash history higher than 

the system average

Pedestrian crossing facilities

The restriction areas identified in figures 3 and 4 apply to 

all Category 1 advertising devices. The restriction areas do 

not apply in other cases (e.g., most Category 2, 3, or 4 

devices and roadway project signs).

TMR is now updating the restriction area diagrams. One 

change involves renaming restriction areas outside the 

right-of-way as “device distraction areas” because those 

areas are controlled by local governments.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 19
Note: Device restriction distance is in meters. Posted speed limit is in kilometers per hour.

Figure 3. TMR advertising device restriction areas (excluding motorways).(23)

20 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
Note: Device restriction distance is in meters. Posted speed limit is in kilometers per hour.

Figure 4. TMR advertising device restriction areas for motorways.(23)

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 21
Revenue Generation

TMR does not charge for road corridor permits. TMR’s 

perspective is that it should be able to charge an amount 

consistent with the level of effort involved in the review 

and monitoring process. TMR has seven sites in which 

billboards are allowed in the right-of-way. The pricing for 

these locations is based on a competitive bid process with 

the bid value as the evaluation factor.

Some 700 Category 2 devices are in the right-of-way 

of state-controlled roads across the state. As part of the 

license agreement between TMR and the sign provider, 

the provider pays AU$600 (US$507) for an application 

fee and AU$600 (US$507) for an annual license renewal 

fee for each sign. The license agreement is for 5 years 

with an option to extend it for 5 more years. The license 

agreement covers technical, insurance, and indemnity 

provisions. The revenue from Category 2 signs goes 

to TMR.

Australia—Victoria

Regulatory Framework

In Victoria, VicRoads controls about 22,000 km (14,000 

mi), or 14 percent, of roadways, which carry 82 percent of 

all travel in the state. Local governments control the 

remaining 86 percent of roadways.

As in New South Wales and Queensland, planning legislation provides the foundation for advertising control in 

Victoria. The Planning and Environment Act 1987(25)

contains provisions for implementing local and regional 

plans (called planning schemes) throughout the state. The 

act requires planning schemes that include state provisions 

(i.e., provisions selected from the series of Victoria Planning Provisions) and local provisions (which apply only to 

the area covered by the planning scheme). The intent of 

requiring state-level provisions is to standardize practices 

across the state.

Several Victoria planning provisions are relevant to 

advertising control. According to Victoria Planning 

Provision Clause 36.04, Road Zone,(26) a permit is 

required for any sign located inside the road right-of-way 

or within 0.6 m (2 ft) of the right-of-way line. For other 

areas in the immediate vicinity of a road, the conditions 

in Victoria Planning Provision Clause 52.05, Advertising 

Signs,(27) apply. The requirement to apply for a permit for 

signs located inside the right-of-way is also described in 

the Road Management Act 2004.(28) In addition, the act 

describes the authority to remove illegal signs and 

request reimbursement for this activity.

The purpose of Victoria Planning Provision Clause 52.05 

is to regulate signs, provide for signs that are compatible 

with the existing (or desired future) visual appearance of an 

area, ensure that signs do not contribute to excessive visual 

clutter, and ensure that signs “do not adversely affect the 

natural or built environment or the safety, appearance, or 

efficiency of a road.”

Clause 52.05 defines four categories of advertising control 

that may apply at the zone level:

Category 1—Business areas

Category 2—Office and industrial areas

Category 3—High-amenity areas

Category 4—Sensitive areas

For each category, Clause 52.05 describes types of signs that 

do not need a permit, signs that need a permit, and signs 

that are not allowed (table 4). It also includes specific 

conditions (e.g., the maximum total area of signage per 

premise allowed and, in the case of internally illuminated 

signs, the minimum distance from a residential area or 

pedestrian or traffic lights).

Local councils are responsible for reviewing and approving 

advertising sign applications. In practice, the level of 

compliance varies widely. VicRoads officials noted that a 

Victoria Auditor General report found that 78 percent of 

council assessments failed to properly consider regulatory 

requirements.

VicRoads is a referral authority for outdoor advertising 

applications. VicRoads’ role is to advise councils whether 

VicRoads (1) does not object to the granting of the 

permit, (2) does not object provided certain conditions 

are met, or (3) objects to the granting of the permit on 

specific grounds.(25) For roads classified as freeways or 

arterials under the Road Management Act 2004,(28) the 

Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires the referral 

of a permit application for an animated or an electronic 

sign within 60 m (197 ft) of the road to the referral 

authority specified in Victoria Planning Provision Clause 

66, Referral and Notice Provisions.(29) These requirements 

apply to signs outside the right-of-way, regardless of 

whether they are on-premise or off-premise signs. It is 

worth noting that VicRoads used to be a referral authority 

for a wider range of sign types. However, VicRoads had 

only three reviewers at the time (same as now), which 

prompted a change in policy to enable the agency to focus 

on advertising signs considered to have the greatest 

potential for driver distraction.

22 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
In some situations, local councils notify VicRoads of an 

outdoor advertising application even if, according to the 

advertising control regulations, referral is not necessary. 

For example, if a proposed development has the potential 

to affect adjoining properties, under current regulations 

any adjoining property owner who may be affected by 

the proposed development (including VicRoads) must 

be notified.

Normally, permits are issued for 15 years. Different 

expiration dates may be possible, but generally cannot be 

less than 10 years or more than 25 years from the date the 

permit was issued. Applicants may appeal rejected applications at the Victoria Civil and Administrative Appeals 

Tribunal. Property owners can also appeal within 30 days 

if they do not agree with the issuance of an advertising 

sign permit.

Requirements in Clause 52.05 for submitting permit 

applications include the following:

A report, including a site plan and pictures, describing the location of the proposed sign on the site or 

building, distance from property limits, details of 

other signs on the site, details of other signs on 

Table 4. Examples of signs covered by Clause 52.05.(27)

SIGN CATEGORY PERMIT NOT REQUIRED PERMIT REQUIRED PROHIBITED

Category 1—Business areas. 

The purpose is to provide 

for signs that add vitality and 

color to business areas.

• Bed and breakfast sign

• Business identification sign

• Home occupation sign

• Directional sign

• Internally illuminated sign less than 

1.5 square m (16 square ft)

Any other sign Does not apply

Category 2—Office and 

industrial areas. The purpose 

is to provide for signs that 

are appropriate to office and 

industrial areas.

• Bed and breakfast sign

• Business identification sign

• Home occupation sign

• Pole sign

• Directional sign

• Internally illuminated sign less than 

1.5 square m (16 square ft)

Any other sign Does not apply

Category 3—High-amenity 

areas. The purpose is to ensure that signs in high-amenity 

areas are orderly and of good 

design and do not detract 

from the appearance of the 

building on which a sign is 

displayed or the surrounding 

area.

• Bed and breakfast sign

• Home occupation sign

• Directional sign

• Above-veranda sign

• Business identification 

sign

• Floodlit sign

• High-wall sign

• Internally illuminated 

sign

• Pole sign

• Promotional sign

• Reflective sign

Any other sign

Category 4—Sensitive areas. 

The purpose is to provide 

for unobtrusive signs in areas 

requiring strong amenity 

control.

• Bed and breakfast sign

• Home occupation sign

• Directional sign

• Business identification 

sign

• Floodlit sign

Any other sign

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 23
adjoining properties, location of traffic control signs, 

and identification of view lines or vistas that could 

be affected by the proposed sign

Dimensions, height above the ground, and extent of 

projection of the proposed sign

Height, width, depth of the total sign structure, 

method of support, and description of other 

structures, such as safety devices and service 

platforms

Illumination details

Sign color, lettering style, and materials

Display size

Location of any corporate logo box and proportion 

of display area occupied by that box

For animated or electronic signs, a report addressing 

the decision guidelines in Clause 52.05 on road safety. 

(For electronic signs, VicRoads also asks applicants to 

provide information about security measures, such as 

encryption levels and off default settings.)

Landscaping details

For signs more than 18 square m (194 square ft) 

in area, a description of the existing character of 

the area; location of other signs more than 18 square 

m in area; location of other scrolling, electronic, or 

animated signs within 200 m (656 ft) of the site; 

dwell and change time for nonstatic images; and 

relationship to significant views and vistas

Design, Landscape, and Environment

As mentioned previously, the Planning and Environment 

Act 1987(25) contains provisions for implementing local 

and regional plans and requirements to develop and adopt 

provisions to contribute to the standardization of practices 

across the state.

Clause 52.05 requires agencies to use a specific set of 

criteria to assess the feasibility of proposed advertising 

signs. The criteria are similar to those used in New South 

Wales (table 2). In recent years, there has been increasing 

concern that the guidelines are not sufficient to address the 

needs of Victorian society (e.g., in areas related to driver 

stress, land use, and quality of life). Two recent efforts to 

address these issues are a 2007 paper prepared by an 

advisory committee that reviewed advertising sign provisions for planning schemes in Victoria and an analysis 

completed on Highway M80 (the main corridor for growth 

areas north and west of Melbourne) that evaluated the 

visual experience of drivers on that corridor.

The 2007 advisory committee that reviewed advertising 

sign provisions in Victoria proposed a revised set of 

decision criteria for Clause 52.05 (table 5). The revised 

criteria were based on a recommendation to use higher 

order urban design principles to manage outdoor 

advertising along transportation corridors.

The analysis on M80 involved identifying sections along 

the corridor that provided four levels of driver experience to 

motorists, including degraded, unremarkable, average, and 

good, (table 6) and defining improvement strategies based 

on primary, secondary, and tertiary urban design elements 

(figure 5, see page 26). VicRoads is using the results of the 

analysis as a prototype for corridor development and 

preservation management, which could be used, among 

other purposes, to identify exclusions zones for outdoor 

advertising. 

Safety

Clause 52.05 includes a 10-point checklist to help reviewers 

determine whether a sign is a safety hazard. VicRoads is 

developing a guidance document to help interpret the 

safety checklist. This document is expected to include 

examples with pictures showing what to allow and what 

not to allow. According to Clause 52.05, a sign is a safety 

hazard in the following situations:

Obstructs a driver’s line of sight at an intersection, 

curve, or property driveway

Obstructs a driver’s view of a traffic control device, or 

is likely to create a confusing or dominating background that might reduce the clarity or effectiveness 

of a traffic control device

Could dazzle or distract drivers because of its size, 

design, coloring, illumination, reflectivity, animation, or flashing

Is at a location where more driver concentration 

is required (e.g., at an intersection with high 

pedestrian volume)

Is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device

Requires close study from a moving or stationary 

vehicle at a location where the vehicle would be 

unprotected from passing traffic

Invites drivers to turn where there is fast-moving 

traffic or is so close to the turning point that there 

is no time to signal and turn safely

24 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
Table 6. Driver experience metrics used on 

M80 in Melbourne.

DRIVER 

EXPERIENCE EXAMPLES

Degraded • Buildings close to the road

• Poor quality of industrial buildings

• Freeway signage and advertising 

infrastructure dominates the visual 

field at all scales—fore-, mid-, and 

background

• Visual disorder

• Degraded landscape, no tree 

canopy

• Industrial trash outside corridor

• Highly visible graffiti

• Overhead visual clutter—power 

poles, power lines, towers

Unremarkable • Industrial sheds set back from the 

road, partially screened by planting

• Large, simple built forms of industrial buildings

• Limited signage and advertising

• Minimal visual clutter

• Minimal vegetation and trees

• Gentle to flat topography

• Bland

Average • No or minimal advertising

• Average vegetation cover, trees 

dominate

• Changing topography adds visual 

interest

• Road furniture not visibly 

prominent

• Vegetated edge condition frames 

views along corridor

Good • Long dramatic views into valley or 

distant landscape

• Dramatic topographical changes 

add visual interest

• No advertising

Table 5. Proposed modified design assessment

criteria in Victoria.

Design Assessment Criteria

Character of the area:

• Sensitivity of the area in terms of the natural 

environment, heritage values, waterways and open 

space, rural landscape, or residential character

• Compatibility of the proposed sign with the 

existing or desired future character of the area or 

locality in which it would be located

• Consistency with any identifiable or particular item 

for outdoor advertising in the locality

Impacts on views and vistas:

• Potential to obscure or compromise important 

views from the public realm

• Potential to dominate the skyline or protrude 

above the predominant building line

• Potential to impact the quality of significant 

public views

• Potential to impede views to existing signs

Relationship to the streetscape, setting, or 

landscape:

• Proportion, scale, and form of the proposed sign 

relative to the streetscape, setting, or landscape

• Position of the sign, including the extent to which 

it protrudes above existing buildings or landscape 

and natural elements

• Ability to screen unsightly built or other elements

• Ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalizing or simplifying signs

• Ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual 

impact of parts of the sign structure

Relationship to site and/or building:

• Scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, 

proportion, and any other significant characteristics of the host site and/or host building

• Relationship to any important or significant 

features of the building and/or site

• Extent to which the sign displays innovation 

relative to the host site and/or host building

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 25
Figure 5. Examples of primary, secondary, and tertiary

roadway design elements. (Courtesy of VicRoads)

Is within 100 m (328 ft) of a rural railway crossing

Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the road

Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an 

instruction to drivers

An example of a location where VicRoads objected to 

the placement of an electronic sign is shown in figure 6. 

The shopping center on the northeast corner proposed 

installing an electronic sign to promote businesses and 

products offered at that location. VicRoads objected on 

the grounds that the location for the proposed sign was in 

an intersection with a complex geometry (two signalized 

intersections in close proximity) that normally requires 

special attention by drivers. An electronic sign could 

divert drivers’ attention away from the intersection 

traffic control devices.

A rooftop electronic sign was approved and installed in 

downtown Melbourne at a corner location that already 

had a high concentration of businesses and advertising 

(figure 7, see page 28). Given the location of the sign, 

it is more likely that pedestrians (as opposed to drivers) 

will see it.

As mentioned previously, certain signs do not require a 

permit according to the Planning and Environment Act 

1987.(25) Examples include directional signs (frequently 

located in the right-of-way), event signs, and small 

advertising signs. However, these signs still need to 

comply with Road Management Act 2004 and Road 

Management (General) Regulation 508 provisions,(28,30)

including not obscuring the field of view of a road user 

or distracting a driver’s attention from the road or traffic 

control devices.

Revenue Generation

Permit fees, now AU$100 (US$83), go to local councils. 

VicRoads does not charge for outdoor advertising permits 

or receive any portion of the permit fee, which in the view 

of VicRoads officials is inadequate because there is no 

other revenue stream to cover costs.

Advertising Industry Information

As mentioned previously, the study team met with representatives of Australia’s Outdoor Media Association. OMA 

provides services to members in areas such as marketing 

and research, government relations and regulatory affairs, 

revenue reporting, community and environmental 

sustainability, and occupational health and safety.

Primary elements: Large-scale sculptural elements that 

function as primary wayfinding or civic markers

Secondary elements: Roadside corridor and adjacent 

land use markers

Tertiary elements: Elements that provide rhythm and link 

to highway segments

26 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
Outdoor advertising in Australia proliferated until the 

mid-1990s, when the introduction of two major forces 

resulted in a significant consolidation of the industry, 

fewer signs, and higher levels of government regulation. 

The first was the 1995 ban on tobacco advertising. The 

second was the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, which prompted 

the establishment of new laws and regulations to control 

outdoor advertising.

According to OMA officials, a public opinion survey 

conducted in 2007 found that most people in Australia 

were not aware that outdoor advertising funds or maintains 

public infrastructure. In 2006–2007, outdoor advertisers 

funded more than AU$205 million (US$182 million) of 

public infrastructure in Australia (e.g., bus shelters, park 

benches, and pedestrian bridges). Outdoor advertisers also 

maintain this infrastructure at a cost of about AU$13.5 

million (US$12 million).

The advertising industry has developed a comprehensive 

inventory of advertising signs in Australia, including 

signs on street furniture and inside shopping centers. 

Figure 6. Location of proposed electronic sign in East Melbourne, Victoria.

Proposed 

electronic sign 

location

Proposed 

electronic sign 

location

©2010 Google - Imagery ©2010 GeoEye, Sinclair Knight Merz & Fugro

Panoramic view

Plan view

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 27
The inventory was possible through the development of 

the Measurement of Outdoor Visibility and Exposure 

(MOVE) system.(31) MOVE contains about 60,000 individual advertising faces. Each face has a unique set of 

characteristics, including location (coordinates obtained 

using Global Positioning System receivers), size, orientation, and whether the face is illuminated. The industry 

uses these characteristics to develop measures such as 

“opportunity to see,” which estimates total audience, 

and “likelihood to see,” which estimates actual audience. 

Individual results are combined to provide total contacts 

and reach and frequency results for face packages or other 

media campaigns.

OMA recently started a national recycling program for used 

billboard skins. Other OMA member initiatives include use 

of biodegradable skins, environmentally friendly printing 

inks, solar power and other green lighting solutions to 

power illuminated signs, and carbon audits and offsets.

As part of its government relations and regulatory program, 

OMA conducts regular meetings with federal and state 

regulators and participates in discussions on developing 

and implementing outdoor advertising control policies. 

OMA officials noted that effective discussions and negotiations with regulators are facilitated when regulators clearly 

state areas that are negotiable and those that are not.

OMA officials highlighted the following issues in their 

interaction with Australian states:

Advertising control policies are not consistent across 

Australia.

Existing policies generally do not encourage the use 

of new and innovative technologies, such as digital 

technology.

