Its time for Jacksonville to finally grow up when it comes to taking advantage of public/private partnerships to improve mass transit's attractiveness in town.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/615388812_yUHrK-M.jpg)
QuoteJacksonville City Councilman Bill Bishop says the city has a sign law that's one of the best in the country. So Bishop was frustrated this week when a City Council committee voted unanimously to amend it.
"For 20 years, our [sign law] has been a model nationwide," he said, while adding that this put the sign law at risk.
In 1987 the installation of new billboards and other commercial signs was banned in Jacksonville. This ban also mandated the incremental removal of existing signs and billboards.
Now the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is looking for a way around it.
The JTA has asked the council to amend an existing ordinance so that advertising would be allowed on bus shelters within the city. The council will take up the issue at its meeting on Tuesday.
Ten of the 19 City Council members have co-sponsored the legislation, all but guaranteeing the bill will pass unless one of the co-sponsors changes his or her mind.
"It doesn't look good," Bishop conceded. "But I'm going to do everything I can to argue against it next Tuesday."
QuoteThere are now about 6,000 bus stops in Jacksonville, but only about 350 of them have shelters to protect people from bad weather, Blaylock said.
It costs $4,000 to $12,000 to construct a shelter and about $1,200 a year to maintain one, but the new shelters might by more ornate and cost more than the existing shelters, JTA spokesman Mike Miller said.
The City Council's Land Use and Zoning Committee unanimously endorsed the amendment Tuesday. The committee is made up of council members Stephen Joost, Ray Holt, Reggie Brown, Don Redman, Daniel Davis, Warren Jones and Johnny Gaffney. They agreed that no bus shelters with advertising would be allowed in the historic districts of Riverside-Avondale and Springfield.
All seven committee members have co-sponsored the legislation, along the fellow council members Ronnie Fussell, Art Shad and Glorious Johnson.
full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-10-09/story/bus_shelter_battle_heads_to_jacksonville_city_council
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/616625969_mpsvo-M.jpg)
I still see no reason to allow signs or advertising either on Bud shelters or bus's. The revenue generated can not be that much overall......besides what about the 72 Million Dollars found in that JTA piggy bank? Why not use that? I find it interesting that this money comes to light after the Budget (with a tax increase no less) has been passed. Of course the Council could find no fat or waste in the Budget ya know........good job looking at things ain't it!
Why use the $72 million on something you can get for free? Everyone talks about public/private partnerships and how no private company will invest in mass transit and then when the opportunity comes along we cry about it. The signage issue aside (signage can be a good thing in certain areas), I think we have to remember that if we want private investment on public projects, the benefits have to be a two way street. For the private sector, that benefit will most likely be a way for them to make money.
Anyway, since no one in this city wants to pay extra taxes to fund needed improvements in this city, that $72 million would be better used for costly mass transit capital projects such as streetcar, commuter rail or the JTC. However, I've heard the $72 million may be set aside to fund the rest of JTA's BJP road projects since most of the BJP money has gone up in smoke (probably the courthouse).
I agree lake.........I always did wonder just how Johnny was planning on funding that white elephant. Did not need to be done............other ways were possible to upgrade existing bldg's! Something as mundane as a "Night Court" could have relieved congestion at the Courthouse but did not see anyone even propose that idea! Moran just wanted a bigger and newer office and damn the cost since the taxpayers would be footing the bill anyway!
have you ever been in the existing building? It is practically falling apart!
"They agreed that no bus shelters with advertising would be allowed in the historic districts of Riverside-Avondale and Springfield."
FYI
Quote from: fsu813 on October 09, 2009, 11:15:56 AM
"They agreed that no bus shelters with advertising would be allowed in the historic districts of Riverside-Avondale and Springfield."
FYI
Well, that is just stupid. Those areas have a higher concentration of riders than most parts of town.
Also, when is the meeting today? I haven't seen it anywhere.
tufsu1.......yes I have! Was there not long ago for possible jury duty and will admit it does need work but would like to point out, bldg could have been overhauled or renovated for lots less than the $350 Million Dollars the new one will be costing the taxpayers. Originally voters OK'd $190 Million for a new one (granted that was not a specific dollar amount and was under projected by Delaney and his crew) and for $350 Million projected now and that will probably be lower than the final cost, I do take exception! It as well as the Annex could have both been renovated at lots lower cost to the taxpayer instead of what we are going to end up with! I have not seen the Courts initiate a Night Court to help reduce case loads and even when the new elephant comes on line , that will not happen either! So the courts are not making full use of what they have now and they want bigger newer yada yada! I am almost speechless!
there's a lot of untapped value in the land underneath the current courthouse...maybe the City can recoup some of the $350 million, either in sale of the land and/or additionl revenues brought in by its reuse
rednavy,
no it's not stupid. it defeats the whole purpose of a historic district.
Which one is worse historically? A shelter or a truck that calls itself a trolley?
In any event, I agree with not putting the shelters in the historic districts. Getting this thing passed is more important than seeing it fail because of opposition in Jax's only two historic districts, which are pretty insignificant in size when compared with the rest of JTA's service area. Just eliminating them outright from this benefit for the good of the rest of the community was a great move on JTA's part.
If the goal is to increase ridership, then it makes sense to put these shelters in places that are not traditionally where people ride the bus. Some nice looking shelters in high traffic areas might help change public perception of mass transit. That's where you'd make your increases anyways. It would be a good place to put some pedestrian signage too.
No mention was made for "Pedestrian" signage...........that won't earn someone a buck! I say remove all advertising not only from the bus's but the shelters also......they would just mask who or what is inside. Doesn't make sense to have Plexiglas's sides when the view is blocked by a sign!
Quote from: fsu813 on October 09, 2009, 08:59:27 PM
rednavy,
no it's not stupid. it defeats the whole purpose of a historic district.
With a bit of imagination, this is a fix that was about as simple as looking through an old photo album. When in the historic districts, you build historic replica-retro shelters.... OCKLAWAHA
I just don't understand why people are offended by signs and billboards. Advertising is an important way for businesses to communicate with potential customers. It promotes economic activity and economic growth and that's a beautiful thing.
urbanlibertarian.....not really sure just how much business is generated by signs on bus's and shelters.....do you know? I don't really pay much attention to either since I am focused on the road and don't want my attention to wander.....but that's me! I don't really pay attention to billboards either so I,from my point of view see no need for either one. As a revenue stream there may be some basis for them both but not from my view! When I am two wheels......I most assuredly am focused on what is around me, don't wish to get run over and that has come close several times by people with their heads not keeping track of what is going on!
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 10, 2009, 10:19:42 AM
I just don't understand why people are offended by signs and billboards. Advertising is an important way for businesses to communicate with potential customers. It promotes economic activity and economic growth and that's a beautiful thing.
