Traffic and Transportation Commission

MINUTES

CITY OF ROCKVILLE
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mayor and Council Chambers
Meeting No. 03-04
March 23, 2004
7:30 p.m.

Commissioners Present:
Richard Resnick, Chairman
Alice Filemyr  
Stanley Klein  
Jon Oberg

 
City Staff:   Katherine Kelly, Larry Marcus
 
Due to the lack of a quorum, an official meeting was not held.  However, the following items were discussed:
 
1.  Review and Approve Minutes

The minutes from February 2004 were approved by those present with a request to change item number 3, where it states “remove references to the fatality that occurred at this intersection”.  Rather than omitting this statement, it was requested and agreed upon that the sentence will remain and be rewritten to state that the Commission reviewed the  cause of the fatality.

Chair Resnick inquired about the status of applicants for the T&T Commission.  Mr. Marcus explained that there has been discussion among the Mayor and Council to possibly combine the T&T Commission with the Bike Advisory Committee.  Additionally, it would be helpful to have representatives on the Commission from all planning areas throughout the City.

2.  Review of Staff Report

Chair Resnick requests that a showing of “Perils for Pedestrians” be shown at next month’s meeting.  Staff will try to obtain a copy for viewing.

Commissioner Filemyr requested that staff look into the possibility of putting a “Stop for Pedestrians” sign at the illuminated crosswalk at the Twinbrook Metro.  She noted that children seem to be overly confident that autos will stop while they are crossing, and that drivers need to be made aware that the crosswalk means they must stop.  Chair Resnick noted that overhead signs, such as those that are popular in California, might be an option.  Police presence to enforce drivers to stop would also be helpful. 

Mr. Marcus noted that there is updated accident data in GIS and this can be shared at next month’s meeting. 

With regard to traffic calming projects, it was agreed that the Commission would like to be more involved and to provide input to these projects.  It was suggested that more detailed descriptions (and perhaps design/engineering plans) be presented with each new project. 

Regarding the Commission’s memo to the Mayor and Council/State Highway Administration about MD355 and King Farm Blvd., Mr. Marcus reported that the Acting City Manager requested the memo be attached to another memo that shows safety ratings at all signalized intersections owned by the State and County.  The referenced intersection will serve as a “case study” to be outlined in the new memo.  During further discussion it was suggested that way-finding signs (i.e., directional signs that say “walk to metro”) for pedestrians be requested as well.

3.  CIP-Review and Preparation of Commission Comments on proposed FY05 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

Mr. Marcus provided detailed summaries of appropriations and funding sources for Traffic and Transportation CIPs.  Staff and Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful to have Commissioners present at the upcoming budget hearings with the Mayor and Council, to provide support for proposed traffic and transportation projects.

Copies of the CIPs will be mailed to Commissioners not present. 

4. CTR Staff Report - Review and Preparation of Commission Comments

Consensus among Commissioners was that the idea and implementation of credits for mitigation, as presented in the CTR, should not be abandoned.  This was something suggested by citizens during a public worksession held prior to this meeting. 

Commissioner Klein suggested that an “Informative Annex” (or appendix) be added to the CTR that compares the cost of roadway improvements to ped/bike/transit improvements (i.e., compare the cost of a turn lane to the cost of bus shelters, etc.). 

Staff will draft, and Commissioners will comment on/approve, a memo to the Mayor and Council from the Commission in support of the CTR.

6. Update on the Rockville Town Center Phase II Task Force

Chair Resnick provided an update and shared sketches of options currently presented for Town Center Phase II.  He invited Commissioners to attend a meeting being held Monday, March 29 with the design architect and Planning.

7. Discussion of Bus Shelters and Commercial Advertising

Ms. Kelly provided an overview of an upcoming Mayor and Council worksession on commercial advertising, which includes discussion of ads on bus shelters (see attached document).

Commissioners support the idea of privately funded bus shelters in order to meet the City's need for hundreds of shelters that otherwise will go unfulfilled and had the following comments:

1. Ensure that a contract specifies that maintenance includes snow removal inside and around the shelter, including connections to sidewalk/street
   
2. Would prefer the sponsorship-type shelters over ad shelters (if cost effective and revenue-generating)
   
3. Would like to investigate the possibility of real-time info. being incorporated in shelters (i.e., laying conduit lines to the shelter).  Could this be part of a contract?
   
4. Would like to know if Culver-Amherst/Clear Channel have data about ridership.  Do these shelters increase ridership numbers?
   
5. There would need to be strict guidelines for the content and format of ads.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, and Prince George’s County have bus shelter advertising programs through Culver Amherst.  Montgomery County is considering advertising on bus shelters through Clear Channel Outdoor Inc.

