Public transit access to private property

Public transit access to private property

Material Information

Public transit access to private property
Hinebaugh, Dennis
Land, Laurel
Staes, Lisa
United States -- Dept. of Transportation. -- Research and Special Programs Administration
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
National Center for Transit Research (U.S.)
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla.]
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, National Center for Transit Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (viii, 144 p.) : charts. ;


Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines -- Law and legislation -- United States ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Law and legislation -- United States ( lcsh )
Right of property -- United States ( lcsh )
technical report ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Dept. of Transportation and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Research and Special Programs under grant no.
General Note:
"August 2000."
Statement of Responsibility:
Dennis Hinebaugh, Laurel Land and Lisa Staes.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
029117568 ( ALEPH )
750273049 ( OCLC )
C01-00061 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.61 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200397Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029117568
005 20110908121603.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110907s2000 dcud ot 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00061
1 100
Hinebaugh, Dennis.
0 245
Public transit access to private property
h [electronic resource] /
Dennis Hinebaugh, Laurel Land and Lisa Staes.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, National Center for Transit Research,
1 online resource (viii, 144 p.) :
Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Dept. of Transportation and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Research and Special Programs under grant no.
DTRS 93-G-0019
"August 2000."
Description based on print version record.
Bus lines
x Law and legislation
z United States.
Local transit
Law and legislation
United States.
Right of property
United States.
Land, Laurel.
Staes, Lisa.
United States.
Dept. of Transportation.
Research and Special Programs Administration.
Dept. of Transportation.
National Center for Transit Research (U.S.)
Hinebaugh, Dennis.
t Public transit access to private property.
d [Tampa, Fla.] : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, National Center for Transit Research, [2000]
w (OCoLC)50994495
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY Dennis Hinebaugh, Laurel Land and Lisa Staes Principal Investigators Center for Urban Transportation Research August2000


CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH University of South Florida 4202 E Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 (813) 974-3 1 20, Suncom 574-3120, Fax (813) 974-5168 Gary L. Brosch, CUTR Director Joel Volins/ci, NCTR Director Dennis Hinebaugh, Transit Program Director The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program, in the interest of information exchange The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.



This is a blank page


TABLE OF CONTENTS PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY ........ ..... .... .... 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. RESULTS OF LITERATURE SEARCH AND SURVEY OF PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERA TORS AND PRNATE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS/MA NAG ERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 2 SURVEY OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON AND REGIONAL OFFICES . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 1 FTA Washington, D .C. .......................... ........ 4 1.3 PUB LIC TRANSIT BUS ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (PUBLIC TRAN SIT OPE RATOR SURV EY) .......................... 4 1.3.1 Survey Development ................... 0 5 1.3.2 Transit Agency Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.3 Common Threads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.4 PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (P RIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPER/MANAGER SURVEY ) .... . . 20 1 .4.1 Private Property Developer/Manager Survey Results . . . . . . 22 1.4.2 Common Threads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 1.5 ISSUE S OF SIGNIFIC ANCE IN DENYING OR RELOCATING TRANSIT STOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1 .5 1 Importance of Incentives as Ranked by Transit Agencies and Developers/Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.6 SUMMARY .................................. ........... o 32 2 TRANS I T ACCESS TO PRIVAT E PROPERTY NEGOTIATION GUIDELINES ..................... ... .................. . . . . 35 2.1 INTRO DUCTIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2 TYPES OF TRAN S I T STOPS .............................. . . 36 2 .3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ON-SITE TRANSIT SERVICE . . . . . . 37 2 4 LEG ISLATIVE ACTIONS TO IMPROV E COORDI NA TI ON ... ... 0 38 2.5 TECHNIQUES FOR TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS ........... ... 40 2 .5.1 Regula tory .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 2 5 2 Non Regu l atory 0 0 o 42 2.5.3 Polic ies 0 0 0 0 45 2 .6 CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 v


. 2.7 SITE PLAN REV IE W .................. ........ . ...... .... 47 2.8 MITIGATION FOR TRANSIT ACCESS . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . 49 2.9 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT .................... ........... . 50 2.9.1 W e lfare to Work P r ogram .. ... .... ................ ... .. 51 ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 APPENDIX A T RANSIT PROVIDER SURVEY ... .... : . . . . . . . . . 55 APPENDIX B. PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPER/MANAGER SURVEY ..... 61 APPENDIX C. LIST OF TRANSIT AGENCIES AND PR I VATE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS/MANAGERS SURVEYED ......... ............ 67 APPENDIX D. RESULTS OF THE TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY . . . . . . 85 APPEND I X E RESULTS OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPER/MANAGER SURVEY . . . . . . . 97 APPENDIX F. SAMPLE INCENTIVE POLICY ........... ... .... ... .... 105 APPENDIX G. SAMPLE AGREEMENTS ... ........ . . . . . . . . . 109 APPEND I X H. BUS TURNING TEMPLATE .............................. 131 V I


Table1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1 3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Table 1.7 Table 1.8 Table 1 .9 Table 1.10 Table 1.11 Table1.12 Table 1.13 Table 1.14 Table 1.15 Table 1.16 Table 2 1 LIST OF TABLES Systems Requested to Move Bus Stops and Occurrence of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Relocation On or Off-Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Number of Systems that have Relocated and L ater Moved Back to Original Site ...... ... .. .. ..... : . . . . . . . . . . 11 Challenges to the Relocation Requests .... . . . . . . . . . . 12 Transit Agency Perceptions Regarding Developers/Property Managers' Reasons for Denying Access to Property (In order of sign i ficance based on tota l) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Incidence of Discrimination, by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Incentives Offered to Private P r operty Developers/Managers ....... 16 Ex i stence of Local or State Ordinances/Laws Requ i ring Public Transportation Access to Private Property . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Importance of Direct Access to the Community, Retailers, and Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Who Makes the Decision-Access vs. No n-Access . . . . . . . . 24 Private Property Developers/Manager Who Have Requested Removal of Transit Stop/Transfer Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Transit IssuesLevel of Importance to Pr ivate Property Developers/Managers (In order of significance) . . . . . . . . . 26 Level of I mportance of I ncentives for Private Property Developers/Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Existence of Local or State Ordinances/Laws Requiring Public Transportation Access to Private Property . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Issues of Sig nifi cance in Denying or Relocating Transit Stops as Ranked by Transit Agencies and Developers/Managers . . . . . 31 Importance of Incentives as Ranked by Transit Agencies and Developers/Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Compa ri son of Contract I mplementation . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Vll


