Bus shelter battle heads to Jacksonville City Council

[thelakelander]

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.

Jacksonville 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."

There 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

[CS Foltz]

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!

[thelakelander]

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).

[CS Foltz]

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!

[tufsu1]

have you ever been in the existing building? It is practically falling apart!

[fsu813]

"They agreed that no bus shelters with advertising would be allowed in the historic districts of Riverside-Avondale and Springfield."

FYI

[reednavy]

"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.

[CS Foltz]

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!

[tufsu1]

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

[fsu813]

rednavy,

no it's not stupid. it defeats the whole purpose of a historic district.

[thelakelander]

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.

[Fallen Buckeye]

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.

[CS Foltz]

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!

[Ocklawaha]

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

[urbanlibertarian]

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.