An alternative approach to funding bus shelter construction and maintenance involves businesses sponsoring shelters, similar to an adopt-a-road program.

Consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and CPDS’ Inspection Services indicates that several factors associated with bus shelter advertising need further research and consideration.  They include investigating potential changes to the City’s sign ordinance, ensuring compliance with State right-of-way regulations, and establishing advertising guidelines that protect the City from legal challenges.

Background

There are 477 bus stops and 42 bus shelters in the City of Rockville.  The City determines shelter placement based on bus stop use, neighborhood interest, and availability of right-of-way.  Priority is given to bus stops with an average of 20 or more users per day.  Developer contributions, capital project funds, and grants primarily fund bus shelter planning, design, and installation.  Montgomery County maintains the shelters within the City limits at no cost to the City.

The City is engaged in an ongoing effort to add bus shelters at heavily used bus stops throughout Rockville.  The Department of Public Works (DPW) purchased 25 additional shelters to be installed by the end of August 2004.  Developer contributions funded six of these shelters, which will be placed near the associated developments.  A State grant funded the other 19 shelters, the placement of which will based on bus stop use, neighborhood interest, and available right-of-way.   

The City is currently contracting with Tito Contractors to install the shelters.  Montgomery County will maintain the new shelters at no cost to the City.

Bus shelter installation, or an equivalent cash contribution, is frequently a condition of approval for development as part of on-site requirements and/or as mitigation through off-site improvements.  Based on current and projected development, staff anticipates that developer contributions will result in approximately seventeen additional bus shelters in the City over the next five years.

DPW plans to purchase and install shelters at additional bus stops as funds become available.  No funds are programmed for shelters in the proposed FY 2005 CIP for FY 2005-2007.  City staff have analyzed unsheltered bus stops and identified 35 stops serving 50 or more riders a day, 36 stops serving between 30 and 49 riders per day, and a remaining 313 stops serving under 30 riders per day.

Culver Amherst’s Bus Shelter Advertising Program

Culver Amherst contracts with local governments across the U.S. to install and maintain street furniture that incorporates advertising.  The street furniture includes bus shelters and benches, informational kiosks, newspaper racks, and public telephone booths.  Culver Amherst also provides transit advertising and advertising on billboards and wallscapes.

Culver Amherst offers a variety of bus shelter styles and designs with advertising on panels attached to the shelter. They coordinate all of the advertising and use the advertising revenue to fund the shelter construction and maintenance.  Contracts with local governments include general guidelines about the types of advertising that can be placed on a shelter.  Culver Amherst  also agrees to remove advertisements within 24 hours of a request by the local government under contract.  Culver Amherst forwards a portion of the advertising revenue to the local government.  Other program specifics vary from contract to contract.

Regional Bus Shelter Advertising Programs

Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, and Prince George’s County have bus shelter advertising programs.  All three contract with Culver Amherst, although other firms provide similar services.  Montgomery County is considering implementing a bus shelter advertising program as part of a deal with Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. to eliminate remaining billboards within the County.  Additionally, Montgomery County is considering advertising on and inside Ride On buses. 

Gaithersburg

The City of Gaithersburg is in the second year of a 10-year contract with Culver Amherst to construct and maintain bus shelters with advertising.  The contract states that the firm will build up to 74 shelters in Gaithersburg.  After an initial two-shelter pilot in 2002, Culver constructed 24 shelters in Gaithersburg in 2003.  The City expects to have 24 additional shelters built in the near future.  The City places the Culver Amherst shelters at bus stops with an average of at least 30 riders per day.

The shelters are green in color, include seating space for two to three people, and have “Gaithersburg” printed on the front.  The shelters have a four-foot wide overhang. 

Culver Amherst makes the initial decision about what ads will go on the Gaithersburg shelters.  The contract includes general guidelines about allowable ads; for example, no ads for alcohol or tobacco are permitted.  The contract also indicates that if the City determines that an advertisement on a shelter is inappropriate, Culver Amherst will remove it within 24 hours.  Staff reports that Culver Amherst has been responsive to City requests to remove ads.

Culver Amherst provides regular maintenance for all the shelters they install.  Under Gaithersburg’s contract that includes making repairs, shoveling snow, and collecting trash.  City staff report that the firm’s maintenance services are adequate and that they are responsive when the City requests service.

Gaithersburg staff reports that the City did not receive a lot of complaints about the Culver Amherst bus shelters, and that the majority of the complaints came only during the first month of the program.  The majority of the complaints addressed the design of the shelters, including that the four-foot overhang is not wide enough and there is not enough seating space.  The City also received complaints that the advertising blocked drivers’ view around the corner at intersections.  Additionally, the City discovered that some of the shelters do not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act because the shelter design does not leave enough space for a wheelchair.