Urbanlibertarian, if you lived here before the sign ordinances of today, you would understand. Too much of anything is not good, and we had way too much signage in this town. Jax looks a 1,000 times nicer today because of our restrictions. Just go to other communities to see one of the few "development restrictions" we have that truly elevates Jax above other cities.
One can argue we may have gone too far, but let's not swing back to the past where every surface and public spot imaginable was plastered with attention grabbing signage. It gets ugly quick.
The biggest issue I have heard about regarding the bill to permit bus shelter ads, is does the bill open up the door to legal challenges reestablishing billboards, etc. in Jax. This should be a real concern to all who care about the aesthetics of our community. It wouldn't be long before you would be looking out your window and seeing a giant billboard looking back. As you look down our boulevards, all you would see are billboards and flashing signs. This is what we had before. The real question here is what is the threat that this bill's passage leads to the uncontrolled dismantling of our sign ordinance. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
I've only lived here since '57. "Too much signage" is a matter of individual taste. IMO the current sign ordinance is very unfriendly to business and too restrictive of private property rights. But that's just me. And I don't own a business or a billboard.
I'm all for transit shelters that WORK, and if someone wants to write their name in blood on them, see if I care! NOT! I would think if all signs were restricted to a certain 2' x 4' size, then nobody could challenge that. Even it they did, and WON, what are they going to do? Put up a tiny billboard nobody could see?
Both sides see to be missing the shelter sponsor program, the one we apparently don't have. Nice shelter with a CSX, Winn Dixie, ATT, logo or message milled into the aluminum seat. What would that be worth?
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 10, 2009, 02:23:28 PM
"Too much signage" is a matter of individual taste. IMO the current sign ordinance is very unfriendly to business and too restrictive of private property rights. But that's just me. And I don't own a business or a billboard.
I guess you are saying you can tolerate billboards, cell towers, flashing lights, noises, odors, traffic flows, etc. assaulting your way of life as long as it is on private property? To take it to an extreme, if that property were right next to your home? When is it too much and who decides? The sign ordinance we currently have has, to date, represented the feelings of our community at large.
Given that, the concern now is does the bus shelter proposal have unintended consequences that are to the detriment of a clear community priority, despite your personal opinion, for the removal of billboards?
I say no signs on shelters and remove the ones on bus's! I don't read any and would not even if I could! No one can say anything about just what revenue is generated by those forms of advertising so I am kinda at a lose as to just what benefit this gives us! Can mankind, civilization and the City of Jacksonville live without advertising on any bus's and bus shelters? Gee I sure do hope so!
(http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/06/13/011050.1-lg.jpg)
This is a question of ridership success, rather then a business crushing law on private enterprise.Quote from: CS Foltz on October 10, 2009, 08:51:08 PM
I say no signs on shelters and remove the ones on bus's! I don't read any and would not even if I could! No one can say anything about just what revenue is generated by those forms of advertising so I am kinda at a lose as to just what benefit this gives us! Can mankind, civilization and the City of Jacksonville live without advertising on any bus's and bus shelters? Gee I sure do hope so!
Quote from: stephendare on October 10, 2009, 08:56:52 PM
Mankind can live without it, surely.
But for the past 20 years, bus shelters aren't being built without it.
And lets face it. Sitting in the rain for 20 minutes waiting on a late bus is ridiculous.
Once again Stephen, when we agree, WE REALLY AGREE!
CS, I'm with you on the "Bus Wrap Advertising," however traditional placard ad's on the inside and out, as well as the rear should be a heavily marketed product.
I have a theory, and Mike Blaylock, if you read this post, this one is for you my friend. We all know Light Rail or Streetcars outdraw buses anytime, anywhere, even if the route is less desireable (see: Tuscon, Old Pueblo Trolley). No one seems to know why, but it is speculated that the fixed route, and uniform look appeals to customers as a sort of visual security blanket. Houston has experimented with some success in putting LED lights in pavement reflectors, and what started out as a warning device for crossing streetcars, has now grown to include signal priority buses and will soon be deployed in bus lanes. At night having a "light track" might spur some of our premium bus routes into much heavier ridership, even two and three unit articulated. Add this to the confusion of the sickening Keith Pearson buses, or the giant Radio Station, and I don't think you do too much, but add this to a system of uniform JACKSONVILLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY buses, and I think you have moved as close as a train, without the steel wheels.
Bus Shelter ads are done around the world, and there is NO REASON that the law must allow anything bigger then that anywhere in town.
Shelter Ads + 4,000 new shelters
Light Tracks
Uniform Paint + placard ads
=
SUCCESS.
For the record, our old wood bench with concrete support bus stops back in 1959, carried ads!OCKLAWAHA
QuoteFor the record, our old wood bench with concrete support bus stops back in 1959, carried ads!
And most of them were removed due to the sign law.
I think JTA is proposing 4x8 ads - which are about the same size as the old tacky yellow "portable" signs that littered every strip mall parking lot - at least one per every storefront.
(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/bus%20shelter.jpg)
(http://adairjones.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bus-shelter-no-bus.jpg)
Typical end ad's on modern shelters.
4' x 8' would be bad, and I could see a legal challenge with a sign of that size. Folks that is the size of a sheet of plywood! Imagine sitting next to it, or having it you, your interested in the ad, but you'd have to stand up and walk out into the middle of the street just to read the damn thing. Usually these things are on one end of the shelter, where a 2'/3' x 4'/5' sign is more then enough. Sometimes I think if these planners were Salmon, they'd swim DOWN the stream! Though as a whole, Lemmings seem to be a better fit.
(http://blogs.canrightcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/solar-powered-bus-shelter-1_stpls_176211.jpg)
Oh my, this one has solar power in the roof panels and WI-FI... San Francisco, of course, where else?
OCKLAWAHA
Fella's.....I got no problem with bus shelters of any type! I have a problem with "Advertising"! Now if someone can put a revenue figure out here that would justify having both bus and shelter advertising lemme have it! I mean I have asked several time about just how much money for anyone is made with this advertising taking place? JTA is making money and what are they doing with it? They say "we need private enterprise to install and maintain shelters".....I say they are full of excrement! Got a JTA account with 72 Million Dollars in it and that will end up being used by Johnny for that stupid Courthouse I did not ask for! So how much money is made by JTA with all of their advertising on our bus's and shelters.....it needs to stop and stop now!
Question: Why aren't bus shelters funded as part of the infrastructure of the bus system? Are they going to solicit adds for the $ky-high-way stations to pay for those? Why don't we hang ads off of our traffic lights to pay for those? Let's put ads on police cars and fire trucks (they could look like NASCAR race cars 8) ). Let's sell ads in our city park playgrounds and on school buildings. Really, what is the difference between these and bus stops?