This is a blank page viii


Public Transit Access To Private Property PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY INTRODUCTION Under contract with the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) was asked to assess the issues surrounding the legal rights of public transit agencies to enter and seNe private property, as well as to identify the major concerns of private property owners as it relates to allowing access to their property by public transit providers The scope of the project included the following activities: a literature review to identify any current written practices related to developing public transit access to private properties and identify news articles which report instances where public transit access was denied or withdrawn by private entities; a case review of legal publications to identify either directly or indirectly related cases which involve public and/or private access to privately owned major commercia l properties ; summarize federal, state and loca l case law where ava i lable, to determine the legal rights of public transit agencies as it pertains to access to private properties; distribute a written suNey to public transit providers in Florida and at least fifty other systems (including the nation's 30 largest systems) in the United States; distribute a written suNey to selected private property developers, owners and managers in Florida and the United States to identify successful and unsuccessful transit access practices; develop specific state and local government model regulations and development codes which support the access of public transit vehicles to private properties; develop recommendations for successfully ach i eving public transit access to major private properties with a corresponding document identifying guidelines for transit access to private property negotiation; and disseminate the results of the study and related documents to the Florida Transit Association Section 1 provides the results of the li terature search, legal review, and a summary of information obtained through a written suNey distributed to public transit operators, both in the state of Florida and throughout the United States, and private property owners. Included in the distribution of publ i c transit suNeys were all the public transit providers within Florida as well as 50 additional systems within the United States, including the nation's 30 largest transit systems. determined by annual ridership. Literature is replete regarding design and regulation for transit-friendly communities; however, implementation would require changing community goals to focus on transit which would involve modifying long range plans. zoning, and development regulations. Section 2 provides guidelines intended to supplement existing plans in an effort to demonstrate how local governments can develop ways to achieve private property I


Public Transit Access To Private Property cooperation with transit. They can be adapted to the extent that a community desires to participate in the advancement of transit. These gu ideli nes are provided for direction and assistance toward accommodating transit, to. benefit everyone in the community. They can be used to supplement existing regulations, or could be used as a springboard for more comprehensive transit goals, according to local preference. 2


Public Transit Access To Private Property 1. RESULTS OF LITERATURE SEARCH AND SURVEY OF PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERA TORS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS/MANAGERS 1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW During this phase of the project, CUTR conducted a lite ratur e review of transit-related publications to identify any current practices related to developing public transit access to private properties. A review of other national media was also conducted to identify news articles that reported instances where public trans i t was refused access or was forced to relocate from a private property. CUTR staff searched TRIS (Transportation Research Information Service} CUTR's Research Information Center (CRIC}, an.d the I nternet. Concurrently with this exercise, CUTR also reviewed legal publications and reviews of local state and federal case law related to the issue of public access to private property The American Public Transit Association and staff from the Transportation Research Board were asked if they were aware of any estab lished precedence allowing public transit access to private property and to provide any information they had available on the topic In addition, the survey instrument, described in a subsequent section of this report, asked res pondents if they were aware of any local or state ordinances or laws that require public access to private property. This request provided a limited number of additional sources of information, including legal cases that have either been settled or are still open, and land development and concurrency regulations currently being utilized that either are directly or i ndirectly requiring private developers to allow public transportation access to their developments CUTR also performed a legal search using the University of South Florida Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe search program. This search engine provides In ternet access to news, business, legal and reference informa tion. 1.2 SURVEY OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON AND REGIONAL OFFICES On June 19, 1997, Gordon Linton, FTA Administrator sent a "Dear Colleague letter requesting information from each of FTA's regional offices on the existence and number of incidents where grantees were experiencing difficulty gaining access to private shopping malls. In particular, he directed regional staff to contact the FTA's Office of Civi l Rights, in any of those cases where discriminatory intent was perceived to exist : CUTR contacted each of the FTA's reg ional Civil Rights offices and the Office of Civil 3


Public Transit Access To Private Propertv Rights in Washington, D.C. to obtain their respons e to the Administrator's request. During discussions with FTA's regional offices and Washington D.C., office, few were aware of any pertinent responses to the FTA Administrator's 'Dear Colleague" letter. However, the following comments were recei ved during a conference call with FTA's Office of Civil Rights and General Counsel's Office. 1.2.1 FT A Washington, D.C. CUTR staff contacted both the FTA Office of Civil Rights and the Office of the General Counsel regarding ADA and Title VI issues. FTA's response, based on their i nte rpretation of the ADA, was that because the impact of moving a transit stop off-site or on the periphery of the property would negatively impact both the disabled and the non-disabled riders equally, this would not necessarily constitute an ADA violation. In addition, the ADA requires a 'clear path" of travel for disabled riders disembarking from a transit vehicle yet does not specify a threshold for d i stance traveled from the bus stop . In a situation where a mall developer/manager requested a transit agency to move the bus stop to the periphery of the property yet provided a clear path of tr avel for disembarking passengers there wou ld not necessarily be standing for an ADA violation However, a particular decision to relocate a bus stop to the periphery of a property or deny access to transit vehicles may constitute a vio l ation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if a case could be made tha t the request to relocate was based on racial discrimination. In the responses to the surveys, summarized below, many transit agencies felt that requests to relocate bus stops or deny access to the property was primarily d ue to racial or income discrimination. In discussing this aspect of the research, FT A's Office of Civil Rights indicated that they would be interested in reviewing the information obtained for possible further action. 1.3 PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERA TOR SURVEY) The purpose of the public transit operator survey was to identify agency experiences, both positive and negative, related to their bus systems' access to private property. 4


Public Transit Access To Private Proper/)! 1.3.1 Survey Development CUTR in conjunction with FD OT, developed two surveys to be used in identifying transit agency and developer experiences, both positive and negative, related to public transit bus access onto private property. Questions inc luded in the transit agency survey addressed the following topics: Types and Number of Private Properties Served Regional shopping centers Community-level shopping centers Neig hborhood-level shopping center Experience of Public Transportation Providers with Access to Private Properties Requests to move bus stop (and whether relocation occurred) Requests to return to the origina l site due to public pressure placed on private property developer/manager Legal challenges to a request for removal or relocation Reasons given for a denial of access to private property Perception that access was denied or removal was requested because of racial or income discrimination Existence of Regulatory Procedures or Special Incentives Incentives offered to private property developers/managers to ensure a better working relationship Existence of local or state ordinances/laws that requ ire public transportation access to private property Participation in the review of new site plans or rezonings The written surveys were mailed and/or faxed to 50 public transit systems in the United States, and 17 systems in Florida. The person contacted at each system was generally the Director of Operations/Transportation, depending on the transit agency's organizational structure. The survey instruments used for the transit systems and the private property developers/managers are contained in Appendices A and B. The list of transit agencies and private property developers/managers surveyed is provided i n Appendix C. Surveys were distributed and completed in January and February 1999, respectively This chapter provides a comprehensive review of issues related to public transit access 5


