Transit Bus Stops: Ownership, Liability, and Access (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

32 franchisees themselves may enter into service agree- ments for maintenance.361 Even though they are not party to such agreements, the franchisors have an in- terest in such agreements having appropriate indem- nity and defense clauses.362 Agreements with private property owners to allow ac- cess for bus stops are also important. Such agreements may include development agreements between the mu- nicipality and the developer for bus stop installation, traffic mitigation agreements requiring bus stops, and agreements between the transit agency and the private property owner. Maintenance of the bus stop may be covered in an access agreement or be the subject of a separate agreement. VI. COMMON ISSUES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS A. Introduction A transit agency has at least two considerations con- cerning potential problems: 1) avoiding legal liability, and 2) because of the potential effects bus stop condi- tions may have on ridership, having safe, accessible, well-maintained bus stops regardless of who is respon- sible for them. Thus, even when the transit agency does not have the primary responsibility for bus stops, the agency has an interest in whether arrangements with the responsible entity address these common issues. Whether or not they are responsible for placing and/or maintaining bus stops, transit agencies should be involved in those processes. Involvement at the planning stages for rights-of-way and facilities that attract traffic, such as malls, is key.363 In some cases, local law may require coordination with the transit agency during the development process,364 affording an opportunity to provide input into bus stop placement and design even where the transit agency is not legally responsible for those decisions. B. Design The two major issues with legal implications that can be addressed via design elements are safety (both from an accidental injury and a criminal assault perspective) and accessibility. To the extent that design elements help prevent accidental injury and discourage criminal activity, those elements minimize potential liability. 361 E.g., Shelter Express provided maintenance services (cleaning, repairing, warehousing, and posting advertising on shelters) to Viacom, when Viacom was the franchisee in New York City, www.shelterexpress.com/maintenance.html. 362 See VII.C, Agreements infra this report. 363 See, e.g., NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY, supra note 3, at 121-23, www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/pdf/current_state.pd f; Hendricks et al., supra note 217, at A-1. 364 City of Orange, Florida, requires the city to inform the lo- cal transit agency about proposed locations of “new transit generators and attractors as they are being reviewed.” Hendricks et al., supra note 217, at A-1. The same holds true for design elements that enhance accessibility. It is also important to take into considera- tion the fact that bus shelter franchisees are often re- sponsible for bus shelter design. Certain design ele- ments, such as those that discourage graffiti, will also reduce maintenance costs. 1. Safety365 Lighting.—Adequate lighting, or the lack thereof, will affect safety, 366 in terms of both preventing accidental injury and discouraging assault and other crimes.367 Factors that discourage the use of lighting include diffi- culties in obtaining access to electrical power; connec- tion, usage, and maintenance costs;368 and concerns about liability due to injury from electricity. Solar- powered lighting systems may allow transit agencies to provide the safety of well-lit bus shelters with less cost and potential liability than with conventional light- ing.369 Solar lighting may also be less costly and disrup- tive to install than traditional lighting, at least when solar lighting is integrated into the bus shelter’s design. Such systems do cost more than traditional shelters. Even frequently overcast locations, such as Seattle and Portland, Oregon, can employ solar lighting.370 Given the critical nature of lighting, if a bus stop it- self cannot be lit, it is helpful to obtain the cooperation of nearby businesses to leave lights on to illuminate the stop.371 Adequate lighting, together with providing clear lines of sight to pedestrians and neighborhood busi- nesses, allows for natural surveillance of the bus stop.372 The San Diego Police Department, for example, has recommended this approach in its neighborhood polic- ing guidance.373 Features.—Bus stop signposts can be a source of in- jury or property damage. A breakaway design for posts 365 JEROME A. NEEDLE & RENEE M. COBB, IMPROVING TRANSIT SECURITY (TCRP Synthesis 21, 1997). 366 See, e.g., Washington County Transportation Develop- ment Plan, Final Report, July 16, 2003, at D-3, http://www.washcomd.net/public_works/commuter/Washington CoTDPFinal.pdf. 367 See also MARTHA J. SMITH & RONALD V. CLARKE, Crime and Public Transport, 2 CRIME AND JUSTICE, v. 27. 169, 210 (Michael Tonry, ed., 2000). 368 Bus Shelter Enlightenment, 31.3 ALTERNATIVES JOURNAL (Aug. 2005). 369 Id. 370 Denis Du Bois, Solar Transit Lighting Shines in the Cloudy Pacific Northwest—Case Study, Aug. 10, 2005, http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/08/carmanah_metro.ph p. 371 NEEDLE ET AL., supra note 365, at 10, 20 (Ann Arbor Transit Authority got shopping centers to leave lights on to illuminate unlit bus stops). 372 See Neal Kumar Katyal, Architecture as Crime Control, 111 YALE L.J. 1039, 1052 (March 2002). 373 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for Urban Village Centers, San Diego Police Depart- ment Neighborhood Policing Resource Team, May 2005, www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/CPTEDvillagesmay2005.pdf.