I really don't have problems with the ads, but let them meet the same sign ordinances as everyone else or how do we stop the proliferation by all those who rightly would say why can't we have the same privileges that JTA has? As a government agency, JTA should set an example of good community stewardship, not be a leader in dismantling it. JTA fritters more money away each year than all the bus shelters could possibly cost over time.
If the shelters are integral to providing adequate bus service, let's use some of that stimulus money like the $7.8 million being mentioned on another MJ thread.
(http://www.plannersweb.com/wfiles/w102_billboards.jpg)
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 11, 2009, 12:05:53 AM
Fella's.....I got no problem with bus shelters of any type! I have a problem with "Advertising"! Now if someone can put a revenue figure out here that would justify having both bus and shelter advertising lemme have it! I mean I have asked several time about just how much money for anyone is made with this advertising taking place? JTA is making money and what are they doing with it? They say "we need private enterprise to install and maintain shelters".....I say they are full of excrement! Got a JTA account with 72 Million Dollars in it and that will end up being used by Johnny for that stupid Courthouse I did not ask for! So how much money is made by JTA with all of their advertising on our bus's and shelters.....it needs to stop and stop now!
Whoa there friend... No pot of gold in the mass transit business. Tell you what the "golden rule of thumb is." 25% of ALL REVENUE will come from the farebox, ad's, etc... and 75% of all costs are labor. Anytime a JTA type system can grab 400 or 4,000 bus shelters completely free to the tax payer, we should jump on it.
stjr, I'm still with you on this, I don't think 4' x 8' is a good idea, an argument could be made that many old billboards, (as in antique) were that size, so it might open a can of worms. Just downsize the darn things and be done with it. OCKLAWAHA
Billboards taken to the extreme! Do these people have any scruples? That is why we have a sign ordinance.
(http://www.publicadcampaign.com/uploaded_images/MitsubishiFloating_billboard__1__op_800x511-760772.jpg)
I don't remember, but I think the shelter ads will be 4x8 - see the pic of that ad on the end of the shelter posted earlier, it must be at least 4x8, if not 5x9. Making them smaller may kill the deal.
I'm in the camp of believing the sign ordinance is too restrictive. I understand that there was a lot of crap in the suburbs, but signage is an important element of vibrancy in urban settings. We threw the baby out with the bath water and implemented a suburban solution to the problem city wide, sort of like throwing down medians on Main Street and then being surprised when people jump out the bushes to cross the street mid block.
I guess it really boils down to who you believe. There are two attorneys offering different opinions, except JTA's attorney has a couple of examples in other cities to suggest that the change will not impact the ordinance the way the opposition claims. By the same token, this is a city that has routinely claimed you can't do rail here because we aren't dense enough and it costs too much. Then you turn around and notice that places like Charlotte and Nashville have rail and others like Little Rock and Austin have been able to fund rail lines for a cheaper cost than what we plan to pay for BRT. So again, it really boils down to who you believe and if you believe having no bus shelters is better than having ads on free ones that are better maintained.
The simple solution is if Jax wants to be so restrictive as to eliminate the possibility of public/private solutions for public infrastructure improvements, is to raise our taxes to pay for the things we can get for free. Unfortunately, the typical decision around this city in the past is to do nothing and complain about inadequate service, which doesn't benefit anybody and helps us maintain our second tier city status quo.
Thanks for the info Ock.........That gives me something at least since I had no idea on what the JTA's cut would be regarding advertising on shelters or bus's! I have no problem with public/private enterprise providing shelters for bus stops. I have a problem with Advertising and circumventing the current law regarding said advertising! I have no idea on just how effective that type of advertising is.......and by that I mean just how many customers respond because of an ad that was seen at "x"? Most business try and keep track of just what type and where their advertising dollars are generating customer responce. In the telecommunications business there is no advertising, you respond to a bid request from a company and bid to do the job in x amount of time and at x cost! Your company's phone number may be listed as a general contact point but that's about it and that's in the local phone book by the way, no one uses that for national useage. That particular industry is more word of mouth than any advertising in a traditional form. Most people would not even know what the heck a maintenance or erection company would do or even why. Unless a cell tower was put up in their neighborhood, ask Suzanne Jenkins what happened in her world!
Question: Doesn't a public private partnership have to benefit both parties? Why would a private enterprise participate in providing such an expensive service if there is no financial benefit to them for doing so?
lake.....can not argue that point! Something should benefit both parties or its a one way street! Maybe something as simple as marking the back rest for the benches as "Thanks to yada yada" this shelter is provided! Not sure how to go at this one......limiting signage to back of shelter? Closing out the ends with advertising blocks the view as a bus comes up on one and the first time a bus gets robbed you know what that will bring! Some of the stops in some of the higher crime area's would be real fun!
According to pictures Mike Miller had at a presentation I saw, the ads would only be on one end of the shelter (2 ads, one inside one outside), and it could easily be the downstream end, so people inside can see the bus, and the bus driver can see the people inside.
A small "provided by" on the seat or seat back wouldn't work - the whole point is to give advertisers display space that people driving by in cars can see.
QuoteA small "provided by" on the seat or seat back wouldn't work - the whole point is to give advertisers display space that people driving by in cars can see.
Yes, this is the difference between a private sector entity providing a bench or two verses a single entity providing more than 80 new shelters a year. My guess, if there were a better cost effective alternative to get just as many new bus shelters the opposition would have discovered and promoted it by now.
Privately funded and maintained with ads(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/616626899_scKqm-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/616626468_UF7Gi-M.jpg)
Publicly funded option without ads(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/bus_shelters/busstops-008.jpg)
One thing that may be considered is a standardized shelter......one type for historical area's and one for regular usage.....the reason that I say this is the three pictures posted are all different in style, materials and design. A standardized design would at least give anyone a cost per unit picture which could have some bearing on where and how many are installed throughout the City. Solar unit on roof would allow two signs to rotate and allow 3 advertisers per sign with minimal upkeep. I have seen large bill boards using that format and makes sense just in reducing the numbers of signs.....that's just my take!
Quote from: thelakelander on October 11, 2009, 05:34:38 AM
I guess it really boils down to who you believe. There are two attorneys offering different opinions, except JTA's attorney has a couple of examples in other cities to suggest that the change will not impact the ordinance the way the opposition claims.... So again, it really boils down to who you believe and if you believe having no bus shelters is better than having ads on free ones that are better maintained.
