Metro Jacksonville

Quoteby Max Marbut
Staff Writer


The latest chapter in the debate over whether advertising should be allowed on bus shelters Downtown was written Thursday at the monthly meeting of the Downtown Development Review Board of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission.

Mike Miller, Jacksonville Transportation Authority director of external communications, said JTA has been looking into upgrading bus shelters for three years as an element of the Bus Rapid Transit program. He reminded board members of the February 2008 DDRB meeting, which marked the first time JTA presented examples of bus shelters used in other markets.

Since then, said Miller, there have been several workshops and meetings with JEDC staff to develop the criteria for the design of shelters that would be installed Downtown.

Miller also pointed out that last October, the City Council enacted legislation authorizing advertising to be placed on bus shelters in Jacksonville. The legislation was supported by JTA so that the costs involved with installing and maintaining the structures can be borne by a third party rather than the taxpayers of Duval County.

Miller said after a Request for Proposals was issued in February, four vendors submitted responses and that list was reduced to three possible providers. The submittals were sent to JEDC staff for their review based on criteria established related to the appearance of the shelters.

Joanne Diz, JTA’s project manager for the shelter design, presented a set of renderings to the board members of three basics designs and the many variations possible on each. Options include glass shelters and shelters constructed with perforated metal and roof design options.

“I love Downtown and we want it to be beautiful, too,” said Diz.

After board members reviewed the many options presented former DDRB chair and landscape architect Chris Flagg commented, “I’d be in favor of any opportunity to improve what we have.”

The purpose of the presentation was not to accept or reject any particular design, as it was listed on the DDRB’s agenda as an “information/discussion item.”

Assistant General Counsel Jason Teal told board members the ordinance requires JTA to eventually make a formal presentation to DDRB concerning the design of the new shelters. He also sad JTA is required by the legislation to submit three designs, one of which the board must approve. The City will also approve the locations for the street furniture and how that are installed â€" the distance from the curb and proximity to fire hydrants, for example.

After the discussion, the meeting was opened to public comment. Rachel Cocciolo, assistant to attorney and longtime opponent of outdoor advertising Bill Brinton, read a statement from Brinton, who she explained was out of town.

The statement read in part: “Since the late 1950s, the Downtown area has been free of commercial ads along the city sidewalks. Even when the County and the pre-consolidation City entered into ill-advised bus bench advertising contracts, the Downtown area was kept from having advertising on city streets.

“It is a simple matter to advise the JTA Board that the preference of the DDRB is to keep our Downtown street furniture free of commercial ads.”

Cocciolo added, “You’re basically choosing the backdrop for advertising,” and “We have the mast arms and those stickers â€" we’re really starting to clutter up Downtown.”

When asked after the meeting if she uses JTA, Cocciolo replied she didn’t. When asked if Brinton ever uses JTA, she said, “No. We’re lucky enough to have cars.”

The board also gave final approval for the 200-foot floating dock on the Northbank Riverwalk near the Fuller Warren Bridge, approved parking and landscaping zoning variances for a residence converted into an office at 432 E. Monroe St. and approved the conceptual plan for a combination gas station, convenience store and cafe on Main Street between State and Union streets.

The next meeting of the DDRB is May 27 at 2 p.m. in the JEDC board room at 1 W. Adams St.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2010-04-30

They want downtown to have a sterile feel...void of any street life except for the homeless?  I hope nobody listens to Mr. Brinton, who probably keeps his walking downtown to a minimum from the parking garage to Riverplace Tower, in an area which would be largely unaffected by any change in bus shelters.  This guy really bugs me.

From the people in Mayport opposed to any sort of progress that would actually dramatically help them to the people at the beaches who do not want anything new to come to their neck of the woods to the people scattered around the westside and clay county who oppose any sort of culture outside of the confederacy to smart business leaders such as this guy who are so misguided, Jax probably has the most obstacles of any major metro in America (barring Detroit or Buffalo) to becoming great and yet we probably have some of the most potential.  It is too depressing sometimes.  How can anyone logically be opposed to this and at the same time say we already have too much clutter on downtown streets?