The level of regulation is more strict and comprehensive for off-premise signs than on-premise signs.

The industry’s position is that the evidence is 

inconclusive that billboards contribute to crashes or 

cause driver distraction.

The industry’s position is that road safety regulations 

on outdoor advertising sometimes are not based on 

evidence.

To help address this issue, OMA has published a number of 

position papers, including the following:(32)

“Fact sheet: Vegetation management around 

outdoor advertising signs.” This document is a 

summary of regulations on vegetation management 

around advertising signs in New South Wales, 

Queensland, and Victoria.

“Digital billboards and road safety: An analysis of 

current policy and research findings.” This document is a summary of policies on electronic signs in 

other countries, including the United States, an 

annotated bibliography of studies on the relationship between electronic signs and traffic safety, and 

recommendations for standards.

Letter on restriction distances for outdoor 

advertising in Queensland. This document 

summarizes areas in which OMA agrees and 

Figure 7. Electronic sign at corner of Flinders and St. Kilda Streets in downtown Melbourne, Victoria.

28 Chapter 2: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia
disagrees with TMR’s proposed changes to the 

restriction area diagrams in Queensland’s Roadside 

Advertising Guide.(23)

OMA is also conducting driving studies to assess the safety 

impact of different forms of outdoor advertising on driving. 

It recently completed an instrumented vehicle study using a 

Mobile EyeTM tracker, which can identify the location and 

direction of gaze. OMA recruited 44 participants, who 

drove on preidentified test routes. For this study, analysis 

focused on whether participants looked at signs, pedestrians, or passengers for a minimum of 200 milliseconds. 

The study found that 78 percent of drivers did not look at 

billboards at all for 200 milliseconds or more. OMA plans 

to conduct a followup study using an instrumented vehicle 

and similar eye-tracking device to calculate length of glance, 

number of glances, and percentage of time that eyes are not 

focused on the roadway, along with parametric data such 

as lane tracking, vehicle speed, and speed variations. 

Data collection and analysis were expected to be 

completed in 2010.

Outdoor advertising content regulation in Australia is the 

responsibility of the Advertising Standards Bureau, which 

manages an advertising self-regulation system based on 

several industry-developed codes of practice and ethics, 

and two national boards:(33)

Advertising Standards Board. This board handles complaints about issues such as language, 

discrimination, concern for children, violence, 

sexuality and nudity, health and safety, and marketing of food and beverages to children. Advertising 

Standards Board decisions are subject to appeal 

through an independent reviewer. The review 

process is available to the advertiser and the 

complainant, and decisions are available on 

the Advertising Standards Bureau’s Web site.

Advertising Claims Board. This board handles 

complaints about issues such as truth, accuracy, 

and legality of advertising. It is a mechanism to 

resolve disputes between competitors and challenges to advertising that might otherwise result 

in litigation. This service operates on a user-pays, 

cost-recovery basis.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 29
30
Direction

Service

Denmark

The outdoor advertising policy in Denmark is very restrictive. Following the Danish Road Directorate’s Signs and 

Advertising on Public Roads,

(34) traffic safety is the Road 

Directorate’s main concern. Relevant legislation includes 

road legislation (which discusses special conditions for a 

permit), nature conservation legislation (which prohibits 

advertising on open land), and traffic legislation (which 

enables police agencies to remove distracting signs).

In urban areas, municipalities issue permits. In rural areas, 

the only signs allowed in the right-of-way are general 

information and service signs (figure 8). The number of 

signs at any given site is limited to prevent road user 

overload. Signs providing directions to tourist or recreational attractions are allowed, but they must follow the 

same standards as other directional signs. Billboards are 

not allowed in the right-of-way. Outside the right-of-way, 

Figure 8. Examples of signs allowed in Denmark.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 31

Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising 

Control Practices in Europe
the only signs allowed are on-premise signs. In general, 

these signs should not predominate on the landscape and 

should not be visible over long distances. The regulations 

include specific requirements for size, content, and 

location.

Recently, the Road Directorate began a study to measure the 

impact of road signage on road user attention in urban 

areas, which will include the use of an instrumented vehicle 

with an eye tracker device onboard. However, the study 

does not include the impact of electronic signs. The study 

was expected to be completed in 2011.

Finland

The state controls outdoor advertising on 78,000 km 

(49,000 mi), or about 75 percent, of public roads in 

Finland. The remaining 25 percent is controlled at the local 

level. There are also 350,000 km (218,000 mi) of private 

and forest roads in Finland, but they are minor roads with 

no advertising relevance.

Several pieces of legislation in Finland are relevant to 

outdoor advertising, such as a new Highways Act signed in 

2006,(35) which assigns the responsibility to control roadside advertising to road authorities, and the Land Use and 

Building Act,(36) which defines advertising in areas with a 

city plan and assigns levels of regulatory responsibility. Also 

relevant are the Road Traffic Act,(37) which assigns responsibilities for installing traffic signs, and the Road Traffic 

Regulation,(38) which defines official traffic signs and 

prohibits their use for advertising purposes.

The Finnish approach to outdoor advertising is that it can 

affect traffic safety by creating a sight barrier, creating the 

possibility of driver confusion and distracting driver 

attention from traffic or traffic control devices. Policy 

objectives to address this issue include developing an 

aesthetic traffic environment and not allowing advertising 

without a permit. In general, the goal is to combine traffic 

safety and a pleasant traffic environment, while at the same 

time providing useful information to road users about 

services and activities along the road.

In Finland, advertising is prohibited in areas with no 

city plans (mostly rural areas). In areas with a city plan 

(built up or not), advertising is not allowed in the rightof-way. For directional signs (i.e., tourism or service 

road signs), it is necessary to apply for a new permit 

every 5 years. This requirement applies to signs located 

in a protected 20-m (66-ft) right-of-way on either side 

of the road centerline. Other than directional signs, 

commercial advertising is not allowed in this area, 

although exceptions may be possible if the road 

authority considers the sign useful for reasons such 

as traffic guidance or tourism (in this case, exceptions may 

be granted for a 3- to 5-year period).

Outside the protected 20-m corridor on either side of the 

road centerline, permitting is the responsibility of local 

authorities. Municipalities use a range of practices on 

zoning and outdoor advertising policies. The Finnish 

Transport Agency typically has the opportunity to review 

permit applications submitted locally for issues related to 

traffic safety and aesthetics, but the decision to approve 

permit applications is made at the local level.

Before the new Road Act was enacted in 2006, regional 

environmental centers were responsible for issuing advertising permits. In 2006, road authorities collected these 

permits and started an inventory of advertising signs along 

roads. In 2006, a national center was set up with the goal 

of allowing only official tourist and service signs in the 

right-of-way. All advertising in the right-of-way was 

removed, particularly in southern Finland.

In 2009, local business owners (particularly small business 

owners) in northern Finland complained about the 

new policy. In response, the Ministry of Transport and 

Communications set up a working group that included 

road authorities and an organization of business owners. 

The purpose of the working group was to identify ways to 

add flexibility to the regulations without forcing a change 

in legislation. A revised version of the advertising policy 

was expected in fall 2010.

Owners of illegal signs are responsible for the cost of 

removing the sign. If the sign is on the right-of-way, the 

state removes the sign and requests reimbursement. If the 

sign is located outside the right-of-way (in an area of local 

government jurisdiction), the Center for Economic Development has the right to remove the illegal sign (typically 

through the regional councils) and get reimbursement.

Sweden

Regulatory Framework

The state controls outdoor advertising on 98,000 km 

(61,000 mi), or about 68 percent, of the roads in Sweden. 

The remaining 32 percent is controlled at the local level.

Pursuant to the Swedish Road Administration’s Roadside 

Advertising Guidelines,

(39) one objective for travel and 

transportation in Sweden is a safe transportation system. 

To system users who travel on roads maintained by SRA, 

advertising could be perceived as positive as long as it 

provides information that appears relevant to those users. 

However, advertising could also be perceived as distracting 

or even dangerous if not correctly designed or located. 

32 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
Because the interests of businesses might not be aligned 

with the interests of road users, SRA’s responsibility is to 

ensure that advertising along transportation corridors does 

not conflict with transportation safety policy objectives.

SRA recognizes that the purpose of advertising signs is for 

the signs to be seen and read as frequently as possible. To 

read roadside advertising signs, drivers must shift their 

attention from traffic to the roadside. This issue is particularly sensitive in difficult and demanding traffic environments. Under these conditions, SRA’s policy is that outdoor 

advertising should not be directed at road users. In less 

complicated traffic environments (e.g., along straight 

stretches of road without traffic signs or other elements that 

drivers must have time to observe) roadside advertising 

may be permissible. Under these conditions, SRA’s position 

is that a static, short, simple advertising sign that can be 

seen quickly provides ample time for drivers to choose 

when to read the sign safely. SRA’s policy is to not allow 

outdoor advertising in the right-of-way.

Several pieces of legislation are relevant to outdoor 

advertising in Sweden. Of particular interest are the 

Planning and Building Act (1987:10) and the Roads Act 

(1971:948).(40,41) Other relevant laws include the Act on 

Special Provisions for Street Cleaning and Signage 

(1998:814) and the Ordinance on Street Cleaning and 

Signage (1998:929).(42,43)

According to Clause 43 of the Roads Act, the road authority 

can regulate advertising in the right-of-way, including 

issuing and revoking permits. For advertising outside the 

right-of-way, Clause 45 of the Roads Act indicates that the 

county administrative board is the consent authority for 

situations that can affect traffic safety or the condition or 

use of the road. In particular, Clause 45 prohibits installation of any structure or light that can have a negative 

impact on traffic conditions. Likewise, Clause 46 indicates 

that the county administrative board is responsible for 

issuing outdoor advertising permits within 50 m (164 ft) of 

the road. However, if the area is covered by a local plan, the 

municipality is the agency responsible for issuing outdoor 

advertising permits. If the location of the sign in the local 

plan is in an area where SRA or the county administrative 

board is responsible, a permit from one of these agencies is 

also required.

Advertising is allowed at designated locations in rest areas. 

Maintenance and upkeep practices can vary from region 

to region. In some cases, there are agreements with 

municipalities to handle specific maintenance activities 

at the rest area.

If an illegal sign is in the right-of-way, SRA can require 

removal. If the sign is not removed, SRA can remove it and 

seek reimbursement. In 1992, SRA started issuing road 

maintenance contracts. Included in the scope of work for 

maintenance contractors is identifying inadmissible 

advertising in the right-of-way. After receiving confirmation 

of a sign’s illegal status, the maintenance contractor takes a 

picture of the sign and the location, removes the device, 

and stores it for 3 months or discards it, depending on the 

value of the sign.

Safety

SRA’s position is that a correctly designed sign may be 

acceptable even on busy roads. In general, messages should 

be short, simple, and clear so they can be understood 

quickly. The text should be as short as possible and not 

include phone numbers or Web addresses. The sign should 

not be confused with or have the same meaning as a road 

sign. Signs parallel to the road are not allowed. SRA also 

imposes limitations on distances from the right-of-way as a 

function of the posted speed limit. Moving or changing 

messages place greater demand on road users. SRA evaluates picture change rates on a case-by-case basis. 

The Roadside Advertising Guidelines(39) include criteria to help 

assess the feasibility of a proposed sign (table 7, see next 

page). The criteria apply regardless of whether the proposed 

sign is located in or outside the right-of-way.

Around 2006, a private company contacted SRA with a 

request to install electronic billboards in the right-of-way. 

Normally, this type of request would have been denied. 

However, SRA decided to proceed with a trial evaluation 

in the Stockholm area, with a goal of examining potential 

safety impacts of this type of installation. A 2007 agreement between SRA and the private company allowed for 

the installation of 12 electronic signs on Highway E4, 

which carries 70,000 to 100,000 vehicles per day and is 

the most heavily traveled corridor in Sweden. The posted 

speed limit on this corridor varies from 70 to 100 km/h 

(44 to 62 mi/h).

Of the 12 signs originally proposed, eight are in place and 

SRA has issued a permit for a ninth (although it has not 

been installed yet). The remaining three signs most likely 

will not be installed because of lack of space on E4 where 

the signs could be located at a reasonable distance from 

ramps or other official road signs. As figure 9 shows, the 

signs are located immediately next to the roadway (with 

guardrail protection). The signs installed use light-emitting 

diode (LED) technology and are full color. The content 

consists of still frames that change at a nominal change rate 

of 4 seconds per frame. It is worth noting that SRA’s 

guideline for road signs specifies that a road sign should be 

static (i.e., shown for at least one minute). For advertising 

messages, the Roadside Advertising Guidelines specify that the 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 33
time an image is visible should be longer than the time it 

takes for a road user to pass the sign from where it is visible 

at the posted speed limit. 

SRA must approve every message, following the rules for 

other outdoor advertising signs. As part of the agreement, 

SRA can use 10 percent of the sign operating time for its 

traffic safety campaigns. SRA’s messages are typically short, 

such as “wear your seatbelt.”

The trial evaluation on E4, which started in February 2010 

and was scheduled for completion in 2011, addresses the 

following items:

Current literature. The body of knowledge is not 

satisfactory, although studies suggest that under 

similar conditions, electronic billboards can be 

distracting and are not a countermeasure for fatigue. 

Studies also indicate that location is a very important factor in deciding where to place the signs.

Driver opinion polls. SRA conducted an opinion 

poll that included 572 drivers who often travel past 

the signs. The drivers were assumed to be owners of 

the vehicles selected using information from the 

official vehicle registry. The drivers were interviewed 

by phone. SRA will conduct two followup driver 

opinion polls over the next year. Results from the 

initial poll indicated the following:

yThirty percent of drivers who noticed the signs 

had a positive or very positive attitude toward 

the signs, 30 percent were neutral, and 39 

percent had a negative or very negative attitude. 

One percent of drivers did not have an opinion.

ySixty percent of drivers indicated that the signs 

did not affect their perception of other signs 

and/or traffic-related information. However, 32 

percent of drivers reported being affected by the 

signs. Eight percent of drivers did not have an 

opinion.

yWhen asked whether the signs should be 

removed or kept in place, 25 percent of drivers 

said the signs should be kept, 45 percent of 

drivers said the signs should be removed, and 27 

percent were indifferent. Three percent of drivers 

had no opinion.

This initial poll took place during the sign 

calibration period when there were a number 

of complaints on the luminance levels of some of 

the signs. Some complaints were also about the 

signs in general.

Crashes and effects on traffic flow. Using archived 

traffic sensor data for the past 10 years, SRA will 

compare traffic patterns before and after installation 

of the signs. SRA will also evaluate crash rates in the 

vicinity of the signs.

Visual distraction. SRA will use an instrumented 

vehicle to collect standard driving performance 

measures, including vehicle speed, acceleration, lane 

position, eyeglance location, and video of the driver 

and driving environment. SRA will compare these 

performance measures against similar sections of 

roadway without electronic signs to determine if 

there is any impact from electronic billboards. 

Drivers will drive during daylight and nighttime 

hours (but not during rush hours).

Revenue Generation

The application fee for advertising signs in the right-of-way 

is SEK2,000 (US$272). The application fee for advertising 

signs outside the right-of-way is SEK600 (US$77). There is 

Table 7. Swedish Road Administration

criteria for sign assessment.(39)

Assessment Criteria

Place:

• What is the traffic environment? Is there anything 

the road user must have time to or be able to see?

• Does anything special happen on the road, which 

may require a maneuver such as a lane change or 

braking?

• Does the road user have ample time to see the 

advertising sign?

• Can inexperienced vehicle drivers deal with the 

advertising sign?

• Can the advertising sign be reached from a local 

road?

• Is visual guidance affected?

Design:

• Is the message static?

• Is the text short?

• Can the message be understood quickly?

• Are the sign and message easily understandable?

• Is the design unusual or particularly eye-catching?

• Can it attract exceptional attention?

• Will some form of moving, changing, or rolling 

pictures be shown?

• Can the sign obstruct visibility?

• Can the sign dazzle?

• Can the sign be struck by a vehicle and cause 

injuries?

• The text size should at least conform to the 

requirements for directional signs.

34 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
Figure 9. Trial evaluation of electronic signs on Highway E4 in Stockholm, Sweden.

Electronic signs located far from traffic control devices

Electronic signs in immediate vicinity of traffic control devices

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 35
no application fee in connection with the pilot project 

mentioned above, although SRA is reimbursed about 

SEK6,000 (US$817) for maintenance costs. No insurance 

is required by the sign companies under the pilot project.

Off the right-of-way, municipalities decide whether to allow 

advertising within their roads. If an SRA road goes through 

a municipality, both entities decide what type of advertising, if any, is allowed in the right-of-way. While SRA’s 

position is that no advertising is allowed in the right-ofway, most municipalities are less stringent than SRA. Sign 

content is regulated for ethical requirements by a separate, 

independent entity.

The Netherlands

Regulatory Framework

The state controls outdoor advertising on 3,100 km (2,000 

mi), or about 2 percent, of the roads in the Netherlands. 

The remaining 98 percent is controlled at the local level.

In the Netherlands, Rijkswaterstaat is responsible for 

maintaining the road right-of-way. The default maintenance zone is 15 m (49 ft) from the edge of the road, 

although it can vary depending on factors such as how 

much development there is in the area. Following Rijkswaterstaat’s Signage Guidelines,

(44) outdoor advertising in the 

maintenance zone is not allowed because of the risk of 

road user distraction. Typically, only traffic control devices 

are allowed in the maintenance zone, although Rijkswaterstaat does use the right-of-way to display messages on 

roadway projects and driver safety campaigns (figure 10). 