Lake, I guess I would chose to believe the opposition. Why? JTA, city offiicials, and government attorneys have a long record of being wrong on just about everything they promise about the "future". They are either in-bred optimists at all costs, just want to have their way with the taxpayers money and will say anything to do so, and/or they are very naive about how the real world works. Doesn't matter. They are usually just way off on their expectations and promises.
Evidence? Just read today's newspaper headline about the "miscalculations" by millions of dollars the City has made on the Stadium costs. Are they really "miscalculations"? Or did they just ignore the "opposition" that said all along the stadium would be the financial boondoggle it is turning out to be.
More examples rest with the $ky-high-way, Cecil Field, the Shipyards, St. Johns River Management District, JPA, JAA, Better Jax Plan, etc.
So who do I believe about the risks for signs? Not JTA. And since when are JTA attorneys experts on sign ordinances? I thought they were transit oriented?QuoteThe simple solution is if Jax wants to be so restrictive as to eliminate the possibility of public/private solutions for public infrastructure improvements, is to raise our taxes to pay for the things we can get for free. Unfortunately, the typical decision around this city in the past is to do nothing and complain about inadequate service, which doesn't benefit anybody and helps us maintain our second tier city status quo.
Not all our problems are tax related and this one certainly isn't. Inadequacy in our transit service has much more to do with poor decision making and deployment of resources.
What would serve our community better? Losing $7+ million each year on the worthless and seldom used $ky-high-way or buying more bus shelters for a bus system, that while far from perfect, serves thousands more people throughout all of the region, not just a couple of miles downtown. Or, instead of spending $200 million in transportation dollars on an unneeded road like 9B or a billion+ on the Outer Beltway, spend a fraction of that on the bus shelters and mass transit. And, before you say JTA doesn't control these things, they do as they are the biggest influence on the transportation priorities for all of Northeast Florida.
The money is there, it's just going down toilet drains instead of somewhere useful. These bus shelters are a pittance of what goes through the hands of JTA and FDOT.
What is really missing is proper prioritization of spending. Fix the decision making process.
Ally of the day, ol' Ron Littlepage. Here is today's column and look what he said!QuoteCouncil should reject advertising on bus shelters
* By Ron Littlepage
* Story updated at 12:48 AM on Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009
A Google search for "bus shelter advertising" produces some eye-opening results.
One is a picture of a large bus shelter ad pushing Wonderbra, accenting, well, what Wonderbra accents.
Talk about a traffic accident waiting to happen.
Then there's the news story in the San Francisco Chronicle about bus shelters in that city being equipped with aromatic adhesive strips "infused with the scent of fresh baked, chocolate chip cookies."
Apparently the goal was to get bus riders to arrive home craving a glass of milk.
One 16-year-old girl quoted in the story was skeptical.
"It's going to smell like cookies and bums," she said.
The above must be examples of what another article described as "ad creep." Bus shelter ads may start out tame, but ad people being ad people, the envelope is going to be pushed.
This is relevant to Jacksonville because the City Council is getting ready to play a dangerous game with the city's sign ordinance.
The gamble is coming at the request of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, which is asking the council to amend the ordinance to allow advertising on bus shelters.
The argument in favor is that the companies doing the advertising would pay to build and maintain the shelters.
Considering the shameful lack of bus shelters in Jacksonville, where it's been known to occasionally rain, that sounds like a good idea - if you like visual pollution in the public rights-of-way.
In 1987, voters in Jacksonville clearly said they didn't when they passed a charter amendment banning billboards.
That and the sign ordinance the council passed the same year are considered national models.
A JTA attorney maintains tweaking them to allow bus shelter ads won't endanger their enforceability.
However, two Jacksonville attorneys who are experts in such matters, Tracey Arpen and Bill Brinton, say that's not necessarily true.
I think I'll side with the experts.
The JTA also assures that any ads on the shelters would be tasteful, but who's to decide what's tasteful?
Apparently the bigger-than-life Hooter's girls ads on JTA buses fit the JTA definition. Could Wonderbra be far behind?
When the proposal came before the city's Planning Commission, it was denied because commissioners didn't want to go down the slippery slope the JTA is advocating.
However, 10 City Council members have signed up as co-sponsors of the change, which should mean it will pass when the full council takes it up Tuesday.
At least one of those 10 needs to reconsider.
If the council is determined to tinker with the sign ordinance, put the question on the ballot and see if voters feel as strongly about visual pollution as they did in 1987.
If they do, how to pay for needed bus shelters?
The JTA could start by shutting down that money loser known as the Skyway and put those dollars to better use.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2009-10-11/story/council_should_reject_advertising_on_bus_shelters
Stephen, it is a false argument to face off sign ordinance supporters against bus riders. This should not really be the issue. JTA execs are laughing at our expense.
My point, and others, is the money should be taken from other projects and/or funds so the sign issue isn't a factor. Why don't you challenge your JTA execs to be be more creative or to change the priorities of their expenditures if they agree bus shelters are a high priority.
By the way, how much do we spend on JTA's annual budget? For buses? And, what is needed to properly do the bus shelters? Can we get some perspective here?
Funny, Stephen, but it only took me a few seconds on Google to find out it just ain't so starting with our nearby neighbor, Orlando. Apparently, they just received millions in Federal stimulus money for bus shelters. Ask JTA where is ours? And, after three years, Orlando still hasn't worked out a satisfactory contract for doing any ads. And, it seems, other communities are finding non-commercial ways to create bus shelters as well. Below, just a few samples of articles on the subject:QuoteOrlando is turning down free bus shelters
By
Mike Synan
@ September 25, 2009 7:12 AM
They're handing the hot potato to Lynx instead.
A company was all set to build hundreds of shelters in Orange County at no cost to the taxpayers, then sell ads on them, but ever since stimulus money arrived, the city and Lynx are putting the brakes on the program. Dick Batchelor represents Signal Advertising, the company that wants to put in the free bus shelters. He says Lynx's plan is to spend the stimulus money illegally by bringing the whole shelter program in house.
"They had to submit an FTA application as to how they would spend the money. Purchase of a private contract was not in that application."
Lynx has only discussed the idea of buying Signal Advertising's contracts in Orange and Seminole among staff, they've done nothing wrong. Each city and county has its own shelter program, but Roger Neiswender with Orlando says after 3 years of working to get hundreds of free shelters in the city, they're washing their hands of the whole thing.
"That's a decision for Lynx to make."
Lynx has 7 and a half million bucks they could potentially spend on bus shelters. They hope to decide by the end of the year. By using private contractors, Lynx currently doesn't have to pay when shelters are put up. They receive thousands in revenue from the deals, but staff estimates they would make hundreds of thousands if they were to sell the ads themselves.
Here is another example:QuoteCARY - Thanks to the federal government, fewer bus riders will have to stand in the rain or the baking sun as they await transportation.