Public Transit Access To Private Property to private property from the perspectives of both transit operators and private developers and property managers. The following section presents the results of the survey of public transit providers. Responses are summarized across transit systems. Noteworthy examples or individual observations are included as appropriate Agencies are referred to in the text by the city or county they serve to avoid confusion among the various names and acronyms. The survey was distributed to the following non-Florida public transit agencies: Winston Salem Transit Authority (NC) Columbus South Carolina Electric Gas Company (SC) City Transit Management Company d.b a Citibus Lubbock, TX Transit Authority Lexington (KY) Greater Roanoke Transportation Company 0/A) Spokane Transit Authority (WA) New Orleans Westside T ransit Lines (LA) Columbus Transit System (GA) Memph i s Area Transit (TN) Charlotte Department of Transportation (NC) Tidewater Transportation District Commission Norfolk 01 A) . Metro Transportation Department El Paso (TX) Penins u la Transpo rtation District CommissionHampton (VA) Birmingham Jefferson County Transportation Authority (AL) City of Tucson Mass Transit System Sun Tran (AZ) Des Mo i nes Metro Transit Authority Metro (lA) Boise Urban Stages "The Bus" (ID) Utah Trans i t AuthorityUTA (UT) Sun Tran of Albuquerque (NM) Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority (OK) NYIMTAINYCTA-(NY) LAILACMTA (CA) Chicago-RTA!CTA (IL) PhiladelphiaSEPTA (PA) NJ Transit (NJ) Washif1glon WMATA (DC) Boston (MA) San Franc i sco Muni (CA) Houston Metro (TX) Baltimore MTA (MD) 6


Public Transit Access To Private Propertv Atlan ta Ma rt a (GA) Honolu l u ( HI ) Denver RTD (CO) Oakland AC Transit (CA) Pittsburgh -Allegheny (PA) NYCDOTGTJC (NY) Minneapolis MN Miami MOTA (FL) Port l and Tri-Met (OR) Milwaukee Cou nty (WI ) New Or leans-(LA ) Cleveland RTA (OH) Dallas DART (TX) Detroit (MI) LAOCTA (CA) San Jose SCCTD (CA) NJ Contract (NJ ) San Diego Tr a n sit ( CA ) San Anton i o VIA (TX) St. Louis B iState (MO) The survey was distributed to the following Florida properties: Broward County Mass Transit Division Escamb i a County Area Transit H illsborou gh Area Reg i ona l T r a n s i t Ind i an R iver County COA Tra n sporta t io n Jacksonville Transportation Authority Lakeland Area Mass Transit District Lee County Transit-LeeTran LYNX Central F lo rida Regional Transportation Authority Manatee County Area Transit Miami !Jade Transit Agency (also in the largest 30 systems) Pal m Beach County Transportation Age ncy (PalmTran ) Pa n a m a C ity Bay Council o n Ag in g Pinellas Suncoast Trans i t Author i ty Regional Transit System (Gainesville) 7


Public T r ansit Access To Private Property Sarasota County Area Tra nsit Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) Volusia County dba VOTRAN 1.3.2 Transit Agency Survey Results Of the 66 public transit systems swveyed, 31 completed and r eturned their surveys. Of these 12 were Flo rid a properties, nine were from the randomly selected U.S systems, and the remaining ten were f rom the 30 l a r ges t U.S tra nsit systems. Answers to the survey questions a re summarized in the f ollowing sections. Det a iled surve y res ults can be f ound in Appendix D Type of Property Served and Se rvice Provided Thirty of the 31 respond ing agencie s provide transit services to regional shopping centers. Of the 124 regional cen ters served 81 of those are u sed as tra nsfer facilities by the pub l ic transit agency Twenty -th r ee systems provide serv ices to community l eve l shoppin g centers. Responding systems iden tified over 133 of these s maller shopping centers served, 45 of wh ic h are used as transfer centers. There were 310 neighborhood level shopping center s served by 18 of the responding agencies. These shop p ing centers are primarily served by bus stops, h o wever there are a few that function as tran sfer sites Eightee n of the systems serve regional office parks pr imarily w ith bus stops. Of the 56 office parks id entified ten are used as transfe r facilities for th e transit system M i xed -use developments/industrial parks was the last category of f acility types induded in the survey. Fifteen systems in dicated that they provide serv i ces to 58 of these fac ilities Of these 12 are used as transfer facilitie s A to t al of 681 private properties are served by the 31 transit agencies responding t o the survey. Request to Relocate or Remove Bus Sto p Table 1 1 identifies the number of systems within each of the thre e transit agency groups that have been requeste d to move their bus stops and provides the number of req uest s received. In summary o f the 31 transit a gency respondents 27 have been requested to relocate or remove a bus stop. There have been more than 268 of these requests ( One system i ndic ated having numerous request s ) It i s not known how many of these represent multip l e requests by indiv idua l private propert ies; however, if each of these requests cou ld be attributed to a single property, the 268+ requests would represen t over 39 p ercent of the properties served (Again, it is unknown how many of these represent multipl e requests) Thi s becomes an e v en more sign ificant issue when 8


Public Transit Access To Private Property the property is used as a transfer facility. (Approximately 26 percent of properties are used as transfer locat ions.) I n subsequent discussions with a number of agency representatives, it has been noted that an even more significant issue is where transit agencies have attempted to gain access to private properties but were denied. The following provides a summary of the responses by each of the three transit agency groups. Of the Florida transit agencies respo n d ing to the survey, all had been requested to remove a bus stop from a private property location. Seven of those systems ind icated that they had been asked to move 1-5 times. Five systems had been asked to move more than five tim es, described as follows: "countless (around 20 times);" "too many (actually 19 );" "5+;" and one system responded with "25 times." Of the nine respondents from the randomly-se le cted systems, seven had been asked to remove a bus stop from a private property location. Four of those had been a sked to move 1-5 times and three had been asked to relocate more than five times. One system indicated that they had received approximately 100 req uests to move their bus stops. Of the larger systems eight of the ten respondents had been asked to move from a private property l o cation Seven of those had been asked 1-5 times, while one had been asked to move 28 times. Syst"m Group Florida Systems 20 Randomly Selected 30 Largest Systems Table 1.1 Systems Requested to Move Bus Stops And Occurrence of Requests 12 12 7 9 7 4 10 8 7 5 86 3 126 1 ss ooe system responded with numerous: For the purpose of estimating the total number of requests received, a total of six requests were used for this property (more chan 5 times). 9


Public Transit Access To Private Property Tab le 1 2 ident i fies the genera l relocation of the bus stop either on the part icular site or off-site In Florida and for the 20 randomly selected transit agencies, an equal number of systems had requests for relocation that involved a combi nat ion of both onsite and off-s ite placement. For the larger systems. a greater number of systems had requests for relocation that involved a combination of both on site and off-site placement. In general, the multiple on-site moves required the transit agency to re locate to less desirable locations such as the rear entrance of a mall or on the periphery of the property. (It is unk nown how many of the 268 requests to relocate i nvolv ed on-site, off site or both. The surve y quest i on first asked if the trans i t agency h ad ever been reque sted to remove a bus stop lo cation. The follow -up question simply asked if the request was to relocate on -or off-site. The majority of transit agencies responded w i th a check mark 'to one or both boxes). System Group F lo rida Systems 20 Randomly Se l ected 30 Largest Systems Table 1 .2 Relocation Onor Off-Site II Req ues1ed to On-Site Relocate 12 2 7 1 8 2 Relocat i on Then Returning to Orig i nal Site . Off-Site Both 5 5 3 3 2 4 Question 3 of the survey asked systems to indicate if a stop had ever been reloca ted and then, due to public pressure, moved back to the original site. Of the 27 syste ms that were asked to relocate, ten of the 268+ requests resulted in a return to the former site. In Florida, only four of the 86 relocations resulted i n a return to the original site. For the 20 randomly selected sites, two out of the total estimated 126 requests resulted in a return to the ori g i nal s ite; and of the e ight l arger systems that rece ived requests for rel ocation on l y four of the 56+ resulted in a r eturn to the original site The p rim ary reason given for the return to the orig inal site was complaints from mall customers and employees. In Sarasota Florida, the mall received so many customer complaints that they requested Sarasota County Area Transit to return In the responses received from 10


