No end to debate over Downtown’s bus shelters

[thelakelander]

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.

[buckethead]

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.”

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[CS Foltz]

JEDC and DVI should be also!

[JC]

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.”

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!

[brainstormer]

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.

[simms3]

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?

[JeffreyS]

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

[stjr]

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.

[stjr]

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.

[brainstormer]

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.

[fieldafm]

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? 

[JeffreyS]

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

[Ocklawaha]

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

[CS Foltz]

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!