The town has received federal dollars to add four prefabricated bus shelters at stops near the intersections of N. Harrison Avenue and Maynard Road and Wrenn Drive and Kildaire Farm Road.
The $95,000 is part of the federal stimulus package, which was approved to stimulate the nation's struggling economy. The money comes in addition to a $10,000 grant from the Kildaire Farm Rotary Club, which also will aid the construction of one of the shelters on Kildaire Farm Road.
http://www.carynews.com/news/story/13795.html
Here is another approach:QuoteGreenlink has also installed 7 of 200 planned bus shelters; more than 18 more bus shelters are on the drawing board for this year.
It’s also in the process of upgrading its Downtown Transition Center in Greenville’s central business district, Carter said.
He said the shelters are installed by Greenville County Public Works Department crews and are built as they become available to do the work.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091004/NEWS/910040314/1004/NEWS01
And, still another "creative" approach:Quote
Lexington, KY - Yvette Hurt is pretty straightforward about her nonprofit organization, Art in Motion, Inc., and its mission in Lexington "to sell this idea of artistic bus shelters in the community and to raise funds with partners to help build them," she said.
Hurt's idea to create something cool and unusual with Lexington's drab bus shelters was hatched in 2005. "We put together partners who can get these shelters built. It's purely a public interest project," said Hurt, who has successfully managed to harness the talent and generosity of local artists, sculptors, architects, contractors and lighting experts on what might be called a shoestring budget.
The first artistic shelter, called "Bottle Stop," was built on Versailles Road near the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government campus. The latest one, "Art Stop," is located in the East End neighborhood on the corner of Third Street and Elm Tree Lane, across from the soon to be refurbished Lyric Theater. Both shelters are solar powered.
Money for the East End project came from the Knight Foundation, a neighborhood grant secured by 1st District Councilmember Andrea James through the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government and private gifts. The shelter uses a large metal sculpture called "Lyrical Movement" and has five art panels.
When the economy is putting pressure on every business operator to maximize their company's time and staff in order to turn a profit, the donation of time and talent may seem a bit surprising. "Why did we do it? For community involvement. It's a worthwhile cause and I wanted to help out," said Paul Ochenkoski, a vice president at EOP Architects, a regional design firm based in Lexington that specializes in health club, higher education, K-12, research, corporate and civic architecture projects. EOP designed the new $25 million outdoor stadium at the Kentucky Horse Park.
http://www.bizlex.com/Articles-c-2009-09-29-89742.113117_Architectural_talent_dresses_up_bus_shelters.html
Still another example:
Quote20 new bus shelters installed
San Diego Communities - Talmadge
BY Landon Bright
Friday, 25 September 2009 11:08
Councilmember Todd Gloria will unveil new bus shelters in front of the City Heights-Weingart Branch Library on Friday, Sept. 25.
The City Heights Business Association (CHBA) has purchased and installed 20 new bus shelters throughout the area.
“City Heights is a very transit-friendly area, and these bus shelters are practical and attractive additions to our neighborhood,†said Councilmember Gloria. “This community is worth this investment, and I appreciate the City Heights Business Association for making this project happen.â€
The need for bus shelters was identified four years ago. Four of the shelters were funded by Community Development Block Grants. The other 16 were funded by the City of San Diego’s Redevelopment Agency.
“The residents of City Heights are pleased that after a long and difficult process, we finally have the bus shelters we worked so hard to get,†said Enrique Gandarilla, Executive Director of City Heights Business Association.
http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36070:20-new-bus-shelters-installed-&catid=217:talmadge&Itemid=242
Stephen, there are two aspects to why ad money is supposedly needed: (1) to build the shelters and (2) to maintain them.
JTA appears to be making the primary case they need the money to BUILD the shelters. The examples I posted appear to me to show that that is not the case in other communities. Further, you implied to me that JTA had no other way to get funding for BUILDING the shelters, short of ad money or a tax increase. In fact, they could get grants and federal stimulus money, not to mention maybe some support from JEDC or other community or state grant makers.
As to maintenance funds, this is a far lower dollar need than the money to build. I have yet to hear JTA plead their case on this point or see any projections what the needs are. But, you could be reasonably sure, the maintenance of the bus shelters is far less money than the losses on the unused $ky-high-way.
If you really side with many thousands of bus riders, you should demand that JTA fund the bus system and its infrastructure properly before helping out probably less than 1,000 unique riders a day, 5 days a week, on the $ky-high-way.
If we have limited funds, as I have repeatedly agreed we do, then we need to make the hard choices of where to put those monies to the best good. In this era of sacrifices and cutbacks, the $ky-high-way may be a luxury we just can't afford anymore. I think the biggest shortcoming to the case of mass transit supporters on MJ is the failure to accept we just can't have everything on the wish list. Prioritize, and take things from the top.
By the way, my main beef with the ads is opening the door to the dilution of the sign ordinance and, as others have said, the camel's nose under the tent. If that could be proven with reasonable certainty not to be the case, and Jax could actually develop a limited plan that they would enforce and live by and not come back and later weaken despite original promises, I would be open to ads. But, I am not convinced at this time any of this is likely based on our history of false promises and incompetence. Just look at how poorly we guard our historical buildings due to lack of enforcement and backbone.
The one actual growth/development management success we have is the sign ordinance. I, for one, don't want to see us step back from it when it should be held up as a shining example of what we should be doing in so many other areas of planning, preservation, growth management, community planning, aesthetic quality, etc.
Interesting. I actually like Orlando's potentially illegal move. Cut out the middle man, use stimulus money to pay for the shelters and sell ads on them inhouse. That's a good way to generate income to fund and maintain additional transit services.
Tampa, orlando, and Jax. all just received stimulus money for shelters...but not very many
Something beats nothing at all kids! I guess we will have to settle for a slice instead of a full loaf!
I would like to know more about the $72 Million Dollars found in an unused JTA account.....I mean how in the hell do you not know that its there? How do they plan on spending that money or is it a rainy day fund? That would fund a rail study.....build some shelters......pay for a Courthouse. whatever!
I've heard its been stashed to help pay for the JTA BJP road projects that the city ran out of money for.
Great...........more roads, just what we need!
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 11, 2009, 08:34:42 PM
Something beats nothing at all kids! I guess we will have to settle for a slice instead of a full loaf!
As long as things stay the same (majority of council members support the bus shelter bill), we'll get the full loaf. So in a month or so, we may be preparing for a quite a few sandwiches.
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 11, 2009, 09:05:49 PM
Great...........more roads, just what we need!
Until there is a public outcry or we get new leadership, things probably won't change.