Public Transit Access To Private Property the 20 randomly selected transit agencies, one system respo nded tha t the shopping center came to the realizat i on that their customers actually rode the bus For the larger areas, the responses indicated the return resulted not only from pressure of citizens, including the disabled community, but a l so f rom workers who depended on public transit for their work commute Table 1 .3 Number of Systems that Have Relocated and Later Moved Back to Original Site . # of Systems -. : .#of #of Relocated Syst. em Grpup Requested to Relocated and . ,;-, 1 2 3 4 Relocation Returned to Original . Site Florida Systems 12 4 2 1 0 1 20 Randomly Selected 7 2 1 0 0 0 30 Largest Systems 8 4 3 1 0 0 Total 27 10 6 2 0 1 Challenges to the Relocation Request Question 4 h as two parts: the first asked if any of the t ransit agencies had legally or politically challenged a request to move; the second asked if th ey were aware of any lega l decisions related to transit access to private property. Table 1.4 identifies the number of challenges made to the request for relocation and whether those challenges were successful or unsuccessful. As provided below 11 of the relocation requests were challenged, with ten of those challenges being successful and one decisio n pending. ll N/R 0 1 0 1


System Group Flo rida Systems 20 Randomly Selected Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1.4 Challenges to the Relocation Requests #of Systems Requested to Relocate 12 7 #of Systems Challenging Request 4 3 . Successful 3 3 Unsuccessful ., .. ,.,_ ..... ) ..... .Decision Not ;_; . YefRel)dered .. .. . : ' 0 1 0 0 30 Largest Systems 8 4 4 0 0 Total 27 11 10 0 1 The request for information of any k nown legal decisions regarding public access to private property resulted in the identification of three cases. In New Jersey, a shopping center forced the removal of an on-site bus stop. The shopping center was subsequently found to be liable after a disabled transit rider was critically injured while traveling betw een the relocated bus stop and the center. In 1995, a 17year old sing le mother was hit by a dump truck while trying to cross a seven-lane hig hway to get to her job at the Walden Galleria Mall in suburban Buffalo, New York. She later died without gaining consciousness T he bus she took to work had been prohibited from stopping in the parking lot. In October 1999, the family of the victim filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the shopping mall owners the Niagara Frontier Transportat ion Authority (NFTA) and the company that owned the dump truck, seeking $150 million in damages. On November 17, 1999, the New York State Supreme Court announced the end of the trial with a $2.55 million settlement that will be distributed to the victim's 4 year old son over an undetermined amount of years. The defendants assumed no liability in the woman's death, but all will contribute to the settlement. The mall owners, the Pyramid Company of Buffalo, will pay $2 million in the settlement, the dump truck owner will pay $250,000 and the NFTA will pay $300,000. In Connecticut, the Greater Bridgeport Transit District (GBTD) challenged the Trumbull Mall's decision to ex c lude transit buses from the mall. The mall's management company bel i eved buses would promote crowding and lo itering by teenagers. Due to the large minority pa tro nage of the system, there were suggestions that racism may have had a role i n the decision. GBTD lost their challenge in a non-binding arbitration, 12


Public Transit Access To Private Property "because the district was an agency, and had no standing to raise claims that could be ra ised by an individual." In December 1998, the Florida Attorney General's Office issued an Advisory Legal Op in ion (AGO 98-81) on the issue of roads and the use of public funds to maintain private property. The City of Neptune Beach requested theAttorney General's opinion on whether or not the city could expend public funds for the maintenance of a permanent easement through privately-owned commercial property that connects two adjoining privately owned commercial properties used as parking lots In the AGO, it was concluded that the City did have the authority to expend public funds for the maintenance of the permanent easement through privately owned property, as long as the easement grants the public the right to travel on the property. In a prior opinion (AGO 92-42) it was determined that a local government could not expend. public funds to repai r and maintain private roads where members of the general public were not allowed. However, if a local government participates in the maintenance, construction or repair of roadways or parking lots on private property, then access to the public cannot be denied. Developers'/Property Managers Issues Related to Transit Access to Developments Question 5 of the survey had two parts. The first part requested transit agencies to provide the i r interpretatio n of why developers/private property owners feel transit should not have access to their property, based on a list of common issues/concerns. The second part of the question asked if there were any differences based on the location of the development (i.e., urban, suburban, or rural) and if so, requested a brief explanation of why there is a difference. The total responses received are ranked in o rder of s ignificance Loitering and vehicle weight were identified as the most frequently given reasons for transit agencies being denied access on private property. Crime was the third most frequent response, followed by physical constraints, garbage, limited parking, fluid drippings, fumes, other. and accidents. Clearly the perception of transit vehicles as "dirty" and transit riders as "undesirables" played a role in the relative significance of each of these reasons. Some of the narrative in the survey responses to this question indicated the following comments: our passengers aren't their customers. Transit riders don 't spend money. Shopping centers are afraid transit users will use shoppers' parking. Also expressed was the fear that transit will bring 'undesirables' from the inner city. "Minimal economic value of the transit customer. When asked about the location of development (urban, suburban or rural), transit agencies noted little difference. l3


Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1.5 Transit Agency Perceptions Regarding Developers!Property Managers' Reasons for Denying Access to Property (In order of significance based on total) Reason Cited Florida : 30 Lar9est. . . 20 Random Sites Total . . Properties Systems .. -'!--: Loitering 12 5 6 23 Vehicle Weight 9 6 8 23 Crime 8 4 8 20 Physical Constraints 7 5 7 19 Garbage a 5 5 1 8 Limi ted Park i ng 6 5 7 18 Fluid Drippings 7 3 7 17 F umes 7 4 5 16 Other 4 2 3 9 Acciden l s 4 2 1 7 Total 72 41 57 170 Discriminat io n Question 6 of th e survey asked if there was the perception that access was denied or removed d u e to racial or income discrimination because of rider profiles. Table 1.6 provides the responses to this question by each of the system groups. The incidence of i ncome discrimination was the most prevalent form of discrimination identified in the survey responses with 29.0 percent of the agencies that responded indicating that income discrimination was the reason for relocation requests o r denied access Over 19 percent of the respondents indicated that racial discrimination was the primary reason for being denied access to a property or being requested to relocate. Of the largest transit agenc ies that responded to the survey, 30 percent ind icated that racial discrimination was the leading motivator in denied access or requests to relocate. Of the randomly selected agencies, over 44 percent felt that income discrimination was the leading cause. A significant n umber of Florida systems (25 percent ) also felt that income discrimination was a lead ing factor in decisions to deny access or requests to reloca t e While 16 responses, or over 51 percent of the total, indicated that neither racial nor income discrimination were factors in the relocation requests, several transit 14