33 that are not protected by a guardrail or other feature should minimize liability.374 Providing an all-weather surface where passengers board/alight enhances the safety of the path and should reduce slip and fall inju- ries, thus mitigating potential liability.375 Environment.—Studies have shown that the appear- ance that a potential crime setting is watched may de- ter potential criminals,376 whereas evidence of “incivili- ties” such as litter and graffiti may lead to greater criminal activity.377 Thus, using graffiti-resistant mate- rial for bus shelters may help discourage criminal activ- ity.378 For example, Metro (King County, Washington) uses etched art glass to deter “scratch” graffiti on shel- ter glass,379 as well as deploying a Bus Shelter Mural program that is intended in part to deter graffiti.380 In addition, bus stop/shelter design should avoid or modify features that provide hiding places for criminals or allow them to trap potential victims. The bus stop/shelter design should also make the stops/shelters visible to traffic and neighboring businesses, so as to provide evident surveillance.381 At least one study found that installing even dummy cameras on buses, coupled with publicity about the cameras, reduced vandalism on the buses.382 Cameras could also be used at bus stops to deter vandalism and other crimes.383 Certain crimes, such as picking pockets, are facili- tated by overcrowding. Designing adequate waiting space for passengers384 and providing shelters to sepa- rate passengers from potential thieves385 can deter such crimes. Bus bulbs can be used to achieve the effect of reducing overcrowding. Bus bulbs offer the additional advantages of reducing the crossing distance for pedes- trians, allowing buses to stop in the traffic lane, and making more room for benches and shelters. In 2001 the estimated construction cost was between $15,000 374 See TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE, supra note 1, at 48. 375 See id. at 19. 376 Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Hot Spots of Bus Stop Crime: The Importance of Environmental Attributes, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 65.4, 395 (1999), http://www.uctc.net/scripts/countdown.pl?384.pdf. 377 Id. See also SMITH ET Al., supra note 367, at 221. 378 See id. at 220. 379 Metro Bus Shelters, www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/biz_district_guide/biz_d ist_pages/METRO_bus_shelters.htm. 380 http://transit.metrokc.gov/prog/sheltermural/shelter__mural.ht ml. 381 Loukaitou-Sideris, supra note 376. See also Anne Lusk, Bus and Bus Stop Designs Related to Perceptions of Crime, FTA MI-26-7004-2001.8. 382 Smith et al., supra note 367, at 186. 383 E.g., Digital Video Cameras in Bus Shelters, http://archive.cardiff.gov.uk/government/english/Cabinet_Pape rs/04_09_16_Cab/Reports/ExecBusiness16Sept04_Digital_video _cameras_in%20bus_shelters_tot.pdf. 384 Loukaitou-Sideris, supra note 376. 385 Smith et al., supra note 367, at 191. and $55,000 per bulb. Factors that contribute to cost include construction materials, drainage needs, reloca- tion of utilities, and amenities such as benches and shelters.386 Grouping bus stops into transit centers may make transfer between routes safer and may also reduce pas- sengers’ exposure to street crime.387 However, to the extent that such centers incorporate other functions, the legal standards for assessing liability may differ from those in effect when assessing the liability of a transit agency at a stand-alone bus stop. Other measures that enhance safety include design- ing seating to discourage reclining on the seats,388 thereby discouraging sleeping in the shelters; ensuring that there are emergency call boxes or public telephones to report crimes; installing resistant windows; and us- ing vandal-resistant materials.389 2. Accessibility ADA requirements must be taken into considera- tion.390 Thus design should: 391 • Avoid obstacles that would restrict wheelchair move- ment or be undetectable to the visually impaired. • Incorporate stable, slip-resistant surfaces. • Include signs usable by visually disabled passengers. • Place any telephones so as not to obstruct wheel- chairs. • Specify telephones that are accessible to hearing dis- abled passengers. • Afford a 5-8 ft wheelchair landing area free of all ob- stacles, including bus shelters and benches, for any bus waiting pads. In addition to ADA considerations, designing bus stops to eliminate obstacles may reduce potential liabil- ity for personal injury to all passengers.392 386 FITZPATRICK ET AL., supra note 1, at 1. 