I agree lake! Public outcry won't happen...........and it will most likely take new leadership! That would be a complete turnover and removal and that won't happen until Johnny leaves!
Assuming none of the 10 co-sponsors of the shelter advertising bill change their mind, the bill will pass in a few weeks. Anyone want to start a pool on how soon one or more of the billboard companies will sue the City over this? Given the OGC's "skill" at contract writing, there will be loopholes they can drive a bus towing a bus shelter through.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 11, 2009, 09:40:19 PM
Anyone want to start a pool on how soon one or more of the billboard companies will sue the City over this?
How about faster than Waste Management could sue the City over the landfill?! (By the way, where is that suit at nowadays?)
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 11, 2009, 09:05:49 PM
Great...........more roads, just what we need!
sadly, it is waht Jax. voted for in 2000 w/ the passage of BJP....given that $100 million for transit ROW was also on the project list
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 11, 2009, 09:59:52 PM
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 11, 2009, 09:05:49 PM
Great...........more roads, just what we need!
sadly, it is waht Jax. voted for in 2000 w/ the passage of BJP....given that $100 million for transit ROW was also on the project list
I voted against BJP. While I liked some of the projects, such as the new library, I thought most of the money went to the wrong priorities. I never believed $100 million for mass transit was a sincere effort to get it done since no specific plan was presented (be wary of big ideas with no specifics). I also didn't think, given past "miscalculations" by public officials, they would be right on the financial projections, and, unfortunately, I was right on that.
I agree gentlemen............I did not vote for it either! Too many questions that were never answered by what I saw! Current Administration is no better than the one that was in power in 2000 and alot of the same people are involved now as was then. We really need to clean house and start over............I don't think rookies can do any worse than the so called professionals we have today!
so now we see the real truth...you don't just hate Peyton...but Delaney too!
tufsu1......I sure won't turn handsprings over Mr Delaney.....but Johnny has just dropped the ball time and time again......between the Ship Yards episode,Dames Point and the shipping fiasco,dropped concurency,IG Office,contracts that were for someone else's benefit and not the City in general, AIOM's to the tune of 12 Million dollars, Equestrian Center that's a drain..........I mean I could go on and on! Mr Mayor ran on the platform of "Running the City like a business"......remember? If that be the case, we should have declared bankruptcy several years ago......don't forget the "Fee's" to go along with all of that and the Waste Management lawsuit going on........other than that, just a bunch of rank amateurs playing at city government!
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 10, 2009, 10:19:42 AM
I just don't understand why people are offended by signs and billboards. Advertising is an important way for businesses to communicate with potential customers. It promotes economic activity and economic growth and that's a beautiful thing.
You are forgetting the proliferation of the trailer mounted flashing sign with the removable letters. They were everywhere. The flashing lights on the top would often distract drivers at night making it hard to see the road.
You are forgetting the billboards and signs that blocked the buildings.
QuoteYou are forgetting the billboards and signs that blocked the buildings.
You mean like these?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/464005716_ouifz-M.jpg)
They are the ones I want back!
Lake, but who wants any of the below back?
By the way, the latest is video/electronic signs and billboards. I have seen them in Orlando and the Carolinas big time. What do you think of these signs with motion and ever changing ads? Even harder to ignore! Where does it end? Do we make Downtown a Times Square? Can we legally limit your signs to Downtown and not the suburbs? How can we keep the zombies in the cage?
Again, everything in moderation. Unfortuantely, we do a terrible job of moderating!
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sHIlsGWXdTKEZM:http://www.scdot.org/community/images/tep_advertising_corner.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2406/2514854137_c70b330cee.jpg)
(http://blog.bcm.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/supergraphic.jpg)
(http://evo-gamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/l4d-new-york.jpg)
(http://www.creativedirector.org/marketing/060outdoor.jpg)
You know what I hate? When some of these overzealous individuals make a tacky poster and tack it up on the post on my corner. I go out immediately and snatch it down. If it's a yard sale or something I can deal with it for the weekend. As we all know there is a right way and a wrong way to do anything.
Bus shelters are needed, big deal if they have a professional sign that is tasteful and appropriate for the area they are in. I cannot believe the amount of dialogue dedicated to this subject.
Quote from: Seraphs on October 12, 2009, 05:28:01 PM
... big deal if they have a professional sign that is tasteful and appropriate for the area they are in.
"Tasteful and appropriate"? I guess you figure they will be coming to you for your determination of this? And, you will be the decider for all the rest of us? Or, are you OK with delegating this to a stranger who you have no assurance will share your standards? Worse, there is no decider and everything pretty much goes including that "unprofessional" poster you don't like but which can't be legally distinguished from the "professional" one you approve of. Good luck.
stjr, I actually like some of the images you posted, especially in an urban setting like downtown. I like a lot of the electronic billboards and would not mind a couple of LED screens hanging on a few buildings and blank walls down there. Imo, they'd add a little life and light to what can be a dreary and dead atmosphere at times. I'm probably the wrong guy to debate in this particular case. What we consider tasteful and appropriate for signage may be completely opposite.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 12, 2009, 06:05:04 PM
stjr, I actually like some of the images you posted, especially in an urban setting like downtown. I like a lot of the electronic billboards and would not mind a couple of LED screens hanging on a few buildings and blank walls down there. Imo, they'd add a little life and light to what can be a dreary and dead atmosphere at times. I'm probably the wrong guy to debate in this particular case. What we consider tasteful and appropriate for signage may be completely opposite.
Lake, I have to assume the one you truly like is Times Square. That's a special place along with Las Vegas where I would agree the signs are part of the atmosphere.
I personally think billboards along roadsides are unnatural and grotesque oversized monstrosities that detract from and degrade most any environment. I agree with you that electronic signs are generally more tasteful in most forms although the billboard ones I have seen are still billboards with all their objections in my mind.
Most everything after that is a matter of degree. If I really thought the powers that be could stay above the political fray and follow a disciplined enforcement program based on strict standards of "decency", I would be supportive of signs as you advocate in the downtown or like commercial areas. I just have NEVER seen the Jax community be successful at such a plan with respect to any venture and I don't see any reason to think it would change now.
It really goes back to my response to Seraph which is: Who is the arbiter of "tasteful and appropriate"?.
I expect if the sign ordinance gets legally pried open again, there will be the usual return of abusive practices ultimately leading to "NIMBY" ("Not in My BackYard") and the likely repeat of our past history. I will be there to tell you "I told you so".
stjr..........I agree with your viewpoint! This will open a can of worms down the road to no good for the City's citizens.................I already informed my Representative but I think he is in the "All for it" group! I will remember this come voting time!
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 12, 2009, 06:49:08 PM
stjr..........I agree with your viewpoint! This will open a can of worms down the road to no good for the City's citizens.................I already informed my Representative but I think he is in the "All for it" group! I will remember this come voting time!