The only other concern expressed by Gaithersburg staff related to State right-of-way regulations.  According to Gaithersburg, the shelters with advertising violate the State’s rule that no ads are allowed in the State right-of-way.  Staff reports that while some Gaithersburg shelters are in the State right-of-way, the City has not received any complaints from the State.

Staff reports that the Gaithersburg City Council saw bus shelter advertising as a needed source of revenue.  Before contracting with Culver Amherst, the City estimated it would cost approximately $250,000 to build the 36 shelters the City wanted in place.  Under the Culver Amherst contract, the City:

• Received 26 shelters with no cost for design and construction,
  
• Earns approximately $11,800 in advertising revenue annually (10% of the total advertising revenue), and
  
• Was able to move two public works employees from shelter maintenance/trash collection to other needed services in the City.

Takoma Park

The City of Takoma Park also contracts with Culver Amherst to provide bus shelters with advertising in the City.  The program started approximately four years ago.  The contract with the City also provides for maintenance of the shelters.

Takoma Park’s shelters are brown in color, and include seating space for two to three people.   The shelters have a four foot wide overhang.   They also include space for a wheelchair. 

Takoma Park has not received citizen complaints about the design of the shelters.  The City has requested the firm to remove ads several times in response to citizen concerns.   Staff reports that Culver Amherst is responsive to requests for removal of unacceptable advertisements and maintenance service. 

Items for Further Research and Consideration

Consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and CPDS’ Inspection Services indicates that several factors associated with bus shelter advertising need further research and consideration.  They include investigating potential changes to the City’s sign ordinance, ensuring compliance with State right-of-way regulations, and establishing advertising guidelines that protect the City from legal challenges.

Sign Ordinance

City Code Chapter 25- Zoning and Planning, Article XI addresses signs.  Section 25-461(b) indicates that prohibited signs include:

“Signs which contain the name of a building, product, business, service or institution which is not located on the same lot as the sign, except for temporary sings, permanent subdivision identification signs, and political signs erected in accordance with the requirements of this article”

This provision prohibits a bus shelter with an advertisement for a building, product, business, service or institution not located on the same site as the shelter.  Another portion of the Code, Section 24-457(5), indicates that Article XI does not apply to:

“Any sign erected by or at the direction of, any governmental body having jurisdiction over the property or right-of-way on which it is located”

That exemption may allow the City to contract with a firm to place advertisements on bus shelters even if the advertisement does not represent a building, product, business, service or institution on the same site as the shelter.  However, the exemption may be problematic if the City’s bus shelter advertising program was challenged in court.  This issue requires further research and consideration.

State Right-Of-Way Regulations

State regulations prohibit advertising in the State right-of-way.  That regulation is relevant because some of the bus stops in the City that are appropriate for a bus shelter are located in the State right-of-way.  Both Gaithersburg and Takoma Park have bus shelters with advertising in the State right-of-way, and have not been questions by the State. 

First Amendment Rights

Before contracting for and implementing a bus shelter advertising program, the City would need to establish specific guidelines for determining acceptable advertisements.  Carefully abiding by those guidelines over time is also critical. 

Preliminary research indicates that, unlike City publications, the court would probably consider bus shelters a public forum.  That designation makes the City more vulnerable to First Amendment Right challenges when the City chooses not to accept selected ads for shelters.  The City is currently in litigation over the law that restricts billboard along Rockville Pike on the grounds that it limits free speech.  A better understanding of the issue related to first amendment rights requires further research and consideration by the Mayor and Council.

Alternative Approach for Consideration

Developing a sponsorship program, similar to an adopt-a-road program, is a potential alternative approach to raising revenue for bus shelters in the City.  Under this kind of program, the City could invite businesses to fund the construction, installation and maintenance of a bus shelter in exchange for placing language on the shelter indicating that the business sponsored the shelter.  This option would create shelters that are less distracting than shelters with advertisements.  It also eliminates the problem of determining what advertisements are acceptable, and the need to have unacceptable ads removed.

A sponsorship program could also be designed to help Rockville businesses.  For example, the program could target shopping center owners who have expressed concern about their lack of visibility and insufficient signage.  Those shelters could indicate sponsorship by the center and list the businesses located in the center.

This alternative approach requires additional research as well.  For example, staff would need to consider:

• City resources required to develop and operate the program,
  
• The interest of local businesses in participating,
  
• Program guidelines, such as how long a single sponsorship would last, and
  
• Potential legal problems, such as favoring commercial over non-commercial speech by only inviting businesses to participate.