Public Transit Access To Private Property agencies suggested that requests to relocate were motivated by either racial or income discrimination, although unproven. Four systems indicated that there is an element of both racial and income discrimination in the relocation requests. Specific comments included: can't prove a thing. Developers are bold enough to say they do not believe 'transit people' fall into their customer base Some regional centers have attempted to deny access because bus riders do not fit the racial or income criteria they are seeking System Group Florida Sys tems 20 Randomly Selected Trans i t Agenc i es Lar gest Transi t Agencies Tota l Table 1.6 Incidence of Discrimination, by Type Racial Discrimination 2 1 3 6 Total 16.7% 11.1o/o 30 0% 19.4% Income Discrimination 3 4 2 9 %Of:':'": .. Total 25.0% 44.4% 20.0% 29.0% Incentives for Pri vate ProQertv DeveloQers/Managers ? .%of Total ' .. : .. . 7 58 .3% 4 44.4% 5 50.0% 1 6 51.6% Question 7 provided a list of the most often used incentives offered to assure a better working relationship with private developers and asked respondents to mark those offered Table 1.7 illustrates the frequency of each of these responses Responses are ranked based on the total responses f.or each incentive. The incentive most frequently used by the responding transit agencies is the installation of amenities, such as shelters and benches. Maintenance activities, including periodic cleanings, are also used by a significant number of transit agencies. 15


Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1.7 Incentives Offered to Private Property Developers/Managers I ncent ive Florida ROndomly Largest Total ... .-. Systems Selected Systems . ... . . .. Installatio n of Amenities 10 8 6 24 Maintenance of Stops on S i te 9 6 6 21 Periodic Cleanings 5 5 6 16 Concrete Pads 4 5 4 13 Other Incentives 4 1 3 8 Maintenance Agreements 4 0 3 7 Free Ad Space 1 0 0 1 "Other" incentives used by transit agencies include noting the location of major shopping centers served in advertising materials and bus maps; providing snow removal; paying for lighting of the site; hold agreements that l imit the property's l iability ; and, through local development ordinances, allowing a reduced number of parking spaces required for a deve lopmen t. Local/State Ordinancesflaws Requiring Public Access to Private Property Question 8 in the transit agency survey asked if the agency was aware of any local or state ordinances/laws that require public transportation access to private property. Table 1.8 identifies those responses Seven out of the 12 Florida systems responding to the survey indicated that they did have local ordinances/laws that require public transit access to private property, while only one of the large transit agencies and none of the randomly selected systems had local or state ordinances/laws supporting public transit access to private property. 16


Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1.8 Existe nce of Local or State Ordinances/Laws Requiring Public Transportation Access to Private Property System Group No ves F lo ri da Systems 4 7 -Randomly Sel ecte d Systems 9 0 L argest Systems 9 1 As mentioned above a number of Flor ida systems have local ordinances/laws supporting public transit access to private property. In Manatee County, the locally developed and adopted Land Development Code addresses various access issues. In Dade County the M iami-Dade Impact Committee may not approve any large-scale development orders if there is no provision for transit service. Restrictions vary by location. In A l achua County, some traffic mitigation agreements contain language that requires deve l opers to construct bus bays or shelters, and allow public transit vehicles to enter the property. I n Pinellas County, some deve lope r agreements require access to be permitted in exchange for transportation impact fees. Palm Beach County now requi res public transit access to private commercial property. Access to development is confirmed during the site plan approval and permitting process. In Duval County, Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) are required to accommodate public transportation access onto major developments, including regional shopping malls Within the group of the largest trans it agencies in the United States only the Bi-State Development Agency in St. Louis, Missouri has a loca l ordinance that requires public transportation access to private property. I n new deve l opments, redevel o pments and expansions, bus access must be identified prior to permits being issued. Participation i n Site Plan or Zoning/Rezoning Reviews Many of the successes ind icate d in the survey were a result o f the participation of transit agencies in the site plan review and zoning/rezoning processes. In Florida, 11 of the 12 responding agencies participate in the review of new site plans or zoning/rezoning requests In Manatee County, the transit agency requests bus stops/shelters, where appropriate. Otherwise, they have been successful at getting enhanced design stipulations, bicycle/pedestrian enhancements, community space, enhanced buffers, 17


Public Transit Access To Private Proper!}> sidewal ks and other t raffic calming devices. wh ic h are all beneficial to t ransit. In Pinellas County, an agreement with a developer resulted in a reduct io n of impac t fees in return for build ing a shelter found at io n and giving the Pinellas Suncoa st Transit Authority (PSTA) a 99 year ease ment. Other items req uested by Florida 's transil agencies include, but are not limited to: H igh bu ilding overhangs to allow JOom for a the bus to maneuver safely through parking lots; ADA access bus bays, and she l ters ; Turning radii that meet clearance standards ; Agreements in which develop ers have to buy bus passes for a certain period of time; Pull-out bay s and transfer facilities that are ti ed to ORis; Concrete pads ; and lighting. The responses rece i ved from the randomly selected systems were similar t o t hose ci ted above. Other item s ident ified includ e wheelchair pads, use agreements, and lease s or easements for long-term location. The l a rger systems reported si milar req uests f or improv ing transit accessibility to private prop erty. Lessons Learne d Question 10 of the survey instrument asked transit agencies to share any other lesson s learned from their relat i onships with private developers/managers. A number of response s were received providing both lessons learned and suggestions for others who may h a ve recently been requested to relocate or who ant i c ipate future involvem ent. The follow ing comm ents w ere provided by the Florida transit systems surveyed We have found that there is a lack of awareness of public transit on the part of private developers. They do not consider transi t when develo ping their plans. When our tenant would not allow us to park in front, we talked to other tenants to get a new bus stop Best to stay out on the street and get out of the door-to-door mall service Most are favorable rela t ions h ip s Do not design r oute changes to go throug h private property until a l ega l agreement is in p l ace. 18


Public Transit Access To Private Property Need to get develope r s i nvolved in the planning stages of new service and work with them on routings, location of stop(s), passenger amenities,etc. Colleges/universit i es may be easier to work with, since they are public The local community college has been easier to work with than a private one. Money ta lks. This includes values associated with advertising trade. If comprehe n sive p l ans and concurrency manuals are written properly, transit can be used to mi tigate trip generation and parking requirements However to meet concurrency, the trip reduction must be verifiable. Be proactive w ith new developers; often they will welcome an internal transit stop Civic duty rarely persuades any developer or manager to cooperate. We have to demonstrate that they w ill receive an immediate payback (i.e., credits to reduce impact fees or the number of parking spaces needed on site) or a reduction of future assessments. The following comments we r e provided by the random l y-selected transit agencies. We have a very low unemployment rate so employers are glad to have us Most successful developments are either mandated to include transit as part of the local process or have some incentives offered for developer credits Try to keep in touch with them to solve problems before they get out of hand Have a ll you r ducks in a row before you face the opposition The follow i ng comments we r e contributed by the largest transit systems in the country . . Emphasize that buses bring customers and r evenue to private developments Seek recourse through the political process if a developer tries to remove a bus stop from his property. We have learned to be up front from the very beginning and let developers know what to expect (i.e., adequate roadway service, staging areas for buses and amenities). We also try to enlighten them on possible problems such as trash, fumes, dripping from buses etc. There is reluctance to work with the t r ansit agency unless local government either r equires them to do so or is supportive through zoning incentives. Contracts must be ongo i ng Most centers change management frequently without notice. It has been our experience that the office and industrial parks have requested bus service. 19