For example, the driver safety message “Bob blijft Bob tot 

hij weer thuis is” (“Bob remains Bob until he gets home”) 

is part of a designated driver public awareness campaign. In 

the campaign, Bob represents a highly reliable, sober 

person who is the designated driver.

Outside the maintenance zone, responsibility for outdoor 

advertising control sits with municipalities (in urban areas) 

or provinces (in rural areas). Practices vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (figure 11). The guidelines emphasize 

that outdoor advertising should not resemble traffic control 

devices or become a traffic safety hazard.

Design, Landscape, and Environment

Routeontwerp (route design) is a joint initiative of the 

ministries of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management; Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment; and 

Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality.(45) The focus of route 

design is to create consistency in the design of highways 

and increase the spatial quality of the roadway environment and its surroundings. One goal of the initiative is to 

reduce clutter along motorway corridors.

The first application of the route design approach is along 

Highway A12, from The Hague to the German border. For 

the analysis, the corridor was divided into 11 landscapes 

grouped into four categories: city, meadow, forest, and 

mosaic. For each landscape, the goal is to develop guiding 

design principles that can translate into consistent policies 

for conservation and land use management, including 

outdoor advertising control.

Safety

The Netherlands has one of the best traffic safety records 

in the world. For example, in 2007 the number of traffic 

fatalities per million inhabitants was 43, compared to 50 in 

the United Kingdom, 52 in Sweden, 60 in Germany, 72 in 

Figure 10. Signs displayed by Rijkswaterstaat along Highway A4 in the Netherlands.

36 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
Finland, 75 in Denmark, 77 in Australia, and 142 in the 

United States.(46) In 2010, the forecast was for traffic fatalities to total about 750, and the goal is to reduce this 

number to 500 by 2020.

In the 1990s, the Netherlands began implementing a 

“sustainable safety” policy. The policy goals are to prevent 

serious crashes and to minimize the severity of crashes if 

they do occur. The policy involves an integrated approach 

that includes infrastructure, drivers, and vehicles and 

considers principles such as road functionality, road 

design standardization, predictability of road user 

behavior, and a forgiving physical environment.

In practice, applying a sustainable safety policy involves 

designing to address the least favorable situation and the 

needs of the least capable road user (as opposed to just 

addressing average situations and the needs of average road 

users). At Rijkswaterstaat, this recognition resulted in the 

identification of 10 “golden rules” to help characterize road 

users and how they react to information they receive:(47)

Rule 1: The road user is self-centered. Road users 

pursue their own goals, not necessarily what is safe 

or socially acceptable.

Rule 2: The road user cannot do everything at 

once. People can process only a limited amount 

of information at one time. It takes time to process 

information, make decisions, and act accordingly.

Rule 3: You can advise the road user, but will the 

road user comply? It is not realistic to expect too 

much change in behavior from just communication, 

but communication does strengthen the effect of 

other measures.

Figure 11. Examples of outdoor advertising signs in Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 37
Rule 4: The road user only accepts measures 

the user perceives as useful. Policies should be 

perceived by users as logical and sensible.

Rule 5: The road user will surprise you. Road 

design and measures can have unintended consequences in the way road users behave. Users who 

feel safer (e.g., because of a system improvement) 

sometimes take more risks.

Rule 6: The road user has expectations and 

behaves accordingly. People do not like surprises 

on the road. Make sure that reality matches user 

expectations.

Rule 7: What if things go wrong with the system 

or the road user? If something fails with the system 

or the road user makes a mistake, the system should 

keep functioning and the error or failure should be 

corrected or mitigated.

Rule 8: Tell the road user only what is really 

important. Road users who are bombarded with too 

much information might choose the wrong information. Therefore, it is critical to present only 

information that is strictly necessary.

Rule 9: Do not confuse the road user. All information presented to road users, such as routing, signs, 

and pavement markings, should be consistent and 

correct.

Rule 10: Information presented to the road user 

must be visible, clear, and understandable.

Several of these golden rules can be applied to outdoor 

advertising control.

Recently, Rijkswaterstaat started a project to develop 

guidelines to address potential sources of road user distraction, considering the impact of new developments such as 

digital technology, public art, wind turbines, and buildings 

with an uncommon design. In developing the guidelines, 

Rijkswaterstaat recognized that relatively little is known 

about the potential relationship between outdoor advertising and crash rates. However, it also recognized that 

distractions could have a negative effect on safety, 

particularly under demanding traffic situations.

As part of the study, Rijkswaterstaat developed a set of 

criteria to categorize potential sources of road user distraction. The criteria include considering traffic characteristics 

(e.g., driving demand and road user expectations), object 

characteristics (e.g., conspicuity and processing time), and 

other principles (e.g., field of view and risk of blinding) 

(see table 8). Rijkswaterstaat evaluated objects along several 

road corridors in the Netherlands and concluded that only 

a small percentage of objects satisfied all criteria: 10 percent 

of all billboards and 50 percent of all road information 

boards. Rijkswaterstaat is evaluating whether to revise the 

application of the criteria in table 8.

Table 8. Criteria to assess potential sources

of road user distraction.

Placement in relation to other objects on the road: 

• Is the object located within 200 m (656 ft) of an exit 

or entrance ramp, or before or after a sign or other 

traffic control devices?

Placement in relation to driving-relevant information:

• More than 13 m (43 ft) from the side of the road

• Not on a curve where it might incorrectly give the 

impression that the road extends in the direction of 

the sign

Conspicuity:

• No moving objects, images, or text

• No retroreflective colors

• Not much brighter than the surrounding area

Processing time:

• No more than six items in the main message and six 

items for other information

• No controversial content, vagueness, or too many 

different types of signs at one location

• No similarities to traffic control devices

Route or road assessment:

• Object must not cause road users to assess the road 

alignment or route incorrectly

Lighting: 

• Object is not blinding (e.g., by using bright lights 

at night)

United Kingdom—England

Regulatory Framework

The Highways Agency is responsible for operating and 

maintaining the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England, 

which includes motorways and all-purpose trunk roads, 

covering some 7,000 km (4,000 mi). For the most part, 

motorways and trunk roads in the London area are the 

responsibility of local jurisdictions.

Several laws and regulations are relevant to outdoor 

advertising control in England. The Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990 provides the framework for regulating 

outdoor advertising on the basis of public safety and public 

38 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
amenity.(48) The act also establishes the power to regulate 

outdoor advertising at the local level and the powers 

needed to enforce the regulations. Public safety is not 

limited to road safety; crime prevention and detection 

are also important (e.g., if an advertising sign obscures 

surveillance cameras or speed cameras). As in the HBA 

in the United States, the definition of outdoor advertising 

in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is quite broad, 

resulting in case law confirmations that innovations such 

as advertising beamed onto a building or a recognizable 

symbol or letter can be considered advertising in the 

United Kingdom.

The Highways Act 1980 enables road authorities to remove 

structures that cause obstructions and unauthorized signs 

from the highway right-of-way.(49) Commercial advertising 

is not allowed in the SRN right-of-way. The Town and 

Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) 

Regulations 2007 establish the conditions for deemed 

consent (automatically granted by legislation) and express 

consent (applies to other advertising for which it is necessary to submit an application).(50) All outdoor advertising, 

whether enabled by deemed consent or express consent, 

must comply with the following five standard 

conditions:(51)

It is kept clean and tidy.

It is kept in a safe condition.

It has the permission of the owner of the site where 

it is displayed (including the road authority if the 

sign is to be placed on highway land).

It does not obscure or hinder the interpretation of 

official transportation signs or otherwise make any 

means of transportation hazardous.

It must be removed carefully when required by the 

planning authority.

Expressed consents may have additional conditions (e.g., 

that a display should be removed by a certain date). The 

regulations also describe the conditions for discontinuance 

of deemed consent and revocation of express consent 

(usually on amenity or safety grounds). Removal of illegal 

advertising signs in the right-of-way of local roads is the 

responsibility of local highway authorities (which might 

not be the same as the local planning authorities (LPAs) 

that issue express consent).

Several supporting documents assist in interpreting and 

applying the laws and regulations. For example, Planning 

Policy Guidance 19 (PPG19) provides additional information on the use of outdoor advertising control to help 

improve the appearance of cities, towns, and the 

countryside.(52) The guidance covers application discussions 

and procedures, exemptions from detailed control, and 

temporary and permanent advertising. Spatial Planning 

Advice Note SP 03/10 is a guide that helps Highways 

Agency staff review outdoor advertising proposals.(53) The 

guide describes the advertising control process and recommended practices on how Highways Agency staff should 

assess and respond to outdoor advertising applications. SP 

03/10 is a revision of a previous version (SP 02/09) that 

clarifies with examples cases that require expressed consent, 

cases that require expressed consent and planning permission (e.g., public art that includes an advertising display), 

and cases that only require planning permission (e.g., 

public art with no advertising display). The revised version 

also describes the regulatory framework in more detail and 

highlights the need to review advertising applications in a 

public safety context.

The regulations include 16 classes of advertising for 

which deemed consent applies, a sample of which 

includes on-premise signs; flag advertising; signs used to 

screen buildings or construction sites; temporary advertising; advertising on highway structures or land, such as 

bus shelters, information kiosks, pavement, and pedestrian areas; and advertising inside buildings. Illumination 

is allowed in several classes, although restrictions 

generally apply.

Of the 16 classes of advertising for which deemed consent 

applies, two involve express consent. One class involves 

advertising that has been displayed continuously for the 

preceding 10 years without express consent, provided 

the advertising sign, device, or display has not undergone 

alterations such as illumination, moving elements, enlargement, or change from a static to a digital display. The 

second class is advertising that has been displayed continuously and for which the expiration period of an express 

consent (normally 5 years) has passed. In other words, after 

a sign has been displayed for 5 years under express consent, 

the regulations automatically enable the sign to continue to 

be displayed under deemed consent. The only exception is 

if an LPA prohibits the continued display of the advertising.

The Highways Act 1980 establishes that local authorities 

can issue permits for advertising located on certain structures in the highway right-of-way (e.g., on pedestrian 

bridges, sidewalks, and subways).(49) Sponsorship of 

certain roundabouts, bus shelters, and other sites is 

allowed, subject to local assessment.

LPAs are required to consult with other appropriate 

agencies before granting an express consent (although the 

final decision on whether to grant or deny a proposal sits 

with the LPA). For example, LPAs must consult with a 

highway authority on any advertising that includes moving 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 39
parts or flashing lights or that is visible from a highway. 

LPAs must consult with the Highways Agency if the LPA 

believes that granting consent might affect safety on any 

trunk road.

There is no statutory requirement for LPAs to request public 

comment on advertising sign proposals. However, LPAs 

often request public comment if an application is likely to 

affect the amenity of the area in a significant way. Landscaping is usually not included in advertising sign proposals because LPAs do not consider landscaping a factor that 

can reduce the overall amenity impact of signs. Most LPAs 

tend to discourage permanent billboards (they were more 

common in the past), which further reduces the need to 

include landscaping in the advertising proposal.

The Highways Agency does not have information on the 

operational and environmental impacts and costs associated with new advertising technologies. However, LPAs 

are beginning to consider the environmental impact of 

electronic displays when reviewing applications for 

express consent.

As mentioned, Spatial Planning Advice Note SP 03/10 

describes outdoor advertising review practices and procedures in the Highways Agency.(53) The process includes the 

following major phases:

Preapplication. Preapplication discussions normally 

take place between the applicant and the LPA. The 

Highways Agency normally is not involved in this 

phase, except in some cases related to public safety 

in which the prospective applicant contacts the 

Highways Agency. Currently, the level of preapplication inquiries to the Highways Agency is low.

Submission. In this phase, the LPA receives the 

application and determines whether its content and 

accuracy are sufficient. The LPA is required to 

consult with the Highways Agency if the LPA 

believes a grant of consent may affect the safety of 

SRN users. The LPA is also required to consult with 

the Highways Agency about applications for signs 

with moving features, moving parts, or flashing 

lights visible from a highway.

Assessment to recommendation. Approval or 

rejection can be issued only in the interest of 

amenity and public safety. LPAs and the Highways 

Agency typically do not regulate advertising content. 

This responsibility sits with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a self-regulatory organization 

of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. 

ASA acts through codes of advertising practice and a 

protocol to investigate complaints.(54) LPAs can 

control advertising formatting such as color, size of 

lettering or symbols, amount of text, and type of 

materials as long as it is in the interest of amenity 

and public safety.

Responding to consultations. The Highways 

Agency’s response to the LPA should address the 

following elements:

yReferences to relevant sections of planning policy 

to emphasize that any considerations are based on 

sound policy support

yReferences to general information and research 

into crashes caused by driver distraction, in 

particular current crash and traffic data, to make an 

assessment of potential impact on public safety

yReview of local circumstances that may apply to 

the specific proposal in question, particularly in 

situations that demand special road user attention 

(e.g., in relation to complexity of road sections, 

intersections, and driver environment and 

overload)

yReferences to precedent or planning history if the 

planning agency intends to recommend refusal of 

an application

Planning determination, resolution, and decision. 

The LPA must notify the applicant of its decision 

within 8 weeks of the receipt of a valid application. 

Although not a requirement, the Highways Agency 

has found that monitoring the progress of the 

application is a good practice, particularly in 

situations that may involve public safety issues.

Appeal. An applicant has the right to appeal a 

refusal for express consent, a grant approval subject 

to conditions, or a discontinuance notice within 8 

weeks of the date of the LPA’s decision unless an 

extension has been agreed on. Appeal of a discontinuance notice must be made before the notice 

takes effect.

Postdecision. Once approval for express consent has 

been issued, the LPA retains an oversight role. In 

most cases, the Highways Agency’s role is limited, 

but it can challenge the LPA’s decision in court 

through a judicial review process within 3 months 

of the LPA decision date. The challenge can relate 

only to the legality of the decision, not the merits 

of the case.

Development and enforcement of conditions. 

Once an outdoor advertising sign has been displayed, the LPA’s role is to assess whether the sign 

has been displayed in accordance with all of the 

40 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
conditions in the consent. The Highways Agency 

suggests special monitoring by agency personnel 

whenever it has recommended specific consent 

conditions or obligations, particularly in situations 

in which the LPA’s resources limit effective monitoring (even though it is the LPA’s responsibility to 

ensure proper monitoring).

Although outdoor advertising control works in most 

situations, regulators face a number of challenges. For 

example, the displays in figure 12(a) are located at the 

iconic Piccadilly Circus intersection in London. This site 

has never been granted express consent by regulators. 

Planning authorities fought but could not block an update 

from neon to digital technology. Although the signs are 

recognized as a tourist attraction, the signs are at best 

tolerated by regulators and are, therefore, strictly controlled 

to stop them from spreading to neighboring buildings.

Likewise, the displays in figures 12(b), (c), and (d) were 

refused by the LPAs (on amenity and safety grounds), 

but gained temporary consent on appeal by the English 

Planning Inspectorate. The twin signs in figure 12(b) are 

located on a relatively straight section of road with historically low crash rates. The sign in figures 12(c) and 12(d) 

(called “The Torch”) is on a local street, but can be clearly 

seen from highway M4. Note the large number of words 

on the display.

Displaying outdoor advertising without consent (deemed 

or express) is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom. 

The maximum fine per display is £2,500 (US$4,000) in 

England. Minor advertising signs are usually subject to 

fines in the region of £100 (US$160). However, court 

actions have been as high as £39,000 (US$62,000) in a 

single prosecution. Higher penalties apply for third convictions for certain forms of advertising in London (e.g., up to 

Figure 12. Sample of outdoor advertising signs in the London area.

(a) Signs at Piccadilly Circus (b) Twin signs en route to Heathrow Airport

(c) “Torch” sign along Highway M4 (d) Closer view of the “Torch”

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 41
£20,000 (US$32,000) for building wraps). Each unlawful 

display can be fined independently. This is particularly 

relevant in the case of digital billboards on which different 

images rotate every few seconds because each image is 

treated as a separate offense.

Safety

As mentioned, LPAs must consult with the Highways 

Agency if the LPA believes granting consent might affect 

public safety on any trunk road (therefore leaving it to the 

LPA to make that determination). To provide guidance to 

LPAs, Communities and Local Government Circular 

03/2007 lists signs and conditions that might “cause 

danger” to road users and should trigger a consultation 

with the Highways Agency, including the following:(55)

Signs that obstruct or impair sight lines at corners, 

curves, junctions, or highway access points

Signs that obstruct a road user’s view, reduce the 

clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device, 

or are likely to distract road users

Signs that leave insufficient lateral or vertical 

clearances

Illuminated signs (using either flashing or static 

lights) with illumination that is directly visible from 

the road, that could be confused with a traffic 

control device, or that could dazzle or distract road 

users, particularly in wet weather

Signs that include moving or apparently moving 

elements in the display, or successive individual 

frames that do not display the whole message

Signs that require close study (such as public 

information panels) and are located so that readers 

would be insufficiently protected from passing 

vehicles or passing pedestrians are obstructed

Signs that resemble traffic control devices

Signs that include directional elements and might 

cause confusion (e.g., if they contain a large arrow, 

invite drivers to turn on a main road or where there 

is fast-moving traffic, invite drivers to turn but are 

located so close to the turning point that there is not 

enough time to signal and turn safely, or are very 

close to other signs or official traffic signs)

Spatial Planning Advice Note SP 03/10 includes a series of 

questions to help reviewers assess public safety conditions 

associated with advertising sign applications in the context 

of the road, traffic, and advertising environment.(53)

Road-related questions include the following:

What is the speed limit?