CS, the out-of-control horrors that spring to mind already: zoning, land use, road building, mass transit, fiscal responsibility, contract negotiations, historic preservation, education.... How many of these are well managed to the satisfaction of the greater community?
And, now, we want to entrust the same "bought and sold" politicians with sign standards that, once before, were so out of control by these same officials, that it is one of only a handful of issues in our community that saw a populist-based uprising lead to restrictive changes?
stephendare.............I gotta ask........how do you come to the conclusion this is all for the public good?
stjr.........all of that and a few other things! I think that we need to start over with our representatives and get some in there that have not been to the darkside and have maybe a smidgen of common sense. Mayor is a lost cause and the only thing that will fix him is to leave when his term is up! Run the City like a business my rectal vent! Council members as rapidly as possible and expand from there!
OK that makes sense! I think your original train of thought was the correct one though! I understand the lack of shelters and bus seats but Advertising should not be required to fund either one. This is something that JTA should be cognizant of and should be part of their budget funding! This is not Times Square and we don't need wall to wall signage..............especially from a company based in Charlotte NC!
QuoteThis is not Times Square and we don't need wall to wall signage
Good or bad, we'll never be Times Square just like Jax Beach will never be a South Beach or Daytona, height limit or not. However, a lot of signage that has been banned in this city is a part of our urban historical heritage. Extremes can be bad on both sides.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/458685264_e6veK-600x10000.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/458685420_PiBUa-600x10000.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6592-adams_street.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/old_hotels/Hotel-Floridian-1947.jpg)
Lake, like everything else in our society, advertising and signage has gone EXTREME. Your pictures from the past are nice but don't represent what will come today.
We live in an era where athletes and performers wear advertising on their clothes. TV shows and movies feature ads IN the programs, not just during commercial breaks. News is no longer as much news, as it is advertorials. Ads are digitally dropped into stadiums and playing fields and serve as backgrounds for news conferences. Everything today has sponsors running ads, from sporting events to public broadcasting. All charitable events have sponsors. We have fast food and soft drink companies advertising and promoting in our schools and colleges. Ads are now on the front page of the newspaper, even the Wall Street Journal and NY Times. The President of the U.S. gets asked to endorse the new Conan O'Brien show during a network interview. Ads grace the walls of almost any unregulated surface around. Probably a third of TV time is commercials, even cable TV which was mostly ad free at one time since you paid for it versus free TV. You can't visit most web sites without a pop up ad of some sort. Our clothing has ads on it. People now "tattoo" ads on their bodies for money.
The fact is, today, in unregulated free enterprise, everything is for sale until people finally get sick and tired of it and revolt. That is how we got our sign ordinance. Your sign examples of the past, like the buildings in the picture, have one common thread: Jax leaders don't have the vision or fortitude to preserve either one. We had our chance to live reasonably and abused it. There is no reason to think things would be anything but worse this time around.
As stated, there are other ways to fund bus shelters. JTA needs to be creative and change its transit priorities, not cop out and take the lazy way out at the expense of our community.
Personally, I'm fine with advertising and signage for the most part. I rather see them than the tacky buildings and sprawl that line our suburban landscape. I also agree with going into a deal to get these things free from the private sector in turn for advertising priviledges. This is something that is really critical to the development of a good reliable transit system. Private shelters also tend to look better and are maintained better than public shelters.
Nevertheless, I do understand the concern with the existing sign ordinance, which I do believe is too restrictive to begin with. However, I am open to additional ways to fund this, as a long as we can get just as many shelters without paying one red cent more than the deal the council will be voting on later today. Imo, any other cash JTA has laying around should go to implementing streetcars or commuter rail, not bus shelters.
My guess is they don't really exist or else they would have been fully exposed and promoted over the last couple of years of this debate by sign ordinance supporters. If that had happened, perhaps another route could have been taken years ago and there would be no debate today.
Lake, make me chair of JTA. ;D
I will fund the bus shelters, street cars, commuter rail, and better bus service using the same number of dollars produced by the federal, state, and city grants, programs, and funding JTA uses now. I won't need any more taxes from the local taxpayers. But, I will cancel the $ky-high-way and fight the feds and state to reallocate new road dollars to the new priorities. I dare them to tell me that I can't use road money for mass transit if that is what we think is best! 8)
Like the Men's Warehouse says, you are going to like the way WE look, I guarantee it! ;)
Well stjr at least you would have a plan and a vision which is more than the current Administration does. I think there should be a way to fund something as simple as a bus stop shelter without having to resort to advertising to get it installed and maintained! I mean JTA is busy procuring new bus's right? Hold on buying just one and use that money to build......I mean the only thing that I have seen from JTA is an obsession with concrete and no long range plan for much of anything other than more concrete and more bus's! I see no thinking outside of the box just the same old mantra time and time again!
Like ads? More coming your way soon. Lucky us, we are the test case.QuoteComcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) has picked Jacksonville for a small-scale deployment of a system that allows the MSO to dynamically insert advertisements into video-on-demand (VoD) content in near real time.
This is a breakthrough, as such advertising spots typically have to be added to the video content in advance, a situation that historically has hindered the growth of cable VoD advertising.
For this initial deployment, a first for the MSO, Comcast is using an advanced advertising system and campaign manager from BlackArrow Inc. , in which Comcast Interactive Capital is an investor. BlackArrow's system has been integrated with Comcast's video infrastructure, sourced from Tandberg Television and Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT). (See Comcast, BlackArrow Team on VoD Ads .)
BlackArrow's system acts as a decision engine that communicates with the underlying VoD system to insert the appropriate advert into the video stream based on predetermined rules. Meanwhile, a complementary Web-based element from BlackArrow distributes and sells the ad space based on available inventory.
Early on, Comcast is inserting traditional 15- and 30-second (and a new class of 20-second) promotional adverts that highlight shows and movies available on two MSO-owned programmers: PBS Kids Sprout and FearNET.
Indicating that this is something of a test run to try out BlackArrow's dynamic ad-insertion technology under commercial service conditions, paying advertisers are not currently involved, though they certainly could be added to the mix later.
The installation is emerging as Comcast and other MSOs grow eager to employ dynamic ad insertion systems that will help to pay the costs of "free," ad-supported video-on-demand titles and provide some parity with the types of reporting and measurement features that advertisers have grown accustomed to with the Internet. (See Plugging the Ad Drain.)
In the case of Comcast and its "Project Infinity" initiative, the MSO reportedly anticipates offering more than 100,000 titles on-demand, with much of that content inventory to be ad-supported variety. (See Comcast Launches 'Project Infinity'.)