Pui>lic Transit Access To Privalt Property Reduc i ng requ i red parking spaces of expansion plans leveraged deltelopment of the first area transit center at a shopping mall 1.3.3 Common Threads Government lnteNentionllncentives -A significant number of respondents indi cated that government intervention (such as impact fee and parking space reductions or other forms of deve. loper credits and incentives) reduced or elim i nated the incidence of relocation requests Other items i ncluded actual deve l opment codes or concurrency requirements that enabled developers to ut i lize the incorporation of transit service as a mitigation tool to decrease the impacts of their developments on the transportation network. Contrac tual Relationship s -The existence of formal agreements either between the local government or the transit agency and the private property developer/management group was listed as a powerful tool in decreasing the risk of having to relocate A formal agreement coupled with government intervention/incen tives is very effective EducationIt appears that education is a necessary ingredient in alleviating some of the perceptions of transit services and patrons. A number o f comme nts listed above point to a lack of education and understanding among the players involved. Commute Alternative/Welfare to WorkThough only mentioned once, low une mployment rates have increased the number of low-income citizens who are now working Many of these individuals are a part of state and federal welfare reform in i tiatives A significant number of these individua l s rely on public transportation for their commute. Regional malls and shopping centers ell'lploy those with min i mal work experience and/or education t o fill entry level positions and are beginning t o recognize the importance of the availability of public transportation services for these emp loyees. 1 4 PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPER/MANAGER SURVEY) The purpose of the private property developer/manager survey was to identify major concerns of private property owners/managers as they relate to allowing direct veh i cle access to public transit providers. Questions in the survey addressed the following: 20


Public Transit Access To Private Property Type of properties managed/developed Regional shopping centers Community-level shopping centers (Wai-Mart, K-Mart) Neighborhood-level shopping centers (supermarket and minor tenants) Regional office parks Mixed-use developmenVIndustrial parks Other The importance of direct a ccess to their development by the local transportation system (responses ranged from very important to not important). Community Retailers at your site Employees of the retailers Who makes the decision regarding whether the development will allow public transportation access to the development? Local or state regulations require it Individual mall manager Regional office National office Have they ever requested the local public transit system to remove a bus stop/transfer location from the development? If yes: Did they relocate on-site or off-site? Explai n the specific site type and the circumstance(s) surrounding the request For each of the listed issues, developers/managers were asked to indicate the level of importance of each for deciding whether to allow/continue to allow public transit service access onto the property. Physical constraints of the site Limited number of parking spaces for transit use Bus/auto accidents Vehicle weight (damage to pavement/curbs) Dripping of fluids 21


Public Transit Access To Private Property Garbage associated with riders Fumes from the bus Riders loitering Perceived threat of crime Complaints from other tenants/customers Other For each of the incen t ives listed, developers were asked to rank by level of importance, those that could be offered by the transit system to improve a cooperative working relationship. I n stallat i on of concrete pads Free advertising space on buses/shelters Maintenance agreements Installat ion of amen i ties Per iodic cleanings Maintenance of bus stops on site Reduced on-site parking space requirements Other Awareness of any local or sta t e ordinances/laws in their j urisdiction that require public transportation access to private property. I f yes, under what circumstances? Developers/managers were asked what types of designs, amenities, and/or agreements are they r equi red by state or local statute or ordinance, or by zoning requirements to offer to the loca l public transportation systems. 1.4.1 Private Property Developer/Manager Survey Results The transit agency survey asked respondents to list the names of developers/managers within their service areas A total of 73 private property developers/managers were identified CUTR staff faxed surveys to each of the properties identified by the transit agencies and phoned each property to encourage their participation. Of those propert ies surveyed, 12 completed and returned their surveys. Of these, three were Florida properties, four were from developers listed by the randomly-selected transit systems and the remaining five were located in the service areas of the 30 largest transit systems Ten of the 12 properties manage or have developed regional malls, while the remaining two properties manage or have developed mixed use projects or 22


Public Trausit Access To Private Propertv industrial parks. :rhe responding developer/manager's answers to the survey are summarized in the following sections Detailed survey results can be found in Appendix E Type of Private Property Managed/Developed Thirty-nine regional malls are managed or developed by the ten responding developers/managers. All of the Florida properties and those identified by the 20 randomly-selected transit agencies manage or have developed regional shopping malls. Two of the respondents manage or have developed mixed-use developments or industrial parks. Both of these were from developers identified by the 30 largest transit agencies. Importance of Direct Access to the Development by the Publ i c Transportation System Question 2 asked developers/managers to identify the relative importance (on a scale of 1 [not important] to 5 [most important)) of direct access to public transportation within their developments by the community, retailers at the site and employees of the retailers. Table 1.9 summarizes the average scores for each of the groups identified As shown in Table 1.9, developers/managers feel that public transportation is more important to the community than to their retailers or to the employees of the development. Table 1.9 Importance of Direct Access to the Community, Retailers, and Employees Location of Property Community Retailer Employees Florida 4.33 3.67 3.67 20 Random 4.25 3.50 3.87 30 Largest 3 .80 3.60 3 20 Tota l Average Score 4 .13 3 59 3 58 23


Public Transit Access To Private Property Decision-Making Question 3 asked developers/managers who makes the decisions whether or not public transportation will be allowed access to their deve lopments. As illustrated in Table 1.1 0, it is primarily the individual mall manager who makes decisions related to access on the property. The only private property developer/manager who indicated that local or state regulations dictate access requirements was the Lynnhaven Mall in T idewater Virginia. Interestingly, national offices are mare invo lved in decision-making related to access than regional offices. Table 1 10 Who Makes the Decision Access vs. Non-Access Location of Developers/ Managers Flo ri da 20Random 30 Largest Total Relocation Reguests Local or State Individual .Mall Regulations Manager 0 1 1 2 0 4 1 7 Regional Office 0 0 0 0 National Office 2 1 1 4 Total 3 4 5 12 Question 4 asked developers/managers if they had ever requested a public transit system to remove a bus stop/transfer location from their development. Table 1.11 provides the responses given. The three respondents from Florida indicated that they had never asked the local transit system to remove a bus stop/transfer location Only one of the four developers/managers located the areas randomly selected ind icated that they had requested the local transit system to remove a bus stop/transfer location Of those developers/managers in the areas served by the nation's largest transit agencies, two of the five who responded indicated that they had requested their transit agencies to remove a bus stop and/or transfer location . 24


Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1 .11 Private Property Developers/Manager Who Have Requested Removal of Transit Stop/Transfer Location Location No Yes Total .. (. . _ Florida 3 0 3 20 Random Areas 3 1 4 30 Largest 3 2 5 Total 9 3 12 Of those developers/managers who have requested the remova l of a tra nsit stop/transfer location, Question 4 asked them to specify the actual number of times they had requested a removal of a transit stop/transfer location. From the 20 randomly selected agencies, there was only one request for removal. Of the two developers/managers who responded "yes," one had requested the removal of bus stops/transfer locations two times while no response was provided by the second property The last part o f Question 4 asked developers/managers if the transit agency re lo cated on-site or off-site. The respondent from the randomly-selected area indicated that the transit agency was moved off-site. In the areas served by the largest transit agencies, the tra nsi t stop relpcated on-site. Potential Issues Leadi ng to a Decision to Allow/Continue to Allow Public Transit Access Question 5 of the survey instrumen t asked private property developers/man agers to indicate for each of the items provided, the leve l of importance each represented in a decision whether to allow/continue to allow pub lic transit access to their property. Respondents were asked to rank the relative importance of each on a scale from one to five, with one being not important and five representing the most important issues involved. Table 1.12 summarizes the responses received for each of the issues identified and provides an average score for each. Scores were averaged by multiplying the number of responses received by the relative importance (one to five) of each issue and dividing the total by 12 (the number of respondents). The two most significant issues for private property developers/managers when deciding whether to continue or allow public transit access to their developments were the perception that transit ride rs would loiter and the potential for an increased threat of crime in and 25


Public Transit Access To Private Propem around the transit stop/transfer location Physica l constraints of the site was also an issu e listed as importan t, closely followed by the weight of transit vehicles and conce rns that they might cause damage to pavement and curbs, the l imited number of parking spaces ava i lable on site and garbage from the riders. Table 1.1 2 Transit Issues Level of Importance to Private Property Deve lopers/Managers (In order of significance) Issues Regarding T ransit Access Most Important Not Important . 5 4 3 2 1 Average Score Loit eri n g 6 1 4 1 0 4.00 Perce i ved Threat of Cri m e 5 3 3 1 0 4.00 Physical Constraints o f the S i te 5 3 3 0 1 3 92 Veh i cle Weight 5 4 0 2 1 3.83 Garbage from Riders 3 3 4 2 0 3 .58 lim ited# of Parking Spaces 4 3 2 2 1 3 .58 Dripp i ng of Fluids 2 6 1 2 1 3 50 Bus/Auto Accid en ts 3 4 2 1 2 3.42 Com p l aints f rom Tenants/ 2 3 6 0 1 3 .42 Customers Bus F umes 1 2 4 4 1 2.83 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00 Level of Importanc e of Incent ive s Question 6 of the survey instrumen t asked private property developers/managers to i ndicate the le vel of importance of various i ncentives that could be offered to improve the cooperative working relationship between a private property developer/manager a nd t he local trans i t agency. Resp ondents were asked to r ank the relative importance of each on a scale from one to five, with one being not important and five representing the most important incentive that could be offered. Table 1.13 summar izes t he responses received for each of the ince ntives identified and provides an average score for eac h 26


Public Tra11sit Access To Private Property Scores were averaged by multiplying the number o f responses received by the relative importance (one to five) of each incen t ive and dividing the to t al by 12 (the number of respond e nts) The most important incentive that ca n be offered t o improv e the coopera t i o n between priva t e property develo p e r slmanage r s and the local trans i t system is pro vid ing periodic cleanings of the bus s t o p lshelter area andlor trans f e r locat i on Other valued incen tives i nc lude gene r al main t enance ag reemen ts, ongoi ng maintenance of t h e b u s stopltransfer locati o n, and the installation of con c rete pads Table 1.13 Level o f Importance of Incen t ives f o r Privat e P r operty D e v elopers/Managers Incenti ves Most Important N o t Imp orta n t . 5 4 3 2 1 Average . ., S core . Period i c C leani ngs 8 4 0 0 0 4 .67 M a i nte n a n ce Ag r eements 8 2 2 0 0 4 .50 Mainte n ance of B u s Stops o n 3 0 1 0 4.50 Installat ion o f Ame n i t i es 6 3 2 0 0 4 .00 Inst a llation of Concret e Pads 7 2 2 0 1 4 .17 Free Ad Space 3 5 2 2 0 3 7 5 Reduce d P ar k i ng Space 3 3 4 0 2 3.42 Requi rements Othe r 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 L oca l/ State Ordinance slla ws Requiring Pub lic Access t o Pri v ate Property Quest i on 7 of the survey asked if t h e private property developer/m a nager was a w are of any loca l or state ordinances/l a ws tha t require public t r ansp o rtat i on access to pr i vate property. Ta b le 1 .14 iden t ifies those re s ponses. None of the p rivate p r operty developerslmanagers who responded to t h e survey were aw a re o f the exi s ten ce of any l ocal or sta t e ordinan ces or l aws that require publi c tran s it acc ess t o private property. 27


Public Transit Access To Private Pro perfil T able 1 .14 Exi s t ence o f Loca l or State O rdinances/La w s Requiring Public Transportation Access to Private P r operty Loca t ion of Private N o Yes .. . . P roperty Group . .. . . Florida 3 0 Randomly Selected Sites 4 0 Lar gest Transit Sys t em Areas 5 0 Designs, Amenities, and/o r Ag r eeme n t s Required by State or Local Sta t ute Ordinanc e or Zoning The majority of responde n ts in d icated that t here were no state or l o cal stat u tes. ordinances, or z on i ng requirements tha t require them to offer any special design considerations amenit i es or agreements t o t he l oca l t r ansit system. Others in d icated that they were no t aware of any requirements. One o f the responden t s f r om t h e 20 random l y-se l ected a reas indicated that they were required t o p r o v ide a bus sto p One o f the res p ondents from the areas se rved by the largest transi t agencies was required to incl u de a t ransit plaza o n the original si t e p l an for the developme nt. The s i te p l anning f o r t he plaza i n c l uded amenities such as a shelter area, bathrooms, and a concession area within a l ounge sett i ng. Lessons Learn e d Question 9 of the survey instrument asked devel o pers/manage r s to share any other lessons learned from th ei r re lati ons hips wit h transit age nc i es. A numbe r of responses we r e received p r ovidi n g l essons learned, genera l comments, a n d sugge s t i ons for improved communicat i on between deve l o pe rs/man a gers and the l ocal transi t agency T h e following c o mments were provided by developers/managers from Florida: Under util i zed; Ridership not a part o f customer bas e ; Perceived h igh leve l s of crim e ; Safety c o n cerns at shelters whi l e ri d i ng and at d i scharge locati o ns; 28