Has the speed limit been lowered to reduce or 

prevent crashes?

Would the proposed sign be located at or close to 

an intersection?

Does the stretch of road feature multiple 

intersections?

Are there pedestrian crossings nearby?

What is the road alignment?

Are visibility and forward stopping distance up to 

standard?

Would the sign have a negative impact on sight 

lines?

Would the sign obscure official road signs or traffic 

signals?

Would the sign be confused with official road signs 

and signals or would directional or warning signs 

be missed?

Are any special conditions in place or planned that 

demand higher levels of driver attention (e.g., active 

traffic management)?

Would the sign cause distraction because of conflict 

with countdown markers, merges, or splits?

Is the road prone to ice or flooding?

Additional considerations for higher order highways 

include the following:

Are traffic flows particularly high?

What is the crash rate on the highway section next to 

a specific site?

Is the site in the area of influence of an interchange?

Is the site in a decisionmaking zone?

Will the sign compete with warning signs, overhead 

gantry signs, or variable message signs?

Is there a full hard shoulder?

Are lane widths particularly narrow?

Is the section elevated (providing less margin 

for error)?

42 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
Traffic-related questions include the following:

Crashes:

yDoes the road have a higher-than-average 

crash rate?

yIs an intersection or interchange a crash 

black spot?

yIs there a crash cluster near the proposal?

yHave any road safety improvements been 

completed or are any planned?

Speed:

yDoes speed vary considerably between peak and 

offpeak periods?

yHow does recorded speed vary from the posted 

speed limit?

yIs the section of road high speed?

Weaving:

yDoes traffic weave because of congestion or 

proximity to intersections?

Congestion:

yIs there stop-and-go traffic, which might result 

in rear-end crashes, requiring greater driver 

concentration?

Traffic composition:

yIs heavy commercial vehicle traffic significant 

enough to obscure the view of advertising signs, 

making it difficult for drivers to absorb advertising 

messages in one pass?

Advertising sign-related questions include the following:

How large is the sign? A large sign is not necessarily 

detrimental because it may be easier for viewers to 

assimilate its message.

Is the application for fixed content or a changeable 

message display?

From what distance is it visible? If the sign is only 

visible for a short time period, it will be more 

difficult to read it.

Does the sign have moving parts or multiple 

messages that may divert attention for a 

longer period?

Where is the sign located in relation to the road and 

right-of-way?

What is the sign’s angle in relation to the road (i.e., 

do drivers have to look away from the road to read 

the sign)?

Revenue Generation

LPAs charge a fee for assessing advertising proposals. 

Application fees are £95 (US$137) for on-premise signs 

and £335 (US$482) for other advertising, such as billboards. Billboards on buildings affect the taxable value 

of the property.(56)

United Kingdom—Scotland

Regulatory Framework

The state controls outdoor advertising on 3,400 km 

(2,000 mi), or about 6 percent, of the roads in Scotland. 

The remaining 94 percent is controlled at the local level.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1990 

provides the framework for regulating outdoor advertising 

on the basis of public safety and public amenity.(57) As in 

England, responsibility for outdoor advertising control is at 

the local level. Policies on outdoor advertising vary from 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The basic policy in Scotland is not to allow outdoor 

advertising on public roads, and most applications are 

refused. With some exceptions (e.g., directional tourist 

signs, which are not considered advertising signs), outdoor 

advertising is not allowed in the right-of-way of the trunk 

road network. Outside the right-of-way of trunk roads, 

local authorities request Transport Scotland’s opinion on 

advertising proposals located within 240 ft (73 m) of the 

road. To evaluate proposals, Transport Scotland uses a 

policy similar to the one developed by Glasgow City 

Council.(58)

Design, Landscape, and Environment

Scotland is increasingly aware of the visual effects caused by 

the proliferation of signs and other items along rural roads. 

This issue is particularly important in Scotland, which 

considers rural scenery one of its main assets. Furniture 

such as road signs of various types, light poles, fences, 

marker posts, and bus shelters are typically the responsibility of the road authority. While street furniture serves a 

clear purpose, Scotland’s position is that its intrusive visual 

effects should not diminish road users’ experience of 

the countryside.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 43
To minimize this impact, Transport Scotland has published two guidelines: Road Furniture in the Countryside

and Trunk Road and Motorway Tourist Signposting Policy and 

Guidance.

(59,60) Together, they provide best practices for 

designing signs and other items to help maintain safety 

and provide useful information to road users while 

avoiding adverse visual effects. As figure 13 shows, the 

planning and design process involves a series of steps that 

include conducting an analysis to determine the need for 

the street furniture (including an evaluation of potential 

alternatives) and developing a vision and plan to implement the most appropriate design solution. The level of 

Figure 13. Process to determine the need for street furniture along rural roads in Scotland.(59)

(Courtesy of Transport Scotland)

44 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
detail of the analysis depends on factors such as whether 

the road is new or existing, project scale, landscape 

setting, and road importance. 

To apply the guideline, the process includes a checklist of 

activities (figure 14) that should be completed. A critical 

set of activities involves evaluating the proposed street 

furniture (e.g., a road sign) in the context of other existing 

and proposed signs and the overall road environment to 

minimize visual impacts. Examples of potential solutions 

that need to be evaluated include combining signs, 

eliminating unnecessary signs, relocating signs, and 

painting the back of signs with a color that resembles the 

landscape. In the case of tourist signs, approval by the 

road authority is conditional on the removal of existing 

tourist advertising signs where they are considered a 

distraction to road users.(60)

Safety

The Glasgow City Council policy recognizes that while 

distractions can occur, the sources of distraction should be 

controlled, kept to a minimum, and restricted to locations 

where they are less likely to cause crashes.(58) As a result, it 

is imperative for advertising signs not to distract drivers or 

interfere with the visibility of intersections, the road ahead 

(particularly at curves), road signs, traffic signals, and 

pedestrian crossings.

The policy includes criteria for controlling advertising signs 

at straight alignments, unsignalized intersections, roundabouts, and traffic signals. The policy also includes criteria 

for moving displays. For example, the criteria for straight 

alignments are as follows (figure 15, see next page):

Advertising signs must not interfere with the visibility of any road sign. This restriction results in a 

minimum distance D from the edge of the road 

(table 9, see next page), beyond which signs may 

be permissible.

Advertising signs should not be sources of distraction to drivers. Therefore, signs should be located 

outside the cone of peripheral vision. This restriction 

results in a minimum distance G from the edge of 

the road (table 9), beyond which signs may be 

permissible.

In general, D is smaller than G. Therefore, if a sign 

is approved on the basis of D only, it is necessary 

to control the risk of distraction. This is done by 

determining the time it takes to read the advertising 

sign while driving and adding the corresponding 

clear view distance (V in table 9) to a safe stopping 

distance to avoid a potential hazard down the road. Figure 14. Checklist for evaluating road furniture along 

rural roads in Scotland.(59) (Courtesy of Transport Scotland)

C hecklist

Context

1. Establish reason for road furniture proposal

2. Confirm problems to be addressed and 

objectives to be met

3. Establish if furniture provision is warranted

4. Undertake objective analysis and, if necessary, 

an appropriate risk assessment

5. Consider request against road furniture vision

6. Establish if tangible benefits will result

7. Confirm if provision is justified or if alternative 

methods of meeting needs are appropriate

Provision

8. Site visit

• Record existing furniture provision (including 

type, location, condition any other relevant 

details)

• Review local functional context

• Review local landscape and visual context

• Identify any special problems at the 

particular location

9. Outline range of potential options

10. Consider alternative options in relation to furniture vision and audit

11. Check level of provision at similar locations 

on route

12. Select most appropriate option for detailed 

development

Positioning and Design

13. Establish all relevant positional and 

design parameters:

• Distance from edge of carriageway

• Linear spacing criteria

• Mounting or fixing heights

• Material options

• Design/type options

• Size/shape/colour criteria

14. Consider potential for use of backdrop to 

minimize visual impact

15. Consider detailed positioning in relation to 

existing provision

16. Coordinate new elements with existing provision

17. Consider potential for amalgamation with 

existing elements

18. Consider potential for use of customization or 

nonstandard element, if appropriate

19. Develop detailed design proposals and review 

on site—modify as necessary/desirable

20. Prepare appropriate drawings/specifications

21. Implement

22. Check work on site

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 45
Examples of potential hazards include a standing 

queue, an intersection, or a curve. The policy 

assumes that drivers can read the advertising 

sign if the angle between the driver and the 

face of the display is between 20° and 90°.

For roundabouts, the policy includes a distance of 15 m 

(49 ft) around the roundabout within which advertising 

signs are not allowed. For signalized intersections, advertising signs are not allowed within a 130° angle behind any 

signal head. Advertising signs are also not allowed if they 

block the signal head in any way.

Table 9. Exclusion zones beside roads and clear

view distances for advertising signs.(58)

Speed, 

mi/h (km/h)

D, ft (m) G, ft (m) V, ft (m)

20 (32) 4 (1.2) 98 (30) 34 (10)

30 (48) 6 (1.8) 98 (30) 50 (15)

40 (64) 8 (2.4) 98 (30) 67 (20)

50 (80) n/a 165 (5) 84 (26)

60 (97) n/a 200 (61) 100 (30)

70 (113) n/a 240 (73) 117 (36)

Revenue Generation

Figure 16 shows a sample of advertising signs allowed in 

the Glasgow area. Glasgow has implemented a program in 

which it uses empty lots on a temporary basis to generate 

revenue through advertising. Bids are received for individual sign sites on a flat-rate lease basis. The contracts, which 

expire in 6 years, include elements such as landscaping and 

fencing needs.

In the downtown area, Glasgow used advertising to 

improve its tourist information panels. The original 

panels were unattractive and difficult to read. An agreement with a major advertiser enabled Glasgow to install 

much more attractive tourism panels (figure 17). As part 

of the agreement, the company installed or upgraded 249 

tourist information panels and was allowed to install 76 

commercial advertising panels at new locations throughout the city. In general, the tourism signs (mainly in the 

downtown area), which did not have advertising, were 

well received by the public. Complaints received were 

mostly about signs that had advertising (e.g., if there was 

not enough space to walk or ride a bicycle around a sign 

or if a sign was too big).

A major initiative in Glasgow, which started in the late 

1990s, was the upgrade of bus shelters. The city was 

interested in a system that would maximize value and 

revenue and reduce maintenance expenditures. Glasgow’s 

expectation was to receive about £100 (US$144) per shelter 

per year, for a total of £36,000 (US$51,786) per year.

Figure 15. Exclusion zone next to roads.(58) (Courtesy of Glasgow City Council)

46 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe

G

D

V

Clear View of Advert

Advert

Not Permitted

Stopping

Distance

Typical

Queue
Figure 16. Examples of advertising signs allowed in the Glasgow area. (Courtesy of Transport Scotland)

Figure 17. Tourist attraction panels in Glasgow.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 47
Nine companies expressed interest, three of which were 

selected to bid. The basis for comparison was a revenue 

formula in which the net annual income would be calculated by subtracting any maintenance costs incurred by the 

council from the annual income. The proponents were 

instructed to bid on a per-shelter basis, considering the 

need to provide for future connections such as changeable 

message signs to display bus arrival times (the city would 

provide the panels). The total bids received were £1.1 

million, £1.8 million, and £2.9 million (US$1.5 million, 

US$2.6 million, and US$4.2 million), all in excess of what 

the city originally expected. 

The contract was awarded to the highest bidder, with a total 

duration of 15 years and reviews every 5 years. The first 

shelters were installed in 2000. The company selected was 

responsible for obtaining planning, advertising, and road 

permits for each sign location. The total turnaround time 

for completing the permits, removing an existing shelter, 

and installing a new one was targeted at 8 weeks to minimize disruption. To accelerate the process, the city made 

sure that two officials were assigned to assist with the 

permitting process. Without this teaming arrangement, 

the process would have been much longer (typically 3 to 

6 months). The contract included a liability insurance 

requirement and a prohibition on advertising 

alcohol or tobacco products. In general, content 

is self-regulated through ASA.

A total of 580 shelters were installed, 360 of which 

involved replacement of older structures and for 

which planning and road permits already existed. 

Figure 18 shows the layout of a new bus shelter 

and a changeable message sign displaying bus 

arrival information.

Figure 18. Upgraded bus shelters in Glasgow.

(Courtesy of Transport Scotland)

48 Chapter 3: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Europe
The scan team was interested in how other countries 

regulate outdoor advertising both inside and outside the 

roadway right-of-way. In particular, it wanted to learn about 

new techniques to enforce laws and balance competing 

interests (including public involvement); factors to consider when developing policy, regulations, and enforcement; and considerations such as safety, environmental 

concerns, and revenue generation.

In March 2010, the scan team visited Australia, Sweden, 

the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to compare and 

contrast how other countries regulate outdoor advertising 

both inside and outside the roadway right-of-way. It also 

studied innovative practices in Japan (Appendix D).

A set of questions was sent to the host countries before the 

team visited them to frame the discussion around five 

major topics:

Laws, policies, and enforcement 

Program management 

Stakeholder, community, and citizen involvement 

Environmental impacts, economic benefits, and 

revenue generation 

Safety

Summary of Observations—Similarities

In most of the countries visited, the team noted issues and 

interests similar to those in the United States.

Laws, Policies, and Enforcement

Enforcement practices vary between regions 

and states.

Regulators attempt to develop objective criteria 

for decisionmakers with mixed success.

Program Management

Interest is growing in commercial advertising 

(street furniture) on transportation equipment 

and facilities.

Time and staffing costs exceed funds generated from 

permit fees.

Accurate, up-to-date inventories are lacking in some 

jurisdictions.

Stakeholder, Community, and Citizen 

Involvement

Decisionmakers experience political pressure at 

many levels.

Stakeholders question approval and denial 

decisions.

With the exception of Japan, policymaking and 

decisions involve regulators and the regulated with 

little input from communities.

Environmental Impacts, Economic Benefits, 

and Revenue Generation

Local jurisdictions form partnerships to generate 

outdoor advertising revenue.

There is some interest in generating revenue inside 

the right-of-way using commercial electronic 

variable message signs and removing the limitation 

on commercial use of advertising inside the 

right-of-way.

Safety

Common interest exists in regulating new technologies to minimize driver distraction.

Goals focus on reducing crashes and fatalities.

Signs that resemble official signs are prohibited.

There is interest in research on the safety impacts 

of outdoor advertising. The body of research in this 

area in the United States and abroad continues to 

increase. In all of the countries visited, concern is 

increasing about the use of electronic signs and 

their potential impact on traffic and public safety, 

prompting an interest in conducting research in this 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 49

Chapter 4: Summary of Observations
area. Appendix E lists some of the research discussed 

during the scanning study.

Summary of Observations—

Differences

Key differences were observed in each area studied. 

Laws, Policies, and Enforcement

State and federal responsibility for outdoor advertising control was limited to high-level and national 

routes. The United States, in contrast, has about 

43,000 mi (69,202 km) on the Interstate System 

and 261,000 mi (420,038 km) on the Federal-aid 

primary system, for a total 304,000 mi (489,240 

km) with controlled outdoor advertising. In 1991, 

the National Highway System was created with 

about 164,000 mi (263,932 km). The 141,000 

primary-system mi (226,917 km) that were not on 

the NHS on June 1, 1991, remain controlled for 

outdoor advertising and account for nearly one-half 

of the control route miles.

For permitting purposes, both on-premise and 

off-premise signs are regulated and no distinction 

is made between conforming and nonconforming 

signs. Unlike the United States, most of the countries visited do not struggle with the two biggest 

issues that confound HBA regulators: conforming 

versus nonconforming signs and off-premise versus 

on-premise signs. Because of streamlined laws and 

regulations, these issues either do not exist or their 

impact is much lower than in the United States. 

Signs are either legal or illegal and all advertising 

signs in the regulated area (whether on- or 

off-premise) are subject to the same rules 

and regulations.

In all of the countries visited, planning and 

environmental legislation typically provides the 

basic structure that defines jurisdictional boundaries 

(i.e., which agencies are responsible for which land), 

who is responsible for processing and managing 

which types of outdoor advertising permits, and 

what level of interagency consultation is required or 

recommended. Highway legislation typically defines 

specific roadway agency responsibilities (e.g., to 

ensure that traffic safety regulations and requirements are met). In some cases, the legislation 

enables the highway agency to remove signs that 

do not meet those requirements. 

Typically, local or regional authorities are responsible for outdoor advertising permits outside the 

right-of-way of major transportation corridors, but 

they are also required to consult with a roadway 

agency to verify that the proposed sign is not a traffic 

safety hazard. Triggers for consultation vary. For 

example, the distance threshold ranges from a fixed 

distance from the highway to any distance if the sign 

is visible from the highway. In most cases, the local 

authority has the discretion to judge whether a sign 

is a potential traffic safety hazard before consulting 

with the highway agency (in other words, consulting 

with the highway agency is optional, which most 

highway agencies visited consider a weakness in the 

legislation). To keep the number of applications to 

review within manageable limits, some highway 

agencies review only certain types of permit applications (e.g., animated or electronic signs within a 

specified distance from a state-maintained road). 

