Bus Shelters Done Right

[Jason]

Its good news to see something moving on this.  City hall seems to be listening to our comments and suggestions.  It seems that this site has become an unpaid city consultant.

[mikemiller]

The JTA appreciates all the comments on this post regarding ads on bus shelters. Just as an FYI...CM Warren Jones, who now chairs the Rules Committee, will again be deferring the JTA shelter sign ordinance waiver bill  on Mon., 3/17 at 10 am. He has asked me to attend the meeting and supply the committee with locations of all our bus stops (6500 total) and those with shelters (400 locations). As to the Adopt a Shelter program proposed by Atty Bill Brinton, we have researched over 20 transit agencies that feature an Adopt A Stop program. In all cases, the "adoption" was to get civic organizations, commercial extablishments, Boy Scout/Girl Scout troops, church groups and schools to volunteer to keep an "adopted shelter" free of litter, washed, cleaned of graffiti and emptying garbage. The JTA is not at all opposed to the Adopt A Shelter program proposed by Mr. Brinton and his associates. The issue we have is that we have not seen a business plan developed that will offset the capital, maintenance, repair and insurance costs that are currently taxpayer paid. Each shelter costs approx. $4-6,000 (not including pad & installation) for a basic shelter similar to those already installed, and approx. $1,000 per yr. per shelter to maintain (not including repair, replacement, and insurance). The JTA would like to put up at least 50 new shelters per yr. That would total approx. $450,000 per yr for capital expenses and an additional $50,000 per yr. for maintenance. Current public dollars are not available to be used for both this purpose and to buy new transit equipment at the same time. We are forced to prioritize those available federal dollars. It isn't that we are enamored with advertising. In fact, very little comes back to the agency. It's just that if we can improve the transit experience for our riders and entice additional riders to use transit, everyone would be better off. As the Times Union pointed out in a supportive editorial when this bill was first introduced, "Council members have a chance to help their constituents without using scarce tax dollars." (6/1/05)

[thelakelander]

Mike, does JTA have examples of what the proposed bus shelters will look like?  Does JTA have control over how large the advertisement display will be?  I don't know if there's a median ground with the "no billboard" crowd on this issue, but JTA could gain points if proposed shelters are more in line with shelter "B" as opposed to shelter "A".

Shelter A


Shelter B

[Steve]

Admin Note - since we had two threads talking about the same thing (my fault - I created the second one), I've merged the threads.  Sorry about any confusion

[Coolyfett]

Has anybody seen the "bus stop" on Roosevelt near NAS? It is on the opposite side about half a mile south from the main gate. There is no sidewalk on the street and is between railroad tracks and the six lane highway that is Roosevelt. It is literally a small wood bench and would be damn near impossible for a person to reach. Not surprising, I have never seen one person at this bus stop.

"Those People" on 17 don't like buses. "Those People" don't want regular people in their part of town. That bench you saw on 17 is not the only one. From Collins all the way to that bridge that connects Ortega to Roosevelt Mall has about 5 bus stops........seriously. "Those People" don't care for rapid transit like the people on this site do. "Those People" control a lot of what goes on in Jacksonville  .  Nothing is done by accident. Same thing can be said for San Jose and some parts of University. "Those People" don't want you there, they will not give you easy access. 

[Coolyfett]

I think Peyton should write a "Learning from China" article for us...

(not a joke)

May not be a joke...but still quite funny.

[Steve]

Since 2005, JTA has been trying to form a public-private partnership that would allow the transportation authority to install hundreds of bus shelters all over town. Those shelters would be built and maintained by a private company that would also sell advertising on the structures.

For four years, JTA has battled the City’s sign ordinance and the perception that such shelters would contribute to visual pollution. Today, JTA is once again seeking to add shelters and it’s armed with two things: a California federal court ruling and a young, progressive-thinking City Council that realizes the value of public-private partnerships.

According to JTA spokesman Mike Miller, JTA has 6,600 stops across Jacksonville’s 840 square miles. Of those stops, only 400 have shelters. That means 6,200 consist of little more than a metal pole in the ground — something Miller, and now Council member Warren Jones, says is no good especially on a July afternoon with temperatures soaring and the ever-present threat of thunderstorms.


http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=52459

[thelakelander]

Hopefully, they'll have better success this time around.  We have to get past this thing of drawing lines in the sand and outright opposing improvements without having solid alternatives to offer.

[archiphreak]

I agree with both points of view here.  On one hand commercial bus shelters can give way to the kinds of "predatory" ads that you don't want to see, but then again, the alternative is to have either A) no shelters at all with people standing in the rain waiting for a bus that may not come which will drive down ridership or B) a makeshift shelter like the one posted above (see cinder blocks and 2x8).  Now, do I think that opening up bus shelter advertisements would send this city into a 'signage free for all"?  NO.  Because there are ways to regulate the use of signage, i.e. "only on/at approved locations" or "upon final review by some such board or other".  There are ways to curtail the "ugliness" that could ensue.  The problem with all these cities that have allowed all the smut and can't seem to do anything about it is because they didn't think of these things when they wrote their laws.  We CAN.  It is not a 1st Amendment infringement to stipulate where and how different types of signage/advertisement can be placed.  That's simple regulation.  Obviously there is an up and down side to that, but lets face facts - without some kind of regulation it would be a free for all like other cities. 
Also, I see a huge problem with "adopt a shelter" programs.  If it is put outside the regulation of the city what is to stop "smut companies" from "adopting" a shelter?  It effectively becomes their property and they can advertise however they wish causing the same problem that we want to avoid. 
The simple truth is this: we need better shelters.  We need more riders on public transportation.  We need a more progressive, modern public transportation system.  The easiest way to get to where we NEED to be is to offer ways for JTA to generate revenue outside of the $.75 you pay to get on the bus.  Public transportation is a business like any other.  This is a free market society (for now) so lets take advantage of it.  Let it do what it does best.  With proper regulation and enforcement we can avoid the same pitfalls of other larger cities.  Like when I was in NYC 2 years ago on the second floor of the M&M store looking at a 50' tall ad of two nearly naked women from a local gentlemen's club.  THAT we should avoid.

[coredumped]

This topic is back on JTA's site:
http://jtafla.com/News/showPage.aspx?news=59

[bdoon51]

Here, midway between DC and Baltmore we have a planned community (Rouse Company) where design is strictly controlled. They also control 3 of the 5 County Council seats and did not want ads on bus shelters.
I emphathize with them...I hate advertising. However many of the McDonalds workers or landscapers or retail clerks who cannot afford to live in Columbia ,the planned communtiy , take transit to work. Folks in this town do not want to wait 20 minutes for their Big Mac and want a well-groomed appearance for their town, want their children or Seniors well taken care of in daycare and want enough clerks in stores but do not care if these workers coming from less well-heeled communities wait in the rain or snow because there is not enough money in the local gov budget to install shelters everywhere they should be. Politically it is a very liberal town but when it comes to helping out the working poor in their own neighborhood...it is NIMBY...not in my back yard.
Shelter advertising opens the door to more onerous ads etc only if you let it. Folks draw boundary lines all the time. These folks servicing the weathier communities do not get living wages to buy cars and actually have much lower carbon footprints than the folks they service but those same folks deny them the most rudiment comfort and safety in their trips to succor themselves, the wealthier.