387 CHRISTOPHER, supra note 218, at 23. 388 See Bus Shelter Franchise Agreement, District of Colum- bia DOT, art. VIII, § 5, www.ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1255,q,633272.asp. 389 M. Annabelle Boyd, M. Patricia Maier, Patricia J. Kenney. Perspectives on Transit Security, FTA-MA-90-7006-96- 1, 1996, at 4-58–4-60, http://transit- safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/security/FTA-MA-90-7006-96- 1/PDF/FTA-MA-90-7006-96- 1_Perspectives_on_Transit_Security.pdf. See Smith et al., su- pra note 367, at 222 (call boxes may deter crime). 390 See III.B. Accessibility of Bus Stop/Bus Shelter to Dis- abled Passengers, supra this report. 391 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE, supra note 1, at 61, 64, 67, 75. Although the Access Board has updated its re- quirements since the publication date of this report, see III.B. Accessibility of Bus Stop/Bus Shelter to Disabled Passengers, supra this report, the suggested design guidelines are still applicable. See also Washington County Transportation Devel- opment Plan, Final Report, July 16, 2003, at D-2, http://www.washco- md.net/public_works/commuter/WashingtonCoTDPFinal.pdf. 392 See II, Legal Liability for Personal Injury/Property Dam- age Related to Bus Stops/Bus Shelters, supra this report.

34 It is common for the right-of-way, including the bus stop, to be under the authority of the municipality, county, or state where the right-of-way is located, limit- ing the transit agency’s ability to ensure accessibility.393 In addition to meeting legal requirements, improving the accessibility of bus stops may be considered a cost- saving measure, in that it may reduce the need for cost- lier paratransit service for some patrons.394 3. Responsibility Franchisees are often responsible for the design of bus shelters. For example, in New York City, the DOT has a franchise agreement under which the franchisee will “design, manufacture, install and maintain all of the structures as well as pay the City an annual pre- mium in exchange for the right to sell advertising on the structures. The advertising is limited to print back- lit panels of a restricted size.”395 It is important that developers understand the specific ADA requirements for bus stops/shelters.396 Marking bus stops will also improve ridership. The problem is that the responsibility for doing so often lies with the municipality, while the negative ramifications of failing to do so affect the transit agency. One trans- portation analyst recommended moving responsibility to the transit authority to ensure sign maintenance. However, doing so may also affect municipal labor agreements.397 C. Placement In many jurisdictions the transit agency will not have the ultimate responsibility for placing bus stops/shelters, but will have significant input—whether formal or informal—into the decision. Even where the transit agency does not have the requisite control over the bus stop/shelter location to ultimately be held liable for injuries caused by the location, the transit agency is still a probable party in actions for recovery. Thus, con- cerns about maintaining ridership aside, the transit agency has an interest in encouraging safe locations that provide adequate access to its services. 393 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY, supra note 3, at 121, citing U.S. ACCESS BOARD, PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUILDING A TRUE COMMUNITY: FINAL REPORT (2001). (Retrieved June 15, 2004, from http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/commrept/index.htm). The most current proposed right-of-way standards are discussed in III.B. Accessibility of Bus Stop/Bus Shelter to Disabled Pas- sengers, supra this report. 394 See Palm Beach County, supra note 219, at 9. 395 www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/permits/streetfurniture.html. 396 See Christopher, supra note 218, at 40. 