BlackArrow, meanwhile, estimates -- using a mix of data from The Nielsen Co. , Comcast, and comScore Inc. -- that on-demand will represent 13.2 percent of TV viewing by 2010, up from 7.6 percent in 2008. The company also expects 22 percent of all prime time viewing to be on-demand by 2010.
So the trends are there. But the nagging problem faced by MSOs, as well as their programmers and advertisers, is the unwieldy amount of time it takes to prepare advertising content to run within a cable VoD title.
Historically, advertisers must buy a VoD ad placement 45 to 90 days in advance. And once they're there, they can't be removed or switched to another slot for about 28 days, says Nick Troiano, president of BlackArrow. "Such lead times... are why advertisers have not embraced VoD ads," he says.
By adding the ability to insert those ads digitally rather than way in advance, that lead time can be shortened to "near real time" so long as the advert in question is already stored in the cable headend, Troiano claims.
BlackArrow is hopeful that the Jacksonville deployment is just the start. It claims its ad platform can help operators and programmers deliver ads dynamically not just to cable VoD, but to DVRs (set-top and network-based), and to video served over broadband and to mobile devices. Comcast likely will be looking for ways to serve ads to On Demand Online, the MSO's broadband-fueled "TV Everywhere" service that will be offered to customers as a free adjunct to their pay-TV subscriptions. (See Comcast Nears 'TV Everywhere' Launch.)
"Comcast went out with its own content, but that's not where it ends. That's where it starts," says Troiano.
A Comcast spokeswoman says the MSO expects to introduce VoD ad-insertion capabilities in more markets and to additional networks, but isn't ready to announce a rollout schedule.
No addressability... yet
The Jacksonville ad-insertion rollout won't support more targeted "addressable" advertisements that are delivered using demographic information -- at least not yet.
Comcast Spotlight, the local ad arm of Comcast, is presently testing such a system in Baltimore, however. (See Comcast Bulks for Baltimore Ad Trial .)
"This [deployment] is a first real-world example by Comcast to... solve the on-demand advertising problem," says BlackArrow CEO Dean Denhart.
And it's also BlackArrow's first announced cable deployment, though it's got others underway that haven't been announced yet. BlackArrow has also completed integrations with video servers from Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), and with Arris Group Inc. (Nasdaq: ARRS)'s video servers and VoD backoffice systems. BlackArrow has yet to announce anything with SeaChange International Inc. (Nasdaq: SEAC), one of Comcast's other major VoD technology partners.
Comcast's effort in Jacksonville also represents the latest high-profile use of dynamic VoD ad-insertion. Among more recent activity, Charter Communications Inc. (Nasdaq: CHTR) and Sunflower Broadband have also tried out systems with other vendor partners. (See Charter Tests Dynamic VOD Ads.)
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=182985&site=cdn&f_src=lightreading_gnews
Not a very deep response to the thread...but GIVE US SHELTER!! it'd be nice to sheild myself from the elements while waiting for the bus, which moves at glacial speeds (btw). :-\
Not enought shelters but boy do we get advertisments inserted whenever...........thanks ComCast! I think it's time to go to the Dish Network or Direct TV!
Bad news. And this is most disturbing:QuoteAttorneys with both the city General Counsel’s Office and JTA expressed confidence that the amendment was legal. That seemed to be enough for the majority of the council.
Not only are the local government attorneys less expert than those attorneys in opposition, they have had a number of legal fiascoes they "assured" us wouldn't happen, including courthouse contracts, stadium deals, the shipyard disaster, public records mishandling, etc. Now, they are the best advice we have?QuoteOpponents of the amendment accused JTA of collaborating with Clear Channel. The law firm of JTA attorney David Cohen also represents Clear Channel.
Cohen said there is no conflict of interest because he doesn’t deal with Clear Channel, and does not discuss JTA business with his law partner who does represent Clear Channel.
The JTA attorney has a clear conflict of interest. If ANYONE in his firm represents a conflicting client, ALL the attorneys in that firm should have a conflict. I know that's what my attorneys always tell me. The Bar should investigate this.
Here is what I would consider the perfect storm: We get sued by the billboard companies AND, because we poorly design a contract with a bus shelter ad company, they ALSO sue us when we try to void their contract if we lose a suit to the billboard companies. It will be a typical Jax legal train wreck and the taxpayers will pay a lot more than the ads will ever deliver. Expect litigation to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
By the way, JTA's promise to cough up $250,000 for legal fees could have bought about 50 new shelters or maintained about 200 of them. And, that's just their legal down payment. Funny, they have lots of money for lawyers and litigation, but none for transit. Once again, we have a gullible City Council. Hope the mayor comes through with a veto.QuoteClear Channel, the largest sign company in Jacksonville, wouldn’t comment earlier this week about a lawsuit or whether it might bid for the shelter contract.
Taking bets on WHEN, not if, this lawsuit gets filed...Typical Jax GOB deal. And, posters here wonder why this town is always in the backwaters.
Welll Johnny has a chance to do the right thing..........not holding my breath but I am going to watch just what takes place!
It passed. Let's see what happens now.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/New-bus-shelters-wont-waste-taxpayer-dollars/Fs5GYwdkykO8fhupfVLg_A.cspx?rss=1
Quote
New bus shelters won't waste taxpayer dollars
All the people are waiting to see how this budget will affect their wallet or if funding will be cut from their favorite program.
Instead, they will be paid for by selling advertising space on the shelters.
The bus stop shelters will go up on Jacksonville's major corridors.
Those opposed say it will open the door to more billboard advertising around town, which has been limited thanks to a city ordinance that's been around for more than 20 years.
Bus riders say the shelters are much needed, but some neighbors aren't happy about the plan.
"They will be an eyesoar for one, and nobody uses them," said Southside neighbor, Tina Schnittke
JTA says the shelters will not go up in residential neighborhoods.
Right now, Jacksonville has around 6,000 bus stops and only 350 of them have shelters.
Copyright 2009 High Plains Broadcasting LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Other than the horrible typo that was obviously missed :D
Quote"They will be an eyesoar for one, and nobody uses them," said Southside neighbor, Tina Schnittke
Tina would be horrified... ;D
I see this as something that benefits bus riders, tax payers, the businesses that advertise on the shelters and their customers and potential customers.
The door has been opened now...........who wants to form a pool to call when the first law suit comes to life? If we get enough people it could be worth someones while!! I call it within 75 days from today! Any takers?
I am glad someone knocked some sense into the city council for once. If the council members had to wait for the bus one day then I'm sure they would have a better sense of compassion. I think JTA needs to increase the annual bus shelter installation number though! Next battle is for light rail =)
I am gonna move the date out to 90 days......what no takers?