Who the **** are these people and why the **** are they in charge of anything with having to do with downtown?  Please make these imbiciles go away.

it might be useful top point out that downtown started to decline in the 1950s...I doubt there's much correlation between that and advertising, but it is still a good sound bite

Downtown is the area of town where shelters with advertising make the most sense.  

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/615388213_5UV9z-M.jpg)

I'll take one of these any day over what we have now.  If we really want to improve our mass transit system, we're going to have to learn to take advantages of opportunities like this or vote to raise our taxes to fund all the improvements needed.  

Quote from: simms3 on May 01, 2010, 08:26:05 PM
...I hope nobody listens to Mr. Brinton, who probably keeps his walking downtown to a minimum from the parking garage to Riverplace Tower, in an area which would be largely unaffected by any change in bus shelters.  This guy really bugs me.

Simms, everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but the bus shelter advertising issue isn't so much about ads, per se, on bus shelters if you have followed this from the beginning.

There are several MJ threads that more fully explore both sides of this issue but the biggest concern has to do with opening the door up for the return of currently banned billboards (other than the ones you currently see which are grandfathered in) and other intrusive signs (such as large plastic portable signs with garish multicolored flashing lights that cropped up by the thousands before they were banned).  The law allowing bus shelter ads could motivate billboard and other companies to use it as a legal wedge to get their bans thrown out due to inconsistent legal policy.

Mr. Brinton knows of what he speaks as he is a national expert on the legal ramifications involved here and was instrumental in getting the law passed originally that banned billboards and limited intrusive signs.  JTA ignored him and, instead, relied on its attorneys who are not experts on this area of the law and that also happen to have a conflict of interest on this issue.  Of course, JTA didn't care to here about that.  Mr. Brinton and other opponents maintain that these shelters could have been funded in other ways without the need for advertising.  You will see this also debated on the MJ threads addressing this issue.

What were some of the other funding options that would come from sources other than JTA, taxpayers or another governmental entity?  If they are out there, they should be definitely heavily promoted by Mr. Brinton and Co.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 01, 2010, 10:39:01 PM
What were some of the other funding options that would come from sources other than JTA, taxpayers or another governmental entity?  If they are out there, they should be definitely heavily promoted by Mr. Brinton and Co.

Lake, you know the answer to this question as you have participated on other MJ boards where this was discussed.  Here is a quote I posted on one of them before to answer your question - again:

(From http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5738.75.html , post #78):

QuoteI will remind you that JTA may be able to fund the shelters in other ways, not the least of which is taking the funds used to operate the useless $ky-high-way and apply them toward assisting thousands more bus riders and maybe even adding a few with the added amenities.  Now, that would be a major win-win for everyone!

Failing that, I have already pointed out ways other communities have found to fund shelters.  Stimulus dollars, corporate underwriting, downtown development agencies, community groups, redirected funds from lesser priorities, etc.  Being creative, I am sure we can do the same.

Further, JTA has not given opponents the financial information they requested regarding revenues and costs associated with the bus shelter advertising program making it difficult for anyone to respond intelligently.  You even started that thread:

Quote from: thelakelander on January 27, 2010, 05:56:23 PM

QuoteBy Larry Hannan

A former attorney with the Jacksonville General Counsel’s Office is suing the Jacksonville Transportation Authority because he says it has not complied with his public records request.

Tracey Arpen  filed suit this week in Circuit Court over a request he filed in October. Arpen is a longtime advocate of the city’s sign law, and JTA successfully lobbied the City Council last year to amend that law so it could build bus shelters with advertisements.

Arpen and others opposed that amendment. The JTA board is expected to approve a request for proposal today  that will invite sign companies to bid for a contract to build and maintain shelters with ads.