397 Opportunities for Improving Ridership, CT Transit, Aug. 2005, p. 7: Lack of uniform signage made it difficult to find particular bus stops, www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CT_Hartford_Ridership_Report_W eb_Sept_29.pdf. 1. Safety Safety considerations in bus stop placement relate to both traffic safety and security. Transit agencies that do not have their own guidelines for bus stop locations may find it useful to review guidelines other agencies have adopted or the Institute of Traffic Engineers rec- ommended practices for bus stop location.398 As to traffic safety, there are numerous operational considerations in determining a safe location, such as whether it is safer to stop nearside or farside at a par- ticular intersection, where passengers are coming from or going to, and the location of the greatest amount of passenger traffic.399 Mid-block stops may encourage jaywalking,400 and thus could breach a duty of reason- able care in locating the bus stop. The location of a bus stop/shelter may also create a danger of injury to board- ing or exiting passengers, either because the stopped bus blocks the view of oncoming traffic or because pas- sengers must cross heavy traffic to reach the bus stop.401 To the extent that bus stop locations provide or fail to provide a safe pathway for passengers to embark or alight, they may increase or decrease potential liability. Therefore, keeping safe pedestrian access in mind in locating bus stops should help to minimize liability aris- ing from injuries to boarding, alighting, and waiting passengers.402 The physical environment, e.g. whether numerous nearby streets and alleys provide criminal escape routes, and surrounding land uses, e.g., crime genera- tors such as liquor stores and vacant lots, can affect the likelihood of crime.403 Thus, certain environments are safer than others in terms of crimes occurring at bus stops.404 Locating bus stops away from convenience stores, bars, and abandoned buildings is generally con- sidered to enhance security.405 A study of high-crime bus stops in Los Angeles showed that such bus stops are surrounded by evidence of “incivilities” such as litter and graffiti.406 On the other hand, placing bus stops/shelters near well-maintained 398 See KING, supra note 103, at 16–19, 25. 399 LACMTA Stops and Zones Department Policies and Pro- cedures Manual. Bus Zones. Policy 6.0: Best practice on how to establish a new bus stop or bus zone, www.mta.net/board/Items/2004/10_October/20041014OtherSec torGAT_Item9.pdf. 400 Washington County Transportation Development Plan, Final Report, July 16, 2003, at D-2, http://www.washco- md.net/public_works/commuter/WashingtonCoTDPFinal.pdf 401 See, e.g., Am. Employers Ins. Co. v. Metro Regional Tran- sit Agency, 12 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 1993). 402 See TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE, supra note 1, app. D, Street-Side Studies (discussion of studies on traffic/bus operations around different types of bus stop locations and designs); app. E, Curb-Side Studies. 403 Loukaitou-Sideris, supra note 376; Katyal, supra note 372, at 1095. 404 See § VI.B.1, Safety, supra this report. 405 Boyd et al., supra note 389, at 3–16. 406 Loukaitou-Sideris, supra note 376.

35 businesses should deter crime.407 Both the business pro- prietors and the foot traffic attracted by their busi- nesses may provide natural surveillance that will dis- courage criminal activity at the nearby bus stops/shelters.408 It may also be useful to gate off alleys that serve as potential criminal escape routes.409 The importance of the surrounding environment is illus- trated by the findings of a study of Los Angeles bus stop crime that more than 50 percent of the 1,480 crimes committed at 60 bus stops occurred at 6 of those stops.410 2. Access to Enclosed Private Property Shopping centers, office parks, and private develop- ments are all centers of activity whose patrons may benefit from, and indeed depend upon, transit access. In some jurisdictions, ordinances require transit access. Growth management legislation, zoning requirements, and land development regulations are examples of local legislative/regulatory authority that may be used to require transit access on private property.411 For exam- ple, development approvals may be predicated on provi- sion of transit service; traffic mitigation agreements may require developers to construct bus shelters or oth- erwise allow transit access; and developer agreements may require transit access in exchange for reduced transportation impact fees.412 For example, a land de- velopment regulation could require bus stops: New commercial developments exceeding 100,000 square feet in gross floor area and all new residential develop- ments of more than 200 dwelling units shall