Although highway agencies typically do not have 

veto power (i.e., the ultimate decision to approve or 

deny a proposal is at the local level), local authorities frequently accept the recommendation from 

the highway agency.

New laws and amendments are not applied to 

existing signs that have legal permits, so there are 

few or no nonconforming signs until permits 

expire and are up for renewal.

For regulatory control purposes, signs can be 

removed without compensation (a permit is treated 

as a privilege, not a property right). Some, but not 

all, countries reimbursed sign owners for actual 

removal costs. 

Sign businesses, site owners, and sign owners 

can incur penalties for noncompliance.

Program Management

Agencies in the countries visited rely more on safety 

factors and the relationship between the sign and 

the road environment for permitting decisions. In 

several countries, the study team found examples 

of robust, well-thought-out guidelines and requirements for submitting and reviewing outdoor permit 

applications, which could provide the foundation 

for best-practice outdoor advertising control procedures in the United States. Some of the best examples cover a range of items—including design, 

impact on surrounding areas and vistas, and public 

and traffic safety—and require applicants to demonstrate how proposed installations address those 

items. Examples of guidelines and documentation 

requirements worth considering include those 

developed by RTA in New South Wales, TMR in 

Queensland, and Transport Scotland. Also worth 

50 Chapter 4: Summary of Observations
considering are the 10 golden rules that Rijkswaterstaat in the Netherlands developed to characterize 

road users and how they react to information they 

receive. These golden rules resulted from the application of a sustainable safety policy that involves 

designing to address the least favorable situation and 

the needs of the least capable road user rather than 

average situations and average road users.

The study team perceived a strong interest by the 

agencies visited in developing comprehensive 

inventories of outdoor advertising signs. Some 

countries have developed or are developing 

inventories and databases to support the outdoor 

advertising control process, but most efforts are not 

comprehensive. The advertising industry in Australia has developed an inventory, possible through 

the Measurement of Outdoor Visibility and Exposure system, that contains data on about 60,000 

individual advertising faces (including signs on 

road furniture and inside shopping centers), such 

as location coordinates, size, orientation, and 

whether the face is illuminated. The industry uses 

these characteristics to estimate the total number of 

visual contacts and develop media campaigns. The 

scan team’s assessment is that similar inventories 

could be developed in the United States and used 

for a variety of applications, including monitoring 

the permit status, age, and other characteristics of 

permitted legal signs; conducting spatial analyses 

to determine potential conflicts and feasibility of 

new signs; examining issues with on-premise signs; 

and developing more accurate assessments of 

nonconforming signs.

Agencies in the countries visited have considerable 

control over message formatting, such as setting 

font size and prohibiting phone numbers and 

e-mail addresses. Most countries regulate the 

physical aspects of outdoor advertising signs (e.g., 

sign size, height, structure, and graphic standards), 

but not the message itself. In Australia and the 

United Kingdom, message content is self-regulated 

through tools and protocols managed by advertising industry associations. Most countries have 

tighter billboard size and height standards than the 

United States. For example, billboards tend to be 

smaller and lower to make sure the sign does not 

dominate the skyline. Most countries have adopted 

guidelines or requirements to standardize the 

physical characteristics of advertising signs.

Permit terms for advertising signs are longer, but 

finite (e.g., 15 years). Signs have a fixed expiration 

date, after which it is necessary to submit a new 

application that must be reviewed under current 

standards, with no or few exceptions. In the United 

States, in comparison, issues related to nonconforming signs (which are not declining in number as 

originally envisioned in the HBA) consume a 

disproportionate amount of regulators’ time. 

Although no statistical data were available, the scan 

team’s perception was that countries with strict 

permit expiration date policies handled problems 

such as nonconforming signs much more effectively 

than countries with relatively lax expiration policies. 

Nonconforming signs are one of the major problems affecting outdoor advertising control in the 

United States. In the countries visited, a permit does 

not carry a property interest and, depending on the 

situation, can be revoked.

The study team found evidence of efforts to develop 

constructive relationships between regulators and 

the outdoor advertising industry at both the national 

and state levels, particularly in Australia. In the 

United States, in comparison, the relationship 

between regulators and the outdoor advertising 

industry is frequently acrimonious. Examples of 

initiatives the study team found in Australia include 

regular meetings between regulators and advertising 

industry representatives, proactive discussions on 

specific policies, and standardization of policies 

across states. From a regulator’s perspective, meeting 

with industry representatives helps regulators 

understand not just the industry needs, but also 

where the industry is headed. Feedback received by 

the study team indicates that negotiations with the 

advertising industry can be effective to the extent 

that regulators have the ability to clearly state up 

front which control issues are negotiable and 

which are nonnegotiable.

In most countries visited, highway agencies and 

local authorities need to interact on permit applications that are outside the right-of-way, but are within 

a certain distance of or visible from the transportation corridor. Usually, communication protocols 

have evolved over time to formalize and facilitate 

communications between agencies. 

Outdoor advertising control at the agencies visited 

involves personnel in a variety of departments and 

specialty areas, including operations, safety, planning, maintenance, and human factors. By comparison, outdoor advertising control in the United States 

is typically managed by right-of-way or maintenance 

departments.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 51
Stakeholder, Community, and Citizen 

Involvement

Local planning of, regulatory involvement in, and 

control of sign permits are greater in the countries 

visited. All areas were under some control, designation, or zoning; no areas were unzoned because of 

more rigorous, comprehensive local planning for 

land use management. All of the countries have 

strong land use, planning, and environmental 

legislation and regulations, covering all jurisdictions, although philosophical differences exist (e.g., 

some countries have a more centralized approach 

to planning at the state level than is customary in 

the United States). In contrast to the United States, 

where outdoor advertising control focuses primarily on zoning, spacing, and lighting considerations, 

in most of the countries visited outdoor advertising 

control is an integral component of planning and 

environmental legislation, regulations, and associated processes. This integration makes it easier to 

implement policies and regulations that encourage 

outdoor advertising practices that are more consistent with modern urban and rural design principles 

than is common in the United States, where many 

nonurban areas do not have planning or land 

use regulation.

England and Japan use comprehensive campaigns 

to remove illegal signs in neighborhoods as part of 

a broader economic regeneration and revitalization 

effort. Japan also mandates citizen involvement and 

local community landscape control plans for signing 

requirements through an outdoor advertising 

management council.

Advertising management plans are required. 

In addition to the design assessment guidelines 

mentioned previously, countries are exploring a 

variety of ways to improve communications. In 

Queensland, Australia, AMPs are tools for implementing outdoor advertising policies in concert with 

local agencies and other stakeholders. The purpose 

of AMPs is to develop a structure and document 

processes to manage and control advertising, set 

parameters against which proposals are assessed, 

address vegetation and landscaping concerns, and 

ensure that the location of all proposed advertising 

devices is consistent with the location of existing 

and future devices.

Opportunity for public participation during the 

review of individual permit applications varies 

widely, from no participation to opportunity to 

provide feedback in certain situations in which the 

anticipated social impact of a proposed installation 

is significant. One Australian state is reevaluating 

its policy to formalize and include community 

input on billboards as it does on other transportation projects. In several countries, it is common to 

have lists of proposed installations posted on 

bulletin boards (or, increasingly, on the Internet). 

It is also common for the permitting agency to post 

a notice (e.g., in a newspaper) with instructions on 

how the public can provide feedback. In Australia, 

if a proposed sign is likely to have an impact on 

adjacent properties, all affected property owners 

and stakeholders must be notified. In some 

instances, the public also has the ability to appeal 

an approved sign. In all of the countries visited, the 

public has the right to complain about advertising 

signs in public spaces, particularly if the sign is 

perceived as a hazard (e.g., if it blocks pedestrians 

or bicycle riders) or if the content is questionable.

As a result of several recent laws, the most active 

community and citizen involvement in enforcement 

and determining where to restrict or prohibit signs 

occurs in Japan (Appendix D).

Environmental Impacts, Economic Benefits, 

and Revenue Generation

Practices vary widely on outdoor advertising 

signs in the right-of-way of transportation facilities. 

In urban areas, local authorities usually determine 

whether and where outdoor advertising may 

be allowed (e.g., billboards and signs on bus 

shelters, bicycle racks, or telephone booths). 

In rural areas, it is common to not allow outdoor 

advertising in the right-of-way. In all of the 

countries visited, directional signs and touristoriented signs are allowed in the right-of-way.

Several countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland, the 

Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) do not 

allow billboards for advertising purposes in the 

right-of-way of major transportation corridors. 

Some countries allow outdoor advertising in the 

right-of-way of tolled roads. Outdoor advertising is 

also common in rest areas and as a tool to fund the 

construction of pedestrian bridges. Australia and 

Sweden are experimenting with billboards in the 

right-of-way of major transportation corridors, 

either by issuing a permit to an advertising provider 

or by operating their own advertising signs. For 

example, in New South Wales, Australia, RTA owns 

75 sites that generate AU$15 million (US$13 

million) per year. In Queensland, Australia, TMR 

has seven sites. In Stockholm, Sweden, SRA allowed 

a private operator to install eight digital signs along 

52 Chapter 4: Summary of Observations
the most congested corridor in the country to 

evaluate safety impacts.

In most urban areas, outdoor advertising is an 

important source of revenue. The range of advertising applications is wide (e.g., billboards, banners, 

posters, signs on bus shelters or telephone booths, 

and tourist or public information panels). With the 

exception of RTA, which is seeking to expand its 

advertising sign portfolio, the scan team’s perception 

was that highway agencies in the countries visited do 

not see outdoor advertising in the right-of-way of 

major transportation corridors as a major revenuegenerating venture, particularly when they consider 

issues such as public safety, liability, urban design 

and amenity, and acceptability.

Although revenue is an important consideration, 

some jurisdictions tie the approval of outdoor 

advertising in public spaces to whether a public 

benefit is associated with it. For example, in New 

South Wales, Australia, it is necessary to conduct a 

public benefit test to assess how the local community will benefit from deployment of an advertising 

sign. The public benefit, which could be in the form 

of a monetary or in-kind contribution (in addition 

to the standard application fee), must be linked to 

improvements in local community services and 

facilities. Examples include improved traffic safety, 

improved public transportation services, improved 

public amenity in or next to the transportation 

corridor, and support for school safety infrastructure 

and programs.

In a similar application in Glasgow, Scotland, 

advertising was used to improve the city’s tourist 

attraction panels through an agreement that enabled 

Glasgow to install 249 tourist panels while allowing 

the advertiser to install 76 advertising panels 

throughout the city. As part of another initiative, 

Glasgow upgraded its bus shelters using a scheme to 

maximize value and revenue while reducing maintenance expenditures. The winning bid on 360 bus 

shelters was £2.9 million (US$4.2 million). However, all bids were in excess of what the city had 

originally expected.

In most of the countries visited, permit fees do not 

generate enough income to fund regulatory programs, and agencies are reviewing practices to 

address this situation. Most highway agencies visited 

are referral authorities for outdoor advertising 

proposals that are located outside the right-of-way 

but within a certain distance of the transportation 

corridor. Typically, highway agencies do not receive 

a fee from the applicant or the local planning 

authority for application review services, which has 

a negative impact on the agencies’ ability to enforce 

laws and regulations effectively. Examples of negative impacts include deciding to review only certain 

types of outdoor advertising applications and not 

having enough resources to remove or prosecute 

illegal signs. Several countries are experimenting 

with programs to generate revenue from outdoor 

advertising (e.g., by allowing or operating billboards 

in the right-of-way). Typically, revenue from outdoor 

advertising is considered a general revenue source. 

The countries visited emphasize context-sensitive 

design, placing greater consideration on visual 

effects on viewscapes and how advertising blends 

with surrounding landscapes and the environment.

Japan has enacted three laws on landscape and 

greenery to empower local governments to decide 

landscape criteria for their regions and the level of 

control needed to establish, preserve, and protect 

valued local landscapes (Appendix D). Combined 

with other street improvements and events, these 

laws are credited with a nine-fold increase in 

tourism.

Japan has generated revenue used to improve public 

safety and security through the sale of naming rights 

to the highest bidder on bridges and pedestrian 

overpasses.

Safety

Signs may be removed after they are permitted if 

safety later becomes a concern. Most countries 

distinguish between signs that are properly 

designed and placed (therefore minimizing any 

potential safety hazard from distraction, confusion, 

dazzling, or blocking) and signs that are improperly designed or placed. They explicitly state in 

their laws and/or regulations that an advertising 

sign that resembles a traffic control device, directs 

traffic, or distracts or confuses drivers is a safety 

hazard. Explicitly classifying an outdoor advertising 

sign as a safety hazard if improperly designed or 

placed is a high-standard design principle that is 

at the core of outdoor advertising laws and regulations in the countries visited and is different from 

the traditional emphasis in the United States on 

zoning, spacing, and lighting.

In all of the countries visited, traffic and public 

safety considerations play a more critical role in the 

permitting process than in the United States. All of 

the countries have developed criteria to identify 

signs that would be unacceptable because they 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 53
resemble traffic control devices, could direct traffic, 

or could distract or confuse drivers. Further, the 

safety evaluation process is more comprehensive in 

all the countries visited, both in the documentation 

that applicants must provide and the review process 

that needs to take place once an application is 

submitted.

All of the countries visited recognize that distraction 

is a potential traffic safety hazard. Some countries 

have established formulas (typically based on 

vehicle speed) to estimate the effect of distraction 

on distance traveled and the identification of safe 

stopping distances for outdoor advertising control 

purposes.

54 Chapter 4: Summary of Observations
The scan team assembled a list of ideas to develop a scan 

implementation plan.

Ideas to Streamline Implementation 

of the HBA

Simplify the HBA regulations and enforcement 

process.

Develop model regulations for States to use.

Evaluate the effect of reducing the number of 

controlled advertising miles on State highway 

agency costs and operations. 

Study potential cost savings that could come from 

eliminating the control and monitoring of nonconforming signs. This could involve looking at the 

legal aspects of term or probationary permits or 

potential criteria for safety or public benefit audits.

Identify ways to encourage stakeholder agreement 

on fundamental ways to streamline control.

Study control measures for certified cities to use. 

Ideas to Improve Program Efficiency 

and Implement Best Practices

Study fee schedules that would enable agencies 

to cover regulation and enforcement costs.

Develop safety criteria that could be used when 

evaluating permit applications.

Develop model regulations that synthesize safety 

criteria with longer fixed-term permits and other 

criteria observed in the countries visited.

Study the legal aspects of or develop criteria for 

term or probationary permits.

Develop criteria to trigger a safety audit of a sign 

or public benefit needs.

Prepare a best-practices document and training 

materials for agencies to use to maximize revenue 

from outdoor advertising that could also address 

public needs. 

Study the feasibility of generating revenue from 

advertising in the right-of-way, including an 

evaluation of costs and benefits of advertising 

and the potential uses or use restrictions of any 

revenue generated.

Ideas to Improve Transparency 

of Process

Develop a process and tools to improve notification 

and participation of local governments in outdoor 

advertising control decisions and enforcement.

Develop methods to encourage public participation 

at the outdoor advertising control policymaking and 

permitting stages and improve consultation with 

jurisdictional authorities.

Decrease dependence on zoning considerations 

when issuing permits by emphasizing other decision 

factors, such as jurisdiction of roads, safety factors, 

and scenic and public benefit factors.

Ideas for a More Comprehensive and 

Context-Sensitive Approach

Encourage States to work with local public agencies 

to develop advertising management plans. 

Develop guidelines to incorporate livability concepts 

into permit applications in heavy pedestrian and 

bicycle traffic areas.

Develop architectural and graphic design principles 

to integrate outdoor advertising signs into the 

context of the surrounding area.

Encourage the use of green initiatives and 

technologies.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 55

Chapter 5: Implementation Strategies
Launch intensive local campaigns to remove 

illegal billboards as part of a broader economic 

revitalization effort.

Study the true costs, benefits, and risks of revenue 

generation in rights-of-way.

Research scenic roads and interstates on the HBA 

system and how scenic roads are regulated by local 

governments, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis 

on regulating only scenic roads and interstates. 

Ideas to Enhance Safety

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.

56 Chapter 5: Implementation Strategies
1. 23 USC 131. Control of Outdoor Advertising. 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.

cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC131.

2. 23 CFR 750. Highway Beautification. www.access.

gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/23cfr750_03.html.

3. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2009. 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.

4. The Outdoor Advertising Program Needs to be 

Reassessed. Report CED-85-34, General Accounting 

Office (now U.S. Government Accountability 

Office), Washington, DC, January 1985. 

www.gao.gov/products/RCED-85-34.

5. 23 USC 136. Control of Junkyards. http://

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.

cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC136.

6. Obstacles to Billboard Removal. Report CED-78-38, 

General Accounting Office (now U.S. Government 

Accountability Office), Washington, DC, March 

1978. www.gao.gov/products/CED-78-38. 

7. Highway Beautification Program Assessment. 

National Advisory Committee, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC, 1981.

8. Simmons, M. (1986). Outdoor Advertising Control 

Along Federal-Aid Highways. Congressional Research 

Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

9. The Highway Beautification Act. A Broken Law. Scenic 

America, Washington, DC, undated.

10. Conflict Assessment: Federal Outdoor Advertising 

Control Program. The Osprey Group, U.S. Institute 

for Environmental Conflict Resolution, Tucson, 

AZ, January 2007. www.fhwa.dot.gov/

REALESTATE/oaconf.htm.