The public records request asks for all documents identifying lobbyists, expenses, and communication regarding the sign law. It also asks for documentation that backs up an assertion JTA Executive Director Michael Blaylock made in a video on JTA’s Web site that said it was responding to thousands of people who’d called for more bus shelters.

JTA is a state agency and must comply with the state public records law, the lawsuit said. Arpen said there was no reason JTA couldn’t provide the documents. He expects a hearing to occur on the matter next week.

Arpen and other argue that amending the sign law will put the law banning billboards at risk via a legal challenge from a sign company that doesn’t get the contract. JTA and lawyers for the city’s General Counsel Office dispute that.

JTA had no comment, spokesman Mike Miller said.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-01-27/story/attorney_sues_jta_over_public_records_request

You know I'm not a fan of our sign ordinance but I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something from past conversations on this issue.  Anyway, unless some private group steps up to donate some shelters (which has not happened in all the years of this debate) the rest of those options are robbing Peter to pay Paul with taxpayer dollars.  I'm still of the opinion, if you can get the private sector to fund and maintain shelters, if you find other funds to use, they should go to resolving other issues that plague our mass transit system.

Up in Chicago this week and the bus shelters all have advertising.  Amazingly they still do the tours sightseeing groups. No one has said boy that down town would be nice if it didn't have those bus shelter signs.  Wicker park the same story.  Also the back of much of the advertising has directional maps on the back.

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 02, 2010, 12:39:04 AM
Up in Chicago this week and the bus shelters all have advertising.  Amazingly they still do the tours sightseeing groups. No one has said boy that down town would be nice if it didn't have those bus shelter signs.  Wicker park the same story.  Also the back of much of the advertising has directional maps on the back.

Same in NY. 

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 02, 2010, 12:39:04 AM
Up in Chicago this week and the bus shelters all have advertising.  Amazingly they still do the tours sightseeing groups. No one has said boy that down town would be nice if it didn't have those bus shelter signs.  Wicker park the same story.  Also the back of much of the advertising has directional maps on the back.

Jeffrey, reread my post above.  My issue is opening the door again for billboards and other intrusive signs, not so much bus shelter ads.  I don't know why everyone wants to skirt the elephant in the room on this one.  Address my issue and I'll concede you some shetlers with ads.  Fair enough?

I wonder if Mr Arpen got his information from JTA? I have not seen anything that would suggest otherwise! I still say that "Advertising"  should not be a requirement for Bus Shelters to be built! I also agree, if the $kyway were terminated.............plenty of money for shelters then but that won't happen! How about JTA takes a pay cut, upper management and up, that should generate some money! They can say what they want, the advertising does not generate enough income to substantiate either bus's or shelters be emblazoned with someone trying to sell me something I don't need or want! All that does is produce income for advertising company's.........still no shelters!

Quote from: stjr on May 02, 2010, 01:18:03 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 02, 2010, 12:39:04 AM
Up in Chicago this week and the bus shelters all have advertising.  Amazingly they still do the tours sightseeing groups. No one has said boy that down town would be nice if it didn't have those bus shelter signs.  Wicker park the same story.  Also the back of much of the advertising has directional maps on the back.

Jeffrey, reread my post above.  My issue is opening the door again for billboards and other intrusive signs, not so much bus shelter ads.  I don't know why everyone wants to skirt the elephant in the room on this one.  Address my issue and I'll concede you some shetlers with ads.  Fair enough?

I think we can find common ground it should be a narrow law that is only about this specific signage and limits the size and neighborhoods of the ads.

The law has already been passed - JTA says it does what you say, Brinton says it does not, and he makes his career defending cities with anti-sign laws by challenges from billboard companies.  There is a provision that if he law allows a successful challenge to the billboard ban, the shelter law becomes void.  Not sure how that will work.  And, if the sign contractor has put up advertising shelters, then the law is repealed, I would guess JTA would owe the sign contractor money?