provide on- site space for bus stops, to be coordinated with the transit agency. Such bus stops shall be separate and adjacent to travel lanes. In coordination with the transit agency, this requirement may be waived if there are existing transit stops in close proximity to the proposed project.413 Thus, to the extent possible, working with local gov- ernments to incorporate requirements and/or incentives for transit access in development and planning proc- esses will ease the process of gaining transit access to enclosed private property and reduce the ability of the owners of such property to withdraw permission for access.414 However, absent legal requirements mandat- 407 Id. 408 See SMITH ET AL., supra note 367, at 220. 409 Loukaitou-Sideris, supra note 376. 410 Katyal, supra note 372, at 1039 n.210 (March 2002), cit- ing Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris et al., Measuring the Effects of Built Environment on Bus Stop Crime, 28 ENV'T & PLAN. B: PLAN. & DESIGN 255 (2001). 411 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154, at 31–34. See also HENDRICKS & DYHOUSE, supra note 314, for additional refer- ences to using local government comprehensive planning and regulatory processes to require that private property owners provide transit access, www.dot.state.fl.us/research- center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_19_rpt.p df. 412 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154, at 14. 413 Id. at 34. 414 See id. at 41. ing that the owners of such private property provide transit access, transit operators can only gain access by negotiating agreements with the property owners. Even where the transit agency does not have the responsibil- ity for placing bus stops, efforts by the transit agency to educate the responsible property owners/managers, such as local or corporate mall managers, concerning the importance of transit access to the community may be useful in facilitating such agreements.415 Perhaps the most effective point for negotiating tran- sit access is during the development process, as devel- opers are probably in the best position to enter into agreements that will bind subsequent owners and prop- erty managers, thus offering continued transit access. In any event, in examining the problem of obtaining transit access, it is important to distinguish between potential private parties, as their interests are likely to differ. Developers will be interested in incentives dur- ing the development process, while owners/managers will be interested in incentives related to the cleanli- ness and maintenance of the bus stop.416 Incentives that local governments can offer developers include lower parking and impact fees, lowered number of required parking spaces, and greater density than otherwise allowed under zoning regulations. 417 If negotiations take place after development, the likely private parties will be the owners or managers of the facility. These private parties may have a number of concerns about allowing transit access. These include: 418 • Loitering. • Perceived high levels of crime. • Feeling that the ridership is not part of their cus- tomer base. • Damage to the parking lot, in particular damage to asphalt. • Accumulation of trash near the bus stop. • Bus fumes (where the bus stop is near an entrance). In order to mitigate these concerns, transit agencies should be willing to provide incentives to private prop- erty owners. One study found the following to be the highest ranked incentives for getting private property owners to allow transit access: 419 415 See id. at 19-20 (importance of transit access to commu- nity; mall decision-makers); pp. 30–31 (economic benefits to private property owners of transit access). Experiences in nego- tiating park and ride lots on private property are also relevant. See FRANCIS WAMBALABA & KIMBERLEE GABOUREL, CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, 9 COMMUTER CHOICE MANAGERS AND PARKING MANAGERS COORDINATION (2002). (importance of coordinating plans with private property own- ers, gaining support from local government), available at http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/473-134.pdf. 416 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154, at 29–30. 417 Id. at 13, 35. 418 Id. at 10, 21, 25; WAMBALABA ET AL., supra note 415, at 22. 419 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154, at 22-24; WAMBALABA et al., supra note 415, at 7–8.