11. Roads Act 1993. Sydney, New South Wales, 

Australia. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/

consol_act/ra199373/.

12. Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) 

Regulation 1999. Sydney, New South Wales, 

Australia. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/

num_reg/rtatmrr19991999623607/. 

13. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. www.austlii.

edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/epaaa1979389/.

14. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64—

Advertising and Signage. Ministry for Urban Affairs 

and Planning, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 

www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/

seppn64as577/. 

15. Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage 

Guidelines: Assessing Development Applications Under 

SEPP 64. Department of Planning, Sydney, New 

South Wales, Australia, July 2007. www.planning.

nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/dop07033_outdooradvertising_transportcorridors_guidelines.pdf.

16. Guidelines for the Location and Placement of 

Variable Message Signs. TDT 2005/02, Roads 

and Traffic Authority, Sydney, New South Wales, 

Australia, March 2005. www.rta.nsw.gov.au/

trafficinformation/downloads/td05_02bi.pdf. 

17. Integrated Planning Act 1997. Office of the 

Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, Brisbane, 

Queensland, 2006. www.legislation.qld.gov.au/

Acts_Passed/Acts_Passed_NUM_1997.htm.

18. Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. Office of the 

Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, Brisbane, 

Queensland, 2010. www.legislation.qld.gov.au/

Acts_SLs/Acts_SL_T.htm. 

19. Transport Operations (Road Use Management) 

Act 1995. Office of the Queensland Parliamentary 

Counsel, Brisbane, Queensland, 2010. www.

legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/Acts_SL_T.htm.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 57

Endnotes
20. Transport Operations (Road Use Management—

Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 

2005. Office of the Queensland Parliamentary 

Counsel, Brisbane, Queensland, 2005. www.

legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/Acts_SL_T.htm.

21. Transport Infrastructure (State-Controlled Roads) 

Regulation 2006. Office of the Queensland 

Parliamentary Counsel, Brisbane, Queensland, 

2010. www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/

Acts_SL_T.htm.

22. Road Corridor Permit. Department of Transport 

and Main Roads, Brisbane, Queensland, 

2010. www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-andenvironment/Development-assessments/

Development-approvals/Road-CorridorPermit.aspx.

23. Roadside Advertising Guide. Edition 1.1, 

Department of Transport and Main Roads, 

Brisbane, Queensland, August 2009. www.tmr.

qld.gov.au/Business-and-industry/Technicalstandards-and-publications/Roadside-advertisingguide.aspx. 

24. Roadside Design Guide. 3rd Edition, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Washington, DC, 2002.

25. Planning and Environment Act 1987. Melbourne, 

Victoria, Australia. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/

consol_act/paea1987254/.

26. Road Zone. Particular Provisions—Clause 36.04. 

Victoria Planning Provisions, Melbourne, Victoria, 

Australia. www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/

VPPs/.

27. Advertising Signs. Particular Provisions—

Clause 52.05. Victoria Planning Provisions, 

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. www.dse.vic.

gov.au/planningschemes/VPPs/.

28. Road Management Act 2004. Melbourne, Victoria, 

Australia. www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_

act/rma2004138/.

29. Referral and Notice Provisions. General Provisions—Clause 66. Victoria Planning Provisions, 

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. www.dse.vic.gov.au/

planningschemes/VPPs/.

30. Hoardings and Advertisements. Section 508, Road 

Management (General) Regulations 2005. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. www.austlii.edu.au/au/

legis/vic/consol_reg/rmr2005302/. 

31. Measurement of Outdoor Visibility and Exposure. 

MOVE, East Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 

2009. www.moveoutdoor.com.au/.

32. OMA Policies. Outdoor Media Association, East 

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. http://oma.

org.au/content/id/55/OMA-Policies. 

33. Advertising Standards Bureau, Canberra, 

Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 2006. 

www.adstandards.com.au/pages/index.asp. 

34. Tavler og reklameskilte langs offentlige veje—

Signs and Advertising on Public Roads. Danish 

Road Directorate, Copenhagen, Denmark. www.

vejdirektoratet.dk/publikationer/VDspeTAV/

index.htm. 

35. Maantielaki—Highways Act (503/2005). Finnish 

Legislature, Helsinki, Finland. www.finlex.fi/en/

laki/kaannokset/2005/en20050503. 

36. Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki—Land Use and 

Building Act (132/1999, amendment 222/2003 

included). Finnish Legislature, Helsinki, Finland. 

www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/

en19990132. 

37. Tieliikennelaki—Road Traffic Act (267/1981). 

Finnish Legislature, Helsinki, Finland. www.finlex.

fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1981/19810267. 

38. Tieliikenneasetus—Road Traffic Regulation 

(182/1982). Finnish Legislature, Helsinki, Finland. 

www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1982/19820182.

39. Roadside Advertising Guidelines. Document 

VVLED 2009:157, Swedish Road Administration, 

Stockholm, Sweden, December 2009.

40. Plan-och bygglag—Planning and Building Act 

(1987:10). Swedish Legislature, Stockholm, 

Sweden. www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.

aspx?nid=3911&bet=1987%3a10. 

41. Väglag—Roads Act (1971:948). Swedish 

Legislature, Stockholm, Sweden. www.riksdagen.

se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=1971:948. 

58 Endnotes
42. Lag med särskilda bestämmelser om gaturenhållning och skyltning—Act on Special Provisions for 

Street Cleaning and Signage (1998:814). Swedish 

Legislature, Stockholm, Sweden. www.riksdagen.

se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=1998% 

3a814. 

43. Förordning om gaturenhållning och skyltning—

Regulation on Street Cleaning and Signage 

(1998:929). Swedish Legislature, Stockholm, 

Sweden. www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.

aspx?nid=3911&bet=1998%3a929. 

44. Richtlijn bewegwijzering—Signage Guidelines. 

Information and Technology Centre for Transport 

and Infrastructure, Ede, Netherlands, 2005. 

www.crow.nl/nl/Publicaties/publicatiedetail.

aspx?code=222.

45. Routeontwerp—Road Design. Ministry of 

Transport, Public Works, and Water Management; 

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and 

Environment; Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, 

and Food Quality, Delft, Netherlands, undated. 

www.routeontwerp.nl. 

46. Kerncijfers Verkeersveiligheid—Road Safety in the 

Netherlands. Rijswaterstaat, Delft, Netherlands, 

June 2009. www.rov-utrecht.nl/scrivo/asset.

php?id=367201.

47. 10 Gouden regels—10 Golden Rules. 

Rijswaterstaat, Delft, Netherlands, April 2010.

48. Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Office 

of Public Sector Information, London, England. 

www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/

ukpga/1990/cukpga_19900008_en_1. 

49. Highways Act 1980. Office of Public Sector 

Information, London, England. www.opsi.gov.uk/

RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1980/

cukpga_19800066_en_1. 

50. Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, April 2007. 

www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/uksi_20070783_ 

en.pdf. 

51. Outdoor Advertisements and Signs: A Guide for 

Advertisers. Department for Communities and 

Local Government, England, June 2007. www.

communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/outdooradvertisements. 

52. Planning and Policy Guidance: Outdoor 

Advertisement Control. PPG19, Department 

of the Environment, England, March 1992.

53. Spatial Planning Advice Note: SP 03/10. Highways 

Agency, London, England, June 2010.

54. Advertising Standards Authority. London, England, 

2009. http://asa.org.uk/. 

55. Communities and Local Government Circular 

03/2007. Department for Communities and 

Local Government, London, England, March 

2007. www.communities.gov.uk/publications/

planningandbuilding/circulartown. 

56. Valuation Office Agency. Durham, England. 

www.voa.gov.uk/. 

57. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 

Office of Public Sector Information, London, 

England. www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/

ukpga_19970008_en_1. 

58. Advertising Hoardings. Acceptable Locations 

Beside Roads. Roads and Transportation 

Committee, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow, 

Scotland, October 1997.

59. Road Furniture in the Countryside. Guidance for Road 

and Planning Authorities and Statutory Undertakers. 

Transport Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 

2006. www.transportscotland.gov.uk/reports/

road/j7538-00.htm. 

60. Trunk Road and Motorway Tourist Signposting Policy 

and Guidance. Transport Scotland, Edinburgh, 

Scotland, July 2006. www.transportscotland.gov.

uk/files/documents/reports/j7818.pdf. 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 59
Contact Information

Mary Jane Daluge (FHWA Co-Chair)

Senior Realty Specialist

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Real Estate Services

HEPR-20, Room E74-418

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

Telephone: 202-366-2035

Fax: 202-366-3713

E-mail: maryjane.daluge@dot.gov

Matthew DeLong (AASHTO Co-Chair)

Administrator, Real Estate Support Area

Michigan Department of Transportation

PO Box 30050

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-2200

Fax: 517-373-2209

E-mail: delongm@michigan.gov

Laurie Hanig

Assistant Attorney General

Maryland State Highway Administration

707 North Calvert St.

Baltimore, MD 21202

Telephone: 410-545-0065

Fax: 410-209-5007

E-mail: lhanig@sha.state.md.us

Hari Kalla

MUTCD Team Leader

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Transportation Operations

HOTO-1, Room E86-115

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

Telephone: 202-366-5915

Fax: 202-366-3225

E-mail: hari.kalla@dot.gov

Charlie Klauer, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

3500 Transportation Research Plaza

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Telephone: 540-231-1564

Fax: 540-231-1555

E-mail: cklauer@vtti.vt.edu

Kenneth Klein

Executive Vice President, Government Relations

Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc.

1850 M St. NW, Suite 1040

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-776-1843 (direct) or 202-833-5566

Fax: 202-833-1522

E-mail: kklein@oaaa.org

Susan Klekar

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration Nevada Division

HDA-NV

705 North Plaza St., Suite 220

Carson City, NV 89701-0602

Telephone: 775-687-1204

Fax: 775-687-3803

E-mail: susan.klekar@dot.gov

Lyle McMillan

Director

Right of Way Division

Utah Department of Transportation

4501 South 2700 West, Box 148420

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-8420

Telephone: 801-965-4331

Fax: 801-965-3822

E-mail: lmcmillan@utah.gov

60 Appendix A: Scan Team Members

Appendix A: Scan Team Members
Cesar Quiroga, Ph.D., P.E. (Report Facilitator)

Research Engineer

Manager, Infrastructure Management Program

Texas Transportation Institute

Texas A&M University System 

1100 NW Loop 410, Suite 400

San Antonio, TX 78213 

Telephone: 210-979-9411, ext. 17203

Fax: 210-979-9694

E-mail: c-quiroga@tamu.edu

Jeffrey Soule

Director

Outreach and International Programs

American Planning Association

1776 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: 202-349-1012

Fax: 202-872-0643

E-mail: jsoule@planning.org

Mary Tracy

President

Scenic America

1250 I St. NW, Suite 750A

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: 215-983-7765

Fax: 215-732-5725

E-mail: tracy@scenic.org

Barbara Wessinger

Assistant Chief Counsel 

South Carolina Department of Transportation

PO Box 191

Columbia, SC 29202

Telephone: 803-737-1347

Fax: 803-737-2071

E-mail: wessingebm@scdot.org

Biographic Information

Mary Jane Daluge (FHWA co-Chair) is a senior realty 

specialist in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Office of Real Estate Services, where she is a member of the 

Program Implementation Team responsible for the agency’s 

outdoor advertising control (OAC) program. Daluge has 

State department of transportation (DOT) and extensive 

FHWA Division and Resource Center experience in both the 

FHWA Right-of-Way and Civil Rights Programs. She has led 

effective reviews in numerous program areas, including the 

OAC Program in the Oklahoma Division, which had 

significant findings and resulted in major program 

improvements. She also has formal and practical experience in facilitation, mediation, and instruction. Daluge has 

a bachelor’s degree in business and management from the 

University of Maryland and the SR/WA professional 

designation from the International Right of Way 

Association. 

Matthew DeLong (AASHTO co-Chair) is the Real 

Estate Division administrator for the Michigan Department 

of Transportation (MDOT) in Lansing, MI. He is responsible for statewide coordination, policy development, and 

procedural processes for real estate operations. He also is 

responsible for statewide outdoor advertising regulation 

and control programs, utility coordination, construction 

permitting, and all transport permitting processes. DeLong 

has been in his position for 7 years and with the State for 

23 years. He is vice chair of the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities, which 

includes outdoor advertising control as part of its responsibility. DeLong has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil 

engineering and is a licensed real estate broker in Michigan. 

Laurie Hanig is an assistant attorney general for the 

Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA). Hanig’s 

duties include litigating real estate and billboard acquisitions via exercise of the power of eminent domain, representing MSHA in inverse condemnation lawsuits and other 

real estate-related matters, and serving as legal advisor on 

all outdoor advertising issues under the U.S. Federal-Aid 

Highway Act of 1958 bonus program, the U.S. Highway 

Beautification Act of 1965, and the Maryland statutes 

implementing these Federal programs. Before her current 

post, she was in private practice with a law firm representing property owners in eminent domain proceedings and 

handling other types of business and real estate litigation 

at the trial and appellate levels. Hanig graduated from the 

University of Maryland with honors and earned her J.D. 

degree from the University of Baltimore’s School of Law. 

She has been a member of the bar in Maryland and the 

District of Columbia for 30 years and is a trained mediator 

and member of the Association for Conflict Resolution. 

She taught a workshop on outdoor advertising for the 

Mid-Atlantic Joint Federal/State Right-of-Way and Utility 

Conference in 2001.

Hari Kalla is a team leader in the FHWA Office of 

Operations. He is responsible for developing and issuing 

FHWA’s regulations, policies, standards, and guidance for 

all traffic control devices, including traffic signs, pavement 

markings, and traffic signals. Before his current position, 

Kalla served as a team leader and transportation specialist 

in FHWA’s Office of Safety. Before joining FHWA, Kalla 

worked for the New York State Department of Transportation for 8 years. He has a master’s degree in civil engineering from State University of New York, Buffalo and is a 

licensed professional engineer in New York. 

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 61
Dr. Charlie Klauer is a senior research associate with 

the Center for Automotive Safety Research at the Virginia 

Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI). Klauer’s chief 

research interests involve driver distraction and the 

assessment of those distraction tasks that significantly 

increase driver involvement in crashes and near crashes. 

For the past 5 years, Klauer has served as the principal 

investigator and/or project manager for the 100-Car 

Naturalistic Driving Study and the Naturalistic Teenage 

Driving Study (NTDS). She has been the principal investigator for several follow-on analyses using the 100-Car 

Naturalistic Driving Database and is now analyzing the 

NTDS database to assess both driver distraction and a 

variety of driving safety-related questions for novice 

drivers. Klauer received her master’s degree in human 

factors psychology from Wright State University in 1995 

and her Ph.D. in industrial and systems engineering from 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 

2005. She is a member of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and the Transportation Research Board 

(TRB) Young Driver Subcommittee and serves on several 

other TRB technical committees. 

Kenneth Klein is executive vice president of the 

Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) in 

Washington, DC. Klein leads the government relations 

efforts of the national trade association for the outdoor 

advertising industry. Before joining OAAA in 2001, Klein 

was chief of staff to U.S. Senator Bob Graham. He worked 

for Graham in various capacities from 1987 to 2001. Klein 

graduated from Ohio University with a journalism degree. 

In Florida, he worked for a daily newspaper and the 

Associated Press wire service before joining the Florida 

Department of Transportation in 1984 as a spokesperson 

for major projects, such as rebuilding the Sunshine Skyway 

Bridge and converting Alligator Alley to an interstate. 

Klein is a registered Federal lobbyist.

Susan Klekar is the division administrator for the 

FHWA Nevada Division in Carson City, NV. She directs 

FHWA oversight and stewardship activities in Nevada. This 

includes Nevada’s right-of-way program and the Highway 

Beautification Act. Before her current post, Klekar was 

assistant division administrator in FHWA’s Hawaii and 

Iowa Divisions and planning and research engineer in 

FHWA’s Regional Office in San Francisco, CA. Klekar has 

served FHWA for more than 30 years in the program areas 

of construction, planning, research, right-of-way, and safety. 

She has a bachelor’s degree in transportation engineering 

from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis 

Obispo. Klekar has been affiliated with the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers and the American Public Works 

Association and served on several technical committees 

and task forces for FHWA.

Lyle McMillan is the director of right-of-way and 

property development for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Since 1999, McMillan has also served 

as Utah’s outdoor advertising control administrator. In this 

capacity, he leads and manages the policies, procedures, 

and day-to-day administration of outdoor advertising 

permitting and enforcement on Utah’s highway system. 

He recently served on the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) 20-7(247) Outdoor Advertising Sign Regulation study panel. McMillan is a current 

member and past board member of the National Alliance 

of Highway Beautification Agencies. He is also responsible 

for right-of-way acquisition (including outdoor advertising 

structures), displaced person relocation (including outdoor 

advertising structures), eminent domain strategy, corridor 

preservation, property management, regulatory takings, 

fiber optics in the Interstate System, access management, 

utilities relocations, and all permitting functions. McMillan 

has a bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of 

Utah and a master’s of business administration from 

Brigham Young University. He is a member of the executive 

committee of the AASHTO Right of Way and Utilities 

Subcommittee. He recently completed a 2-year commitment as chair of the International Right of Way Association’s Communications and Marketing Committee. 