Quote from: stjr on May 02, 2010, 01:18:03 AM
My issue is opening the door again for billboards and other intrusive signs, not so much bus shelter ads.  I don't know why everyone wants to skirt the elephant in the room on this one.  Address my issue and I'll concede you some shelters with ads.  Fair enough?

I don't want you to think I'm skirting around this "elephant" in the room.  I'm not a fan of the current suburban oriented anti-sign laws and regulations in this town and would not mind seeing some parts revised.  I believe as currently constructed, in an urban environment and setting, the negatives outweigh the positives.

QuoteWhen asked after the meeting if she uses JTA, Cocciolo replied she didn’t. When asked if Brinton ever uses JTA, she said, “No. We’re lucky enough to have cars.”

WTF?

I have heard it suggested that any President wishing to lead the nation into war, should have served in one prior to having the authority.

Those making decisions about mass transit infrastructure should be required to depend on it for one full month.

and all the council and the Mayor and his staff should be required to eat lunch in Hemming Plaza at least once a week along with the members of the DDA.

JEDC and DVI should be also!

Quote from: buckethead on May 02, 2010, 09:49:25 AM

QuoteWhen asked after the meeting if she uses JTA, Cocciolo replied she didn’t. When asked if Brinton ever uses JTA, she said, “No. We’re lucky enough to have cars.”

WTF?

I have heard it suggested that any President wishing to lead the nation into war, should have served in one prior to having the authority.

Those making decisions about mass transit infrastructure should be required to depend on it for one full month.

For real!

And yet again, the arrogant have opened their mouths.  I would be curious to know how many of the JEDC and DVI members live in the suburbs, how many of them work downtown, etc.  Obviously we already know they are "lucky enough to have cars."  For those of you who know some of these members, do they actually care?  Are they passionate about making this city better?  Or is this just another bullet on their resumes?

Sadly, I'm beginning to think this city is just ignorant.  So many uninformed people spouting crap after failing to educate themselves on the issues and having an open mind to at least listen to both sides.  Have we lost all empathy?  Can we not find some common ground?  We live in a wireless world with so much connectivity, yet no one takes the time to learn anything anymore.  I guess we click from one site to the next so quickly, no reading takes place in between.

I haven't made up my mind about the bus shelter issue, although I know from past experience waiting in the hot sun and rain for a bus sucks!  I also have said in the past that I think the current sign ordinance is not good for the urban core, although I understand why it was first enacted.  So as not to be a hypocrite, I'll continue to inform myself of both sides of the issue.  I will say this, the status quo isn't OK, so something should be done sooner, rather than later.

Ok stjr, I see where you are going and I'll concede.  I have only followed this loosely over the past couple of years as it is not one of my bigger interests.  I went to school with one of Mr. Brinton's daughters so I guess I should not be so hard on him in the interest of sounding unreasonable.  Also, to those who say Chi and NYC have these unobtrusive bus shelter ads (and obviously other cities), you will also notice that there are billboards and ugly advertisements on just about everything and every building corner, so it does seem like they do go hand in hand in the eyes of the law.

I can clearly see why these other ads are the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, but I wish there was a way to distinguish these in the law.  Maybe Mr. Brinton can help set some precedence?

I would like more ads in an urban down town than a suburban neighborhood.

Quote from: stephendare on May 02, 2010, 01:31:58 PM
The needs of people driving around in volvo's to not have 'visual pollution' should not outweigh the needs of a city to provide green transit to its citizens.  Unless of course, civic leaders like Bill Brinton would like to volunteer for much higher taxes to pay for the bus shelters.

Stephen, this is a false choice created by the devious minds of JTA.

First, all the money anyone could conceivably (which we must do since JTA can't give us the same numbers twice and/or won't release specific data) imagine bus shelters costing would be a mere pittance in relation to JTA's budget and the cost of any mass transit projects.  Second, if you are so concerned about stretching really significant transit dollars, support dumping the $ky-high-way and taking it's $14 million a year loss and redeploying it into the bus system, street cars, commuter rail, or other mass transit options people will use in significant numbers for the investment.  Third, we don't need a tax increase, we just need to redirect tax dollars from wasteful and a thousand times more expensive road projects like the Outer Beltway and 9B.