36 • Periodic cleanings. • Maintenance of bus stops on site. • Liability insurance. • Installation of amenities (e.g., benches, trash recepta- cles, and lighting). • Installation of concrete pads. Other incentives include: 420 • Recognizing the center in advertising and bus maps. • Lighting. • Hold harmless agreements. In addition to offering incentives, the transit agency may need to educate the private property owner to lessen negative perceptions about bus passengers.421 Given the turnover in management and control of en- closed private properties, it is important to keep track of all such agreements. Property managers may request that transit agencies remove their bus stops; since the managers may not have been party to the agreement granting access, it may be incumbent upon the transit agency to remind them of their contractual obliga- tions.422 3. Procedural Issues Unless the entity placing the bus stop owns the entire area where the bus stop is to be placed, and absent an existing agreement, that entity must obtain permission from the property owner(s), whether that property owner is the state, the municipality, or a private busi- ness. One or more agreements may be required to grant permission to locate and cover issues such as mainte- nance, indemnification, and insurance. Multiple permits may be required to place shelters in the right-of-way. Where the state controls the right-of- way, state permission can be expected to be required to locate bus shelters.423 There may be an advantage to hiring a contractor that has received permission to in- stall bus shelters state-wide.424 In addition to required permits, local governments may require an intergov- ernmental agreement to cover the installation and op- 420 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154, at 13. 421 See FRANCIS WAMBALABA & JULIE GOODWILL, CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, UNIV. OF S. FLORIDA, 9 EVALUATION OF SHARED USE PARK & RIDE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES (2004). 422 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154. 423 E.g., UTAH ADMIN. CODE § R933-4-4, Permitting and Conditions for Valid Permits, www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r933/r933-004.htm#E4. 424 See, e.g., Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsyl- vania’s Meeting Minutes, Feb. 7, 2005, www.manortwp.org/minutes.cfm?meetingid=862 (advertising company under consideration to install and maintain shelters had already received permission from state to install bus shel- ters in state right-of-way). eration of transit amenities within the public right-of- way.425 4. Other Issues Driver-created bus stops can give rise to liability where the unmarked stop does not provide a clear path for boarding and alighting. On the other hand, these bus stops can minimize liability where bus drivers avoid hazards such as icy pavement at the regular bus stop or where passengers are allowed to request a stop closer to work or home to avoid potentially crime-prone bus stops.426 Placement of bus stops and their amenities, e.g., benches, shelters, etc., are often a matter of great con- cern to community members.427 Thus, even where not required by law, transit agencies may want to conduct community outreach concerning the location of bus stops and how to furnish them.428 D. Maintenance Keeping bus stops and shelters free of debris and the surrounding areas well maintained (e.g., landscaped to keep obstacles such as tree roots from intruding on pathways and adequately cleared of snow and ice) will help reduce liability in several respects. Proper mainte- nance will reduce potential slip and fall accidents; thus minimizing tort liability; assist in maintaining accessi- bility for disabled passengers;429 and as discussed supra, will discourage criminal activity. Thus, in addition to keeping debris and litter under control, maintenance efforts should ensure that graffiti and other incidents of vandalism are addressed promptly. Crime-reporting efforts can be considered part of maintenance. Seattle Metro maintains reporting for loitering, broken glass, and graffiti at bus stops.430 Many transit agencies employ uniformed patrols to deter crime at bus stops; a smaller number deploy plain- clothes officers to patrol and otherwise surveil crime- prone bus stops.431 While it is possible to take a system-wide approach to maintenance—i.e., all in-house or all contracted out—a combination of efforts may be required for budgetary and/or organizational reasons. For example, Seattle has a mix of approaches to maintenance. The Seattle DOT maintains a limited number of trash cans at bus stops. Seattle Metro maintains trash cans at bus shelters.432 425 HINEBAUGH ET AL., supra note 154, at 37. 426 BENN, supra note 1, at 22. 427 See, e.g., SACOG Planning Study, supra note 210, at 36; Northwest Community Planning Forum, March 2005, at 10. 428 See SACOG Planning Study, supra note 210, apps. C-1 & C-2. 429 See, e.g., Palm Beach County, supra note 219, at 26 (im- portance of maintenance to keeping pathways debris-free). 430 Metro Bus Shelters, www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/biz_district_guide/biz_d ist_pages/METRO_bus_shelters.htm. 431 NEEDLE ET AL., supra note 365, at 9–10, 17. 432 Metro Bus Shelters,