Dr. Cesar Quiroga (report facilitator) is a research 

engineer at the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), a 

research agency in the Texas A&M University System 

and the largest university-based transportation research 

organization in the United States. At TTI, he founded and 

leads the Infrastructure Management Program, which 

conducts research and technology transfer on data 

inventory and maintenance, data exchange and integration, project development process optimization, and 

infrastructure data management needs throughout the 

lifetime of transportation facilities. Quiroga has been 

particularly involved in utility and right-of-way topics, 

including feature inventory databases, permitting, utility 

relocation process optimization, and construction specifications. He has also been active in transportation operations research and has conducted studies addressing ITS 

design and implementation issues. Before joining TTI in 

1998, he was a research associate at the Remote Sensing 

and Image Processing Laboratory at Louisiana State 

University. He also worked in the private sector as a 

consultant. He has a master’s degree in civil engineering 

and a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University and an 

undergraduate degree in civil engineering from the 

Colombian School of Engineering. He is a registered 

professional engineer in Texas and Louisiana and is active 

in several organizations, including the American Society 

of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

International Right of Way Association, and TRB. 

62 Appendix A: Scan Team Members
Jeffrey Soule is director of outreach and international 

programs at the American Planning Association (APA) in 

Washington, DC. Before joining APA, Soule held a number 

of planning and policy positions in government and the 

nonprofit sector. In 1996, Soule became policy director of 

APA, managing government affairs, public information, 

and outreach for the association’s 44,000 members. In 

1997, he launched an initiative with the Chinese government to provide long-term technical assistance through 

exchanges and special projects. In 2007, Soule became 

director of outreach and international programs, the first 

position at APA to combine communications, partnerships, 

and international activities. He is a member of the board of 

the U.S. National Committee of the International Council 

on Monuments and Sites (US/ICOMOS). He was a U.S. 

delegate to the General Assembly for ICOMOS and advises 

governments on cultural conservation. He is on the 

ICOMOS Cultural Towns Scientific Committee and has 

authored international papers on managing scenic and 

cultural resources. He has written and lectured extensively 

on urban design, rural development, historic preservation, 

environmental conservation, and disaster recovery. Soule is 

a fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners and 

served as president of the Baltimore Chapter of the International Land Economics Society, Lambda Alpha. He received 

a bachelor’s degree in natural science and fine arts from 

Colgate University and a master’s degree in city and 

regional planning and public policy from Harvard 

University’s Graduate School of Design and Kennedy 

School of Government.

Mary Tracy is the president of Scenic America in Washington, DC, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to 

preserving and enhancing the visual character of communities and countryside in the United States. Tracy also 

spearheaded citywide grassroots efforts to form the Society 

Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) in 1990 to stop 

the proliferation of billboards in Philadelphia. In 2000, 

under her leadership, SCRUB became a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 

organization with a mission to improve Philadelphia’s 

visual character and ensure that all citizens—regardless of 

income, education, or neighborhood—benefit from laws 

safeguarding the city’s visual environment and quality of 

life. Tracy worked through SCRUB and its neighborhood 

partners and legal volunteers to prevent more than 50 new 

billboards and wall wraps from being erected and secure 

final removal of more than 900 illegal billboards located 

across from homes, schools, and playgrounds.

Barbara Wessinger is the assistant chief counsel 

for the South Carolina Department of Transportation 

(SCDOT). During her 18 years with SCDOT, she has 

provided counsel on and litigated cases involving condemnation, contract, highway and bridge construction 

and maintenance, and outdoor advertising matters. She is 

a graduate of the Governor’s EXCEL Leadership Institute 

and Strategic Training for Agency Representative Program. 

She is a member of the South Carolina Society of Certified 

Public Managers, TRB Technical Council on Outdoor 

Advertising, and AASHTO Subcommittee on Right-of-Way 

and Utilities Technical Council on Outdoor Advertising. 

Wessinger is also recognized as a friend of the TRB 

Contract Law Committee. She has been a member of the 

National Association of Highway Beautification Agencies 

(NAHBA) since its inception, serving as NAHBA chair 

from 2002 to 2006, second vice chair in 2007, and acting 

chair since 2008.

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 63
The following served as the main contacts at the 

agencies visited. Table 10 provides a more comprehensive 

list of individuals the scan team met with during the 

scanning study.

Australia—New South Wales

Charmaine Moldrich

Outdoor Media Association

Suite 204, 80 William St.

East Sydney, New South Wales, 2011, Australia

Telephone: 011+61 02 9357 9900

Fax: 011 +61 02 8356 9500

E-mail: charmaine.moldrich@oma.org.au

Matthew Granger

Roads and Traffic Authority

101 Miller St.

North Sydney, New South Wales 2060, Australia

Telephone: 011+61 02 8588 5936

Fax: 011+61 02 8588 4191

E-mail: matthew_granger@rta.nsw.gov.au

Australia—Queensland

Shane Hawes

Department of Transport and Main Roads

85 George St.

Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia

Telephone: 011+61 7 3306 6467

Fax: 011+61 7 3306 7290

E-mail: shane.c.hawes@mainroads.qld.gov.au

Australia—Victoria

Peter Williams

VicRoads Commercial

60 Denmark St.

Kew, Victoria 3101, Australia

Telephone: 011+61 3 9854 2288

Fax: 011+61 3 9854 2170

E-mail: peter.williams@roads.vic.gov.au

Japan

Tomohiro Oishi

Deputy Director

Parks, Green Spaces, and Landscape Division

City and Regional Development Bureau

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism

213 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku

Tokyo, Japan

Telephone: +81-(0)3-5253-8420

Fax: +81-(0)3-5253-1593

E-mail: ooishi-t277@mlit.go.jp

Masahiro Nishikawa

National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management

Asahi-1, Tsukuba-City, Ibaraaki-Pref.305-0804, Japan

Telephone: 81-29-864-7493

Fax: 81-29-864-0560

E-mail: nishikawa-m2rp@nilim.go.jp

U.S. Federal Highway Administration 

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Telephone: 202-493-3132

Fax: 202-493-3419

E-mail: masahiro.nishikawa@fhwa.dot.gov, 

nishikawa9369622@nifty.com

The Netherlands

Richard W. van der Elburg

Directorate of Public Works and Water Management 

(Rijkswaterstaat)

Boompjes 200 

3011 XD Rotterdam, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 887 982 372

Fax: 011+31 887 982 999

E-mail: richard.vander.elburg@rws.nl

Sweden

Fredrik Friberg

Swedish Road Administration (Vägverket)

Klarabergsviadukten 80

111 64 Stockholm, Sweden

Telephone: 011+46 70 398 51 27

E-mail: fredrik.friberg@vv.se

64 Appendix B: Host Country Contacts

Appendix B: Host Country Contacts
United Kingdom—Scotland

Graham Edmond

Transport Scotland

58 Port Dundas Rd.

Glasgow, G4 0HF, Scotland

Telephone: 011+44 141 272 7342

Fax: 011+44 141 272 7400

E-mail: graham.edmond@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk

United Kingdom—England

Vicky Bowden

Highways Agency Corporate Office

123 Buckingham Palace Rd.

London, SW1W 9HA, England

Telephone: 011+44 161 930 5809

Fax: 011+44 161 930 5256

E-mail: vicky.bowden@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Country Affiliation Name Title

Australia New South 

Wales

Outdoor Media 

Association

Charmaine 

Moldrich

Chief Executive Officer

Australia New South 

Wales

Outdoor Media 

Association

Carolyn Samsa Senior Policy Advisor

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Tracey Arthur General Manager, Corporate 

Communication

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Murray Cleaver Safer Roads Branch

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Fiona Court General Manager 

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Arem Gavin

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Kate Plowman Legal Counsel 

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Michael Sheridan Urban Designer, Development 

Program

Australia New South 

Wales

Roads and Traffic 

Authority

Miles Tollan Manager, Business Strategy

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

Shane Hawes Senior Consultant, Stakeholder 

Relationships

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

Jane Hinton Principal Advisor

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

David Jorgensen Senior Technologist

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

Michael Mailloux Director, Commercial Governance

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

Dave Stewart Director-General

Table 10. Host country officials met during scanning study.

continued on next page

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 65
Country Affiliation Name Title

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

Sharon Thompson Manager, Corridor Access

Australia Queensland Department of Transport 

and Main Roads

Bradley Tubb Manager, Corridor Land 

Management

Australia Queensland University of Queensland Tim Horberry Associate Professor

Australia Victoria Roads Corporation Frank Berra Senior Network Policy Officer

Australia Victoria Roads Corporation Wendy Goad Project Operations Officer

Australia Victoria Roads Corporation James Holgate Director, Safer Roads

Australia Victoria Roads Corporation Gerry McLoughlin Senior Urban Designer

Australia Victoria Roads Corporation Peter White Director, Network Planning and 

Policy

Australia Victoria Roads Corporation Lorrae Wild Principal Landscape Architect

Denmark Danish Road Directorate Bent Lund Nielsen Road Standards Secretary

Finland Finnish Transport Agency Tuomas Österman Specialist for Traffic Control

Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and 

Tourism

Tomohiro Oishi Deputy Director, City and 

Regional Development Bureau

Japan National Institute for Land 

and Infrastructure 

Management

Masahiro 

Nishikawa

The 

Netherlands

Directorate of Public 

Works and Water 

Management

Francis Cheung Senior Advisor/Economist

The 

Netherlands

Directorate of Public 

Works and Water 

Management

Ilse Harms Human Factors and Traffic 

Consultant

The 

Netherlands

Directorate of Public 

Works and Water 

Management

Herman Moning Senior Advisor

The 

Netherlands

Directorate of Public 

Works and Water 

Management

Paul Schepers Senior Advisor, Verkeersveiligheid

The 

Netherlands

Directorate of Public 

Works and Water 

Management

Annemiek Tromp Program Manager

Sweden Swedish Road 

Administration

Loella Fjällskog Regional Road Side Coordinator

66 Appendix B: Host Country Contacts
Country Affiliation Name Title

Sweden Swedish Road 

Administration

Alexander Hurtig Human Factors Investigator

Sweden Swedish Road 

Administration

Elenor Persson National Road Side Coordinator

Sweden Swedish Road 

Administration

Lena Rydén International Strategist

United 

Kingdom

Department for Communities and Local 

Government

Drew Williams Regional Manager

United 

Kingdom

England Highways Agency Abbas Abdulla Regional Policy and Procedures 

Advisor

United 

Kingdom

England Highways Agency Ian Askew Spatial Planning Team Leader

United 

Kingdom

England Highways Agency Vicky Bowden Assistant Research Strategy 

Coordinator

United 

Kingdom

England Highways Agency Clare Griffin Knowledge Strategy Assistant

United 

Kingdom

England Highways Agency Douglas 

Rounthwaite

Senior Engineer

United 

Kingdom

England Highways Agency Paresh Tailor Group Manager

United 

Kingdom

England London Borough of 

Hounslow

Marilyn Smith Area Planning Manager

United 

Kingdom

Scotland Glasgow City Council Fotoula Adrimi Senior Planning Officer

United 

Kingdom

Scotland Glasgow City Council Donald MacKinven Traffic Manager

United 

Kingdom

Scotland Transport Scotland Ken Aitken Development Manager

United 

Kingdom

Scotland Transport Scotland Graham Edmond National Network Manager

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 67
To assist in the discussion with host country officials, the 

scan team prepared a series of amplifying questions that 

clarify and expand on the primary objectives of the scanning study. The amplifying questions cover the following 

subject areas:

A. Safety

B. Community and citizen involvement

C. Program management

D. Environmental impacts, economic benefits, and 

revenue generation

E. Laws, regulations, policies, and enforcement

The scan team is also very interested in field observations 

of the application of outdoor advertising laws, regulations, 

and policies in areas such as the following:

Emerging outdoor advertising technologies that have 

been approved and are in use

Advertising on private property

Outdoor advertising in the right-of-way, such as at 

toll booths, overpasses, bridges and tunnels, open 

landscapes, intelligent transportation systems 

facilities, rest areas, welcome signs, tourist-oriented 

directional signs, and adopt-a-highway signs

Signs without approval or for which regulatory 

oversight may be lacking

Banners and memorial signs

Vegetation control

A.Safety

A.1. How do local and/or regional differences in 

regulation and policy affect driver behavior 

or expectations?

A.2. What documentation do you have on the 

impact of different outdoor advertising technologies on traffic safety in terms of crash rates, 

driver distraction, processing time, roadside 

obstruction, visual clutter, or other factors?

A.3. Have you found differences in safety impacts 

for different segments of the population, such 

as different age groups, income and socioeconomic levels, educational levels, and comfort 

with and access to technology? 

A.4. How does outdoor advertising compare in 

terms of safety impacts to other distractions 

in the driving environment?

A.5. What methodologies do you have in place to 

measure and evaluate such differences? What 

strategies do you have in place to deal with 

research bias?

A.6. When measuring safety impacts, do you 

differentiate between the effects of regulated 

versus nonregulated signs? Signs advertising 

the business on the sign property (on-premise 

signs) versus signs advertising commercial 

activities not conducted on the sign site 

(off-premise signs)?

A.7. What is your experience with electronic signs 

regarding brightness and timing of advertisement changes, interactive messaging, scentemitting signs, sequential messaging, and 

storytelling? What methods and/or technology 

do you use to detect violations?

A.8. What documentation do you have on the 

impact of alternative advertising technologies 

(such as mobile signs, cell phones, and 

onboard navigation systems) on traffic safety? 

Are these restricted and controlled?

A.9. What advertising provisions are included in 

traffic control manuals and standards? (The 

national standard in the United States is the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.)

A.10. What procedures do you use to determine 

that an outdoor advertising device is a 

safety hazard?

Appendix C: Amplifying Questions

68 Appendix C: Amplifying Questions
A.11. What level of participation does the outdoor 

advertising industry have in public safety 

campaigns, such as campaigns on speeding, 

drunk driving, construction zones, and 

seatbelt use?

B. Community and Citizen Involvement

B.1. Please describe your strategies, requirements, 

and procedures for involving community, 

industry, and other stakeholder organizations 

in policy development.

B.2. How do advocacy groups, private citizens, and 

the outdoor advertising industry influence 

policy? How is their input collected and used 

by your political leadership?

B.3. What type of political advertising is allowed 

and/or present in outdoor advertising?

B.4. Please describe your process for community 

and citizen input in the review of an outdoor 

advertising sign permit application.

B.5. Please describe your strategies to address 

stakeholders’ conflicting positions, including 

mediation, conflict resolution, memoranda 

of understanding (MOUs), arbitration, and 

the courts.

B.6. What national organizations exist to participate 

in the development of standards and their 

applicability at the regional, state, and 

local levels?

C. Program Management

C.1. What is the administrative and organizational 

framework for outdoor advertising control, and 

what is the level of authority and responsibility 

at different levels of government (federal, state/

regional, and local)?

C.2. Please describe the management of the 

enforcement program at your agency (such as 

staffing levels, outdoor advertising staff’s other 

responsibilities, training, and the importance 

of outdoor advertising control in your organization). Do you outsource enforcement?

C.3. How is the regulatory process paid for and 

where do the resources come from? Is it 

self-sustaining?

C.4. What performance measures do you use to 

assess the effectiveness of outdoor advertising 

control and your outdoor advertising control 

program?

C.5. What documentation do you require for 

your files?

C.6. Could you provide documentation and sample 

data from databases and systems used for 

outdoor advertising sign inventories and other 

applications, such as sign permitting, tracking 

of outdoor advertising sign ownership transfers, 

revenue generation, analysis, and regulation? 

Please address topics such as data elements, 

metadata, databases, and systems used and 

database and system maintenance practices.

D.Environmental Impacts, Economic Benefits, 

and Revenue Generation

D.1. What types of fees, taxes, and other financial 

arrangements do you have in place for outdoor 

advertising both outside and inside the 

right-of-way? 

D.2. How do you determine fees, taxes, and other 

financial arrangements? For example, do you 

consider factors such as safety impacts and legal 

liability, environmental and aesthetic factors, 

potential revenue, and traffic volumes? Can 

local jurisdictions assess fees on the same sign? 

What methodologies and data sources do you 

use for calculating monetary value? Do you 

treat sign structures as personal property or real 

property for tax or acquisition purposes?

D.3. Can you provide data evaluating whether there 

are economic benefits from installing and 

operating commercial signs in the right-of-way?

D.4. For signs in the right-of-way, who retains 

ownership of the structures? How are they 

maintained and by whom?

D.5. Do you allow private businesses naming rights 

on your roadways and, if so, what financial 

arrangements do you have in place?

D.6. What beautification or landscaping practices 

in front of outdoor advertising signs do you 

require, allow, or encourage?

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 69
D.7. What criteria and procedures do you use for 

determining advertising control zoning areas, 

such as type and number of buildings, property 

boundaries, and building footprint areas? What 

is the relationship between these zones and 

regional and/or local land use zones?

D.8. What specific requirements are in place for each 

type of zone, such as the number and spacing of 

advertising signs, distance from roadway, 

and sign characteristics?

D.9. How is tourism affected by outdoor advertising 

policies and practices? For example, in the United 

States, Florida allows outdoor advertising signs, 

but Vermont and Hawaii do not.

D.10. Can you provide data on operational and 

environmental impacts and costs of new technology signs, including energy consumption, dark 

sky initiative impacts, and aesthetics?

D.11. When granting a sign permit, what environmental analysis, safety analysis, traffic studies, or other 

documentation do you require before approving 

the application? 