Again, please don't have us bite JTA's poison apple and adopt their approach as an accurate portrayal of our options here.

So, Stephen, you really don't believe that JTA can't find this money as I described?  After all the misfires, incompetence, and misleading actions they have taken over the years, you actually believe these things they tell you without question?

You seem to think that opponents are BOTH (1) against bus shelters and (2) against bus shelters with ads.

I don't see anyone aligning with (1) as you seem to indicate.  Who could be against shelters other than JTA who might rather spend its $$$ elsewhere.  As I have previously noted, if JTA really cared about bus riders they would view shelters as a core infrastructure cost just like the stations built to run the $ky-high-way and pull in the $$$ needed from the same federal and state grants subsidizing the bus system as is.  After 50+ years, why hasn't JTA prioritized this before and made said case?

As to (2), I can't speak for everyone, but my observation is the only basis for agreeing with it by most is that it ties back to billboards, etc.  Now, you and others here may live in an urban environment that makes it difficult for these signs to proliferate, but those in the suburbs don't.  You talk about experiencing downtown, well you must also experience the non-downtown.  We all live in this city together and it shouldn't be one against the other.  It needs work for all of us.

Again, this is a fool's errand.  I still say if JTA wanted to build bus shelters, they could do so without ads.  I gave examples of how.  You could probably add a look at their pension costs.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are just as generous with pensions as the police and fire pensions that are being scrutinized.  They should suffer the same fate if it comes to pass that police and fire pensions are scaled back.

Could the law not be amended to allow advertising within a certain size, say 2 ft by 3 ft, and only on permanent structures?  I would consider a bus shelter a permanent structure.  Those crappy placard signs that now fill every intersection around town.  They would still be illegal, although no one is enforcing the law now, so then why is this even an issue?  We have the power to make laws as specific as we want, so let's find common ground and stop arguing.

I was downtown a lot the last 4 days and made a point to take pictures of all the current bus shelters I saw.  I really don't get how tasteful advertising would somehow detract from the overall landscape.  There are quite a few shelters that right now face vacant lots with weeds growing out from between the cracks in the concrete. 

Is that vacant lot any more beautiful without an Ipod ad on the adjacent bus shelter?
 
How is advertising on a bus shelter(done in most cities) any less different than a bus plastered with advertising? 

Here is what repeated itself time and again in Chicago last week.


(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1104/872881209_71a580da0c.jpg?v=0)

(http://www.archidose.org/Blog/Old/decaux.jpg)

(http://www.infrastructurist.com/wp-content/uploads/chicago-shelter.png)

Quote from: brainstormer on May 03, 2010, 06:13:36 AM
Could the law not be amended to allow advertising within a certain size, say 2 ft by 3 ft, and only on permanent structures?  I would consider a bus shelter a permanent structure.  Those crappy placard signs that now fill every intersection around town.  They would still be illegal, although no one is enforcing the law now, so then why is this even an issue?  We have the power to make laws as specific as we want, so let's find common ground and stop arguing.

I think you are dead on target with this thought brainstormer. Mall's and shopping centers, sports venues and pub's set out signs at least as big as the bus shelter signs RIGHT NOW. So why even make JTA jump through this hoop? We talk of misspent finance and bad planning at JTA and when they DO come up with a great idea? Well we find a way to shoot that full of hole too?

As for bus-wrap advertising, a bus ad is there one minute and gone the next... MOBILE, (even if ugly) that is way different then a stationary billboard, but then we're not talking about billboards!


OCKLAWAHA

Ock..........I concur! City is scrambling to find revenue sources..........silly me, but what if they just enforced what they have on the books now? JTA could not plan their way out of a phone booth, so why should we think they need advertisements to install shelters? They could do it, just a question of them seeing the light and getting with the program!