37 Metro also runs an Adopt-A-Stop program at other bus stops to encourage businesses to keep such areas clean. Participants are eligible to receive 20 bus tickets per month; a litter container, which Metro attaches to the bus stop pole; free litter bags; and an optional Adopt-A- Stop sticker for the container, recognizing the volunteer or business who picks up litter at the stop. Participants are required to install the liners and remove the litter before the receptacle becomes unsightly, remove any graffiti from the receptacle, and notify Metro of any damage to the receptacle.433 Basin Transit Service in Klamath Falls, Oregon, re- quires its lead mechanic to visit bus stops at least monthly to inspect for cleanliness and needed mainte- nance. Members of senior management are expected to survey the conditions of bus stops and shelters as they travel throughout the system and to either correct con- ditions or report them to the maintenance staff. 434 E. Options for Managing Bus Stops/Shelters Assuming that a transit agency is authorized to man- age the bus stops/shelters in its system, which will de- pend on ownership and control of the bus stops/shelters or statutory authority, the authority may consider whether to handle its bus stop/bus shelter operations entirely in-house, contract out some or all of its bus stop/bus shelter operations, or completely privatize its bus shelters.435 Generally, a franchise makes the fran- chisee globally responsible for designing, constructing, installing, and maintaining bus shelters. It would be possible to contract out any single subresponsibility, but it appears that maintenance is the one most commonly contracted out. It can be contracted out by the responsi- ble public entity or a franchisee. In determining whether to franchise, a primary con- sideration for the responsible public entity may be whether the entity wants advertising on its bus shel- ters. This decision may be affected by community pres- sure to avoid advertising.436 However, while it is possi- ble to franchise bus shelters without advertising,437 www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/biz_district_guide/biz_d ist_pages/METRO_bus_shelters.htm. 433 http://transit.metrokc.gov/prog/aas/adopt.html. 434 Basin Transit Location Policy, supra note 350. 435 E.g., Palm Beach County, Florida, transitioned its system of selling advertising on shelters placed and maintained by the local transit agency to private ownership of the bus shelters. Palm Beach County, supra note 219, at 23. 436 E.g., Alameda Bus Shelter Project: Volunteer community group Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS) purchased and installed bus shelters; City of Alameda to cover cost of cleaning, repair, and other maintenance, www.alameda- transit.org/projects/shelters/index.html. 437 RFP No. 10-01-06, Bus Shelter Program, issued by Tran- sit Management of Mobile, www.thewavetransit.com/BusinessInitiatives/files/BusShelter RFP.pdf. The RFP specifies no advertising on bus shelters. The system does place advertising on the outside of its buses. The Wave Transit MOVING BILLBOARD Advertising Program, www.thewavetransit.com/BusinessInitiatives/advertising.htm. advertising is the mechanism for allowing the franchi- see to provide bus shelters at little or no cost to the pub- lic entity and in fact affords the opportunity for pay- ments to the public entity.438 Advertising may also be used to defray expenses in situations short of franchis- ing.439 If the public entity is open to having advertising on its bus shelters, there is a threshold question of whether the local jurisdiction allows advertising on bus shelters, and if so, what limitations may exist on the type of advertising allowed. Where the local sign ordi- nance prohibits or restricts advertising on bus shelters or in the right-of-way, either amendments or case-by- case zoning variances may be required to allow bus shelter advertising. For example, in the case of Red Rose Transit in Pennsylvania, the local ordinance needed to be changed to allow off-site advertising on bus shelters and to allow a sign in the right-of-way. Absent the ordinance amendment, the transit agency would have to seek a zoning variance for each shelter application at a cost of $500 per application.440 An alternative funding mechanism to franchising is to encourage neighborhood groups and businesses to adopt bus shelters and take care of them.441 It is possible for the public entity to divide responsi- bility for street furniture; for example, franchising or contracting out the responsibility for bus shelters while retaining the responsibility for bus benches,442 or vice versa. F. Advertising Decisions concerning advertisements on bus shelters involve not only the policy questions discussed in the preceding section, but legal issues concerning compli- ance with state and local codes and constitutional limi- tations that can be placed on advertising. The public entity must determine whether bus shel- ter advertising is permitted under state and local law, which is usually a sign code issue. Depending on the code, bus shelter advertising may be: • Allowed without restriction. • Allowed only in certain locations. 438 Section V.A, Franchise Agreements, supra this report. 439 Red Rose Transit Agency in Lancaster County proposed to cover maintenance of bus shelters through advertising: RRTA proposed to purchase the shelters and have the advertis- ing company install, light, and maintain the shelters. Manor Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania’s Meeting Minutes, Feb. 7, 2005, www.manortwp.org/minutes.cfm?meetingid=862. 440 Id. 441 E.g,. VIA Metropolitan Transit, Adopt-A-Bus-Shelter Program, www.viainfo.net/Community/AdoptAStop.aspx. 442 City of Pasadena, California: Street Maintenance and Integrated Waste Management division responsible for main- tenance and repair of bus benches; private contractor main- tains bus shelters, www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/publicworks/smiwmII/tips_sm.asp#four .