D.12. Do you use the “precautionary principle” for 

outdoor advertising? If so, how do you use it and 

what is your experience with it? (Note: Roughly 

speaking, the precautionary principle establishes 

that, in the absence of scientific consensus that 

harm would not happen, the burden falls on 

advocates taking an action or setting a policy to 

prove that there will be no harm to the public or 

the environment.)

D.13. Do you use context-sensitive design techniques 

for outdoor advertising to balance economic, 

social, and environmental objectives? If so, please 

give examples of when you have used it and what 

changes in design resulted.

D.14. How do you address outdoor advertising issues 

during the planning, programming, and design 

phases of transportation projects? Do you pay for 

signs affected by a transportation project, or do 

you pay to move the sign?

E. Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Enforcement

E.1. Please describe the legal framework and provide 

an overview of applicable laws, regulations, 

policies, and enforcement procedures for outdoor 

advertising control, especially as they apply to 

your treatment of the following:

a. On-premise and off-premise signs 

b. Size, spacing, and lighting and maintenance 

of signs in and outside the right-of-way 

c. Different advertisement technologies 

d. Signs that no longer contain an advertisement 

e. Illegal signs 

f. Signs that were legally erected but are 

no longer allowed (nonconforming)

g. Signs destroyed by natural events, such 

as extreme storms, fire, or tornados

h. Permissibility to upgrade old signs 

i. Other related topics

Note: For reference purposes, descriptions of 

advertising control terms normally used in the 

United States are available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/

REALESTATE/oacguide.htm.

E.2. It would expedite our preparation for the scanning study if you could send us links to Web sites 

containing outdoor advertising laws, regulations, 

and/or summaries before our meetings so we 

could tailor our questions to your country.

E.3. How do you achieve consistency in regulation 

and policy between different jurisdictions in your 

country? With autonomous regions?

E.4. Can you provide examples of past issues as well 

as emerging and hot legislative and regulatory 

issues, including issues related to changes in 

technology or advertising methods? How are you 

preparing for them in the short term, midterm, 

and long term?

E.5. Please describe any existing and proposed 

arrangements (including MOUs, leases, compacts, and public-private partnerships) between 

outdoor advertisers and regulatory agencies.

E.6. Please describe incentives and processes in place 

for removing outdoor advertising (with 

or without payment to sign owners) as well as 

policies that allow the imposition of a moratorium or caps on the number of outdoor advertising signs.

E.7. What is the involvement of regulators when there 

are disputes between outdoor advertisers? 

E.8. How do you control advertising that reaches 

drivers by alternative means and technologies, 

such as mobile signs, banners, cell phones, and 

navigation systems?

70 Appendix C: Amplifying Questions
The scan team was unable to visit Japan as part of the 

scanning study because of scheduling conflicts, but decided 

that Japan’s national and local laws governing landscape 

preservation and outdoor advertising signs should be 

reviewed for this report. Of particular interest were the 

2004 amendments to the Outdoor Advertising Act, which 

were passed to enable greater citizen participation and a 

more effective legal framework to promote policies that 

protect landscapes and increase tourism.

This appendix summarizes information gathered from 

responses by the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, 

Transport, and Tourism to the amplifying questions 

(Appendix C) and a 2008 paper published by the United 

Nations Center for Regional Development in Kobe, Japan 

(Dr. Shoichi Ando, “New Landscape Laws that will Reshape 

Japanese Cities”).

Overview

In 1949, the Japanese government enacted the Outdoor 

Advertising Act to maintain scenic beauty and social 

stability and prevent harm to the public. Under the act, 

prefectural governors were given the responsibility to 

develop rules to regulate outdoor advertising. Prefectures, 

ordinance-designated cities, and major cities were responsible for enforcing outdoor advertising ordinances. Over 

the years, the act has been amended several times to 

include provisions allowing the expedited removal of 

advertising signs, registration of outdoor advertising 

businesses, and imposition of penalties to billboard 

companies for failing to register as a business.

In 2003, as part of a Japanese government program to 

increase tourism, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, 

Transport, and Tourism began implementing 15 strategies, 

including the following:

Establish a landscape assessment requirement before 

and after development of a regional public project.

Establish landscape guidelines for public projects.

Promote a green corridor plan to encourage creation 

of large wooded areas in the suburbs of large cities.

Conduct an intensive, short-term effort to dispose 

of illegal outdoor advertising materials, especially 

in tourist areas, and improve the materials used in 

outdoor advertising.

Bury utilities underground within 5 years in selected 

districts through collaboration with stakeholders.

Establish a legal framework to comprehensively and 

systematically protect and improve the landscape.

In 2004, three relevant laws were enacted: the Landscape 

Law, a revised Outdoor Advertising Act, and the Law on 

Urban Green Space Protection. In combination with other 

street improvements and events, these laws and the above 

strategies are credited with a nine-fold increase in tourism.

The Landscape Law identified four stakeholder 

responsibilities:

Residents—Play an active role in improving 

landscapes in cooperation with the federal government and local agencies. Under the new law, a 

community can propose landscape planning areas 

to the municipality.

Businesses—Create landscapes in harmony with 

nature, history, culture of the region, people’s 

lifestyles, and economic activities; cooperate with 

national government and local agency measures.

Local public agencies—Establish and implement 

measures to improve landscapes in accordance with 

human and natural conditions of the area.

National government—Establish and implement 

comprehensive measures to improve landscapes and 

deepen a common citizen understanding through 

information and other activities. 

The revised Outdoor Advertising Act provided a comprehensive framework with the power to change the landscape 

of cities and the relationship between communities and 

governments. A primary objective was to empower local 

governments to decide on landscape criteria for their 

Appendix D: Outdoor Advertising 

Control Practices in Japan

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 71
regions and the level of control needed to establish, 

preserve, and protect valued local landscapes.

Justification for the law was a study that found a large 

number of nonconforming advertising signs, which made 

it important to implement effective removal and regulation 

practices. At the same time, outdoor advertising control was 

viewed as strongly related to landscape management. To 

enforce the development of desirable landscapes based on 

the features of each area, it was also important to designate 

permitted areas based on the local characteristics of each 

region in the country. To address these needs, the amendment required landscape management ordinances by 

municipalities, expanded coverage of the act for permitted 

areas nationwide, and implemented registrations of 

outdoor advertising businesses.

The responsibility for enacting and enforcing outdoor 

advertising regulations falls to prefectures, ordinance-designated cities, major cities, landscape administrative organizations, and designated municipalities under the Maintenance and Improvement of Traditional Scenery in Certain 

Districts Act. Almost 500 local public agencies have 

established landscape ordinances. The Outdoor Advertising 

Act requires setting standards for outdoor advertising 

displays (e.g., size, shape, color, and design) and setting 

restrictions on displays. The law includes provisions for 

official signs, posters for elections, on-premise signs that 

conform to separate local standards, temporary advertising 

for ceremonial occasions or festivals, train cars and vehicles 

conforming to standards set by rules, and public-purpose 

displays posted by national or municipal governments.

The installation of advertising signs requires specific 

consent from the prefecture. As part of the new law, 

outdoor advertising is not allowed in certain areas, 

including the following:

Low-rise exclusively residential districts, mediumto high-rise exclusively residential districts, landscape zones, scenic districts, and cultural property 

preservation areas

Designated important cultural properties, including 

buildings under the provision of the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties

Areas that include conservation forests (scenic 

forests) to preserve sites of scenic beauty and 

historical interest

Areas of good landscapes and scenic beauty, 

designated by the prefectures and reachable 

by road and rail

Parks, green spaces, ancient tombs, and cemeteries

Other designated areas specified by the prefectures

Outdoor advertising ordinances enable city mayors to 

designate special areas as advertising utilization areas 

(AUAs) if advertising improves attraction to those areas 

or plays a role in developing or maintaining a vibrant 

cityscape. Advertising within AUAs is subject to prescribed 

standards for size, shape, color, design, and placement of 

displays. Often area residents outline voluntary rules and 

the governor certifies them. An area is eligible for the AUA 

designation if it faces a road that represents the city or 

connects to a square in front of a train station, or if it has 

many urban facilities. Even if none of these conditions 

are met, a mayor can confirm the need to designate an 

area as an AUA.

The 2004 amendment expanded the authority of local 

governments to remove nonconforming advertising by 

eliminating the requirement that signs could only be 

removed after a considerable period of time.

Outdoor advertising businesses must have a valid registration to operate. Registration is valid for 5 years. Registration 

and permits for advertising businesses can be canceled if a 

company uses illegal materials. Likewise, registrations are 

rejected if they include false statements or if any of the 

following applies:

Any person whose registration has been revoked 

within the past 2 years 

Any person whose business is being suspended

Any person who has violated outdoor advertising 

ordinances and has been fined or sentenced 

(from the completion of the payment or the term 

of sentence) within the past 2 years 

Any regional branch that does not have an executive 

officer to operate the business

The governor of the province (prefecture) is responsible 

for enforcing the laws and is expected to order necessary 

actions, such as removal of a sign by the owner of the 

property where the sign is displayed or the party responsible for the nonconforming advertising. The governor or 

his delegate will remove signs such as posters, freestanding 

signs, and A-frame signs not in compliance with the 

standards. Local ordinances must include fines and 

penalty fees for noncompliance. 

72 Appendix D: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Japan
Outdoor advertising companies that illegally erect signs are 

notified, fined, and given orders for removal. Unlike in the 

past when noncompliance with orders had no impact on 

the business, the business registration can now be canceled 

and the business suspended or canceled. The prefecture can 

also remove the sign.

Project to Promote Outdoor 

Advertising Management

After the Outdoor Advertising Act was passed, it was 

realized that the act missed several important elements, 

including a notification system, mechanisms to educate the 

community and stakeholders about the value of landscape 

protection, and financial resources for local governments to 

implement the new policies.

In 2009, the Japanese government started a pilot project on 

urban environment improvement support to emphasize 

the importance of landscapes and the need to develop and 

protect landscapes, as well as to give binding power to local 

governments to draft and enforce laws protecting 

landscapes.

Part of the project involves supporting outdoor advertising 

improvement activities. The project involves local governments, central urban area vitalizing councils, landscape 

councils, and private businesses. Support includes formulating outdoor advertising guidelines, developing urban 

environment maintenance and improvement plans, and 

conducting pilot programs and demonstration projects to 

remove or improve the quality of outdoor advertising.

As figure 19 shows, Japan has formalized a process involving key stakeholders to (1) formulate design guidelines, 

(2) conduct preassessments on designs and shapes, and 

(3) provide advice to improve the quality of outdoor 

advertising. This process ensures consolidated installation 

of signs, use of better sign materials, and harmonized 

(context-sensitive) development.

Fees and Revenue

Road occupancy fees apply to advertising signs allowed in 

the right-of-way of a road managed by the national government. Cabinet Order for Enforcement of the Road Act—

Article 19 states that the road administrator may allow a 

sign in the right-of-way only if it cannot be placed anywhere else and only if the sign does not significantly 

obstruct road traffic. Table 11 shows fees for advertising 

signs in different areas of Japan.

Osaka became the first prefecture in Japan to offer namingright contracts. The prefecture sold the first right for 

US$5,044 a year ($1 = 90 yen). The original plan was to 

expand the program to 50 bridges to generate revenue to 

improve public safety and security. The prefecture also 

considered selling naming rights on public buildings such 

as gyms, but a market survey showed limited prospects. A 

new car dealership bid for the naming rights of a pedestrian 

Figure 19. Public involvement process in Japan. (Courtesy of Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism)

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 73

Road Administrator

Division in charge of

landscape/outdoor

advertising

NPO, Community Development 

Companies, etc.

Formulating

rules of

advertising

 in the

community

Permission for 

Occupation COUNCIL
bridge in Hirakata City, Osaka. The bid amount was $3,333 

a year for 5 years. The car dealership was the only bidder, 

which eventually resulted in a contract.

Osaka tentatively has approved advertising in road areas if 

it is for local revitalization events. Advertising intended to 

revitalize the local area may be permitted after consideration by related governmental agencies, such as the road 

administrator. Private company logos may be printed on 

those advertisements, but some rules apply, such as size 

and harmonization with the surrounding environment. 

Advertising can be displayed 2 months before the event.

Osaka began a demonstration program to evaluate the 

deregulation of advertising in road areas in April 2010. Part 

of the demonstration includes advertising on light poles 

and arcades. Almost 300 banners have been displayed as a 

pilot project on Midosuji Street. Arterial roads and roads 

that offer major exposure to the public, such as Midosuji 

Street, are obvious candidates for advertising (although all 

roads in the city can be designated as advertising 

locations).

Table 11. Advertising sign fees in Japan.

Advertising Sign Fee (US$1 = 90 Yen) Area A Area B Area C

Temporary Per 1 square meter of display 

per month

$16 $2 $1

Other Per 1 square meter of display 

for one year

$156 $22 $11

Note:

Area A: Tokyo, Sapporo, Sendai, Saitama, Chiba, Funabashi, Hachioji, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Sagamihara, Niigata, 

Shizuoka, Hamamatsu, Nagoya, Kyoto, Osaka, Sakai, Higashi-Osaka, Kobe, Himeji, Okayama, Hiroshima, Matsuyama, 

Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Kumamoto, and Kagoshima

Area B: Cities except Area A

Area C: Municipalities

74 Appendix D: Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Japan
Most of the countries the scan team visited plan to assess or 

are conducting research to measure the potential impact 

of outdoor advertising on traffic safety. Some countries also 

highlighted studies recently completed or being conducted 

in the United States in this area. The purpose of this report 

is not to provide a comprehensive summary of research 

completed or in progress. As an illustration, this appendix 

lists some of the recent or current work mentioned during 

the scanning study.

Beijer, D. D., Smiley, A., and Eizenman, M. (2004). 

“Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside 

Advertising.” Transportation Research Record, No. 

1899, 96–103.

Cairney, P., and Gunatillake, T. (2000). Roadside 

Advertising Signs—A Review of the Literature and 

Recommendations for Policy. ARRB Transport Research, 

Royal Automobile Club of Victoria.

Chattington, M., Reed, N., Basacik, D., Flint, A., and 

Parkes. A. (2009). Investigating Driver Distraction: The 

Effects of Video and Static Advertising. A Driving 

Simulator Study. Report No. PO 3100173332, Transport of London, London, England.

Crundall, D., Van Loon, E., and Underwood, G. 

(2006). “Attraction and Distraction of Attention 

With Roadside Advertisements.” Accident Analysis and 

Prevention, 38 (4), 671–677.

Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S. G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., 

Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., 

Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., 

Jermeland, J., and Knipling, R.R. (2006). The 

100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase II—Results of 

the 100-Car Field Experiment. Report No. DOT HS 810 

593. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.

Edquist, J. (2009). The Effects of Visual Clutter on 

Driving Performance. Monash University Ph.D. 

Dissertation.

Farbry, J., Wochinger, K., Shafer, T., Owens, N., and 

Nedzesky, A. (2001). Research Review of Potential 

Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention 

and Distraction (Final Report). Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

Johnson, C. (2009). Outdoor Advertising Sign 

Regulation Study. Report No. NCHRP 20-07 (Task 

247), National Highway Cooperative Research 

Program, Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC.

Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. 

D., and Ramsey, D. J. (2006). The Impact of Driver 

Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis 

Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data.

Report DOT HS 810 594, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Washington, DC.

Lee, S. E., Olsen, E. C. B., and DeHart, M. C. (2004). 

Driving Performance in the Presence and Absence of 

Billboards. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising 

Research and Education.

Molino, J. A., Wachtel, J., Farbry, J. E., Hermosillo, 

M. B., and Granda, T. M. (2009). The Effects of 

Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) 

on Driver Attention and Distraction: An Update. Report 

No. FHWA-HRT-09-018, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Perez, W. A., Bertola, M. A., Kennedy, J. F., and 

Molino, J. A. (2011). Driver Visual Behavior in the 

Presence of Commercial Electronic Variable Message 

Signs (CEVMS). Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC.

Tantala, A. M., and Tantala, M. W. (2007). A Study of 

the Relationship Between Digital Billboards and Traffic 

Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Technical Report, 

Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and 

Education, Washington, DC.

The Impact of Roadside Advertising on Driver 

Distraction: Final Report. WSP Development and 

Transportation, Highways Agency, London, England, 

June 2008.

Appendix E: Studies on the Potential Impact 

of Outdoor Advertising on Traffic Safety

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan 75
Wachtel, J. (2009). Safety Impacts of the Emerging 

Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising 

Signs. Report No. NCHRP 20-07 (Task 256), 

National Highway Cooperative Research Program, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Wachtel, J., and Netherton, R. (1980). Safety and 

Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of 

Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. 

Report No. FHWA-RD-80-051, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

Wallace, B. E. (2003). External-to-Vehicle Driver 

Distraction. Transport Research Planning Group, 

Scottish Executive Social Research.

Young, K. L., Regan, M. A., and Hammer, M. (2003). 

Driver Distraction: A Review of The Literature (No. 

206). Melbourne: Monash University Accident 

Research Centre.

Young, M. S., Mahfoud, J. M., Stanton, N. A., 

Salmon, P. M., Jenkins, D. P., and Walker, G. H. 

“Conflicts of Interest: The Implications of Roadside 

Advertising for Driver Attention.” Transportation 

Research Part F, 12(2009), 381-388.

76 Appendix E: Studies on the Potential Impact of Outdoor Advertising on Traffic Safety

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636 n Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-11-023 HPIP/5-11(3.5)EW