JeffreyS, those Chicago shelters and their ads are an eyesore on our beautiful urban landscape.  This is much better.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/bus_shelters/springfield_diy.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/520610048_FnaCC-M.jpg)

I love the smell of sarcasm in the afternoon... and the smell of advertising 24/7.  It smells like economic growth.  :)

Quote from: fieldafm on May 03, 2010, 10:03:38 AM
How is advertising on a bus shelter(done in most cities) any less different than a bus plastered with advertising?  

Fieldafm, have you read the last page of this thread?  Or any of the many other threads on MJ about this subject?  If so, you would maybe appreciate what the real issue is here (clue: it isn't, per se, ads on bus shelters).

Why don't posters here talk about the real issue: allowing billboards, flashing mobile signs, etc. back in the city?

Build all the bus shelters with ads you want but like brainstormer suggest, do it without unintended consequences to the rest of our sign law.

QuoteWe talk of misspent finance and bad planning at JTA and when they DO come up with a great idea? Well we find a way to shoot that full of hole too?

I wouldn't call this a "great idea" as much as a lazy way of doing something JTA should have done decades ago and now doesn't want to deal with.  JTA is just "passing it off" to someone who will do the job for them.  As stated before, this whole project is peanuts to dollars spend by JTA, mass transit costs, and monies spent on road projects.  When someone reliably gets the whole costs of bus shelters, lets compare it to what JTA plans to spend on its new palace, excuse me, headquarters in the transportation center.  Fact is, JTA finds government grant money for projects it really wants to do.  Bus shelters aren't one of those projects.

I hear you about the laws of unintended consequences, but the great thing about the law is that every ordinance/rule/bill/etc can be amended to include as specific of language as you want.

The city(wisely) settled with the Jaguars about signage issues...  why not JTA?  If BRT is as great as many say it is(Im not a transportation guru whatsoever), why would we not want to find a way to fund its growth?
 

Quote from: fieldafm on May 03, 2010, 07:41:50 PM
I hear you about the laws of unintended consequences, but the great thing about the law is that every ordinance/rule/bill/etc can be amended to include as specific of language as you want.

The city(wisely) settled with the Jaguars about signage issues...  why not JTA?  If BRT is as great as many say it is(Im not a transportation guru whatsoever), why would we not want to find a way to fund its growth?
 

Fieldafm, according to the experts, the City didn't pass a law that is sure to pass muster in court without unintended consequences.  In fact, similar laws have led to rulings supporting the unintended consequences.  So, we have a problem here.  That's the basis for the concerns over this plan.

As to BRT (whatever that really means), I don't think this is dependent on the bus shelter project.  But, since you bring it up, it's another project that will spend many multiples of the $$$ needed for bus shelters.  Maybe, if JTA had packaged bus shelters as an INTEGRAL component of BRT, it would have received enough grant money to pay for them.  But, that would require thinking outside the box, and JTA has proven that is not their strong point except when they want to do something for their own self interest.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 03, 2010, 01:48:23 PM
JeffreyS, those Chicago shelters and their ads are an eyesore on our beautiful urban landscape.  This is much better.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/bus_shelters/springfield_diy.jpg)

(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/520610048_FnaCC-M.jpg)

Yikes!! That looks horrible!...and I think it is right around the corner from my building!

What a contrast. Could someone please elaborate the reasons for (not just) this, but for the rest of the blight? It is as if the city has nothing to be proud of.

Here are my two cents:

1. No political will to follow a long term vision.

2. A long going coordination problem between local governmental agencies.

3. A poor understanding of how important pedestrian connectivity plays in creating vibrancy in urban areas.

4. Investing and designing urban projects from a suburban mindset and policy.

I think the argument should be over whether or not to air condition the things. 

Why is it that we cant accomplish SIMPLE task in this case. Bus shelters and parking for the landing should not be issue that are DEBATED. I love Jacksonville, but I despise the city government.