Public Transit Acces s To Private Property Keep waiting area of empty buses away from mall building (fumes, traffic, loitering) ; Have good relationship with the local transit agency so problems get handled quickly; The following comment was provided by developers/managers in areas served by the randomly-selected transit agencies. Maintenance/housekeeping problems were our biggest issues with public transporta tion. Our parking lot pavement was ruined in areas due to bus traffic, and the shelter area was never maintained properly. Decreasing service of the area from seven buses to one has helped The following comments were provided by the developers/managers in areas served by the largest transit systems. A major concern is damage to asphalt, especially at stop signs due to the weight of vehicles and frequency of schedules Asphalt repairs are expensive and disruptive We've always had a good relationship and our communication with various departments/people has also been solid. We both recognize we need each other to make the process work for our customers, clients, and general public. 1.4.2 Common Threads Negative Physical Attributes and Damage to Property-The majority of comments received from transit agencies are related to physical attributes of transit vehicles and damage that can be caused by those attributes, such as the weight of vehicles, potential for costly pavement repairs, and various vehicle discharges (i.e. fumes, oil, etc.). Maintenance of Bus Stops -As provided in the comments above and supported by the survey responses, maintenance of bus shelters and adjacent areas is a genuine concern among private property developers/managers. Those incentives most important to developers/managers, as identified in Table 1.13, inc lude periodic cleanings at bus stop locations, maintenance agreements, and maintenance of on-site bus stops. This should be considered as a focus area in negotiations and/or dialogue with private property developers/managers. 29


Public Transit Access To Private Property Perception that transit riders do not fall within their customer base or that the presence of public transportation would lead to increased loitering or crime As provided in the comments above and supported by the survey responses a number of private property developers/managers felt that transit riders are not representative of their customer base. Further c omments suggest that the exis tence of public transportation (and therefore the existence of public transit riders) would increase loitering and crime at the bus stops/transfer areas or waiting areas. Below i s a summary of significant issues in be i ng denied access to a development or relocation r equests and the importance of various incentives that may be offered to private property developers/managers for allow i ng public transit access. 1.5 ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE IN DENYING OR RELOCATING TRANSIT STOPS Transit agen c ies and developers/managers responded similarly when identifying i ssues of significance in denying access to transit vehicles or relocating a transit stop/transfer area. The primary issue for developers/managers as identified by the transit agencies. was loitering The survey responses received from devel opers/managers confirmed this perception. Relative ran kings of the remaining issues were also quite similar between the perception of transit agencies regarding what they felt were primary issues of significance to the developers/managers, and what developers/managers indicated were their primary i ssues. 30


Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1.15 Issues of Significance in Denying or Relocating Transit Stops As Ranked by Transit Agencies and Developers/Managers Reason Cited 'Transit Agencies Deve lo,>ersl Ma,n_agers : . -Loitering 1 1 Vehicle Weight 2 4 Crime 3 2 Physica l Constraints 4 3 Garbage 5 5 Limited Parking 6 5 Fluid D rippi ngs 7 7 Fumes 8 10 Other 9 11 Accidents 10 8 Complaints from Tenants/Customers NIA 9 1.5.1 Importance of Incentives as Ranked by Transit Agencies and Developers/ Managers While transit agencies and developers/managers responded similarly when identifying issues of significance in denying access to transit vehicles or relocating a transit stop/transfer area, responses varied on level of importance of incentives that could be offered to facilitate cooperation with private property developers/managers. While the installation of amenities was thought to be the highest priority by transit agencies, periodic cleanings of the bus stop and adjacent areas was identified as the number one incentive by private property developers/managers. Maintenance of bus stops on site was the second most important incentive for both transit agencies and private property developers/managers Another response which varied widely was while transit agencies identified maintenance agreements as a lower priority (Gih), th is incentive was a high priority for private developers/managers (tied for 2nd). It was speculated that the reduction of on-site parking requirements for private property developers/managers would be an important incentive. However, the results of the survey found that it was of little importance to them. 31


Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 1.16 Importance of Incentives As Ranked by Transit Agencies and Developers/Managers Inc entives .. . . Transit Agencies QevelopersfManagers . Installation of Amenities 1 4 Maintenance of Bus Stops on Site 2 2 .. Periodic Cleanings 3 1 Installatio n of Concrete Pads 4 5 Other 5 8 Maintenance Agreements 6 2 Free Ad Space 7 6 Reduced On-Site Park i ng Space Requireme nts N/A 7 1.6 SUMMARY While responses received f rom transit agenCies and private property developers/ managers varied to some degree, the issue of transit access is clearly important to both. As presented earlier, there are 681 propert ies being served by the transit agencies that responded tO'the survey. Of these properties, there have been more than 268 requests t o relocate or remove a bus stop or transfer locatio n. It is important to note that the survey did not ask transit agencies to provide the number of times access to a private property has been denied altogether. Transit agencies identify this as a critical issue. In many cases, these properties serve as timed transfer locations. The removal or relocation of the stop/transfer location has the potential of c reating significant operational burdens for the transi t agencies and unsafe or reduced access for transit patrons. Private property developers/managers tend to have misperceptions regarding the effects of having transit vehicles and patrons on their property. Earlier, the transi t issues .of private property developers/managers were presented and included items such as loitering by transit riders and a perceived increased threat of crime. Transit agencies also tend to have misperceptions regarding how private property developers/ managers generally feel about providing access to their properties for public transit vehicles. 32


Public Transit Access To Private Property Clearly, the lack of communication and education on the part of both the private property developers/managers and their transit agency counterparts is an issue. The next step in this project is to develop guidelines for use by transit agencies and local governments to assist them in gaining and maintaining transit access to private properties Specific techniques that will be examined and included within these guidelines include regulatory activities, such as incorporating transit into local land development regulations, transit friendly zoning and site planning requirements, mitigation activities, and the use of incentives such as rel axed development requirements in exchange for public amenities and design that furthers public transit access. This could include reduced parking space requirements, reduced impact fees: reduced trip generation rates for the development etc. Also included will be guidelines to assist public transit agencies when negotiating access issues with private property deve l opers/managers. 33


Public Transit Access Ta Private Property This is a blank page 34


Public Transit Access To Private Property 2 TRANSIT ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY NEGOTIATION GUIDELINES 2.1 INTRODUCTION Tran sit agencies can hav e difficulties convincin g private property owners ( regiona l malls, sirip centers office parks, etc.) to includ e a bus stop on their property At t i mes, t ransit agenc ies hav e had t o remove exi s ting bus service from private propert ies, at the request of the property owner or man ag er. Some property owners fai l to see the economic benefits of t ransit service, a nd c i te negative impact s such as loitering and litt ering, as reasons f or removal. Serv ing regional shopping centers and office park develo pments from the street can cause ex cessive wa l king distances as well as safety a nd sec u rity problems for transit patrons. Wher e a regional shopping cent er is used as a tr a nsfer center, moving to an alte rnative site can be costly to the transit agency and cause passenger inconv e nience. literature i s rep l ete rega r d ing des i gn and regula tio n for transit friendly commun i ties; howe ver implementation would requir e chang ing community goa l s to focus on transit, which would involve modifying lon g r a nge plans, zo n ing, and developmen t regula t io ns Th i s section provid es guidelines intended to suppl eme nt existing pla ns in an effort to demonstra te how local governments can develop ways to achieve privat e property coope ration with transit. T h e y can be adapted to th e extent that a community desires to participate in the adva ncemen t of transit. These guidelines are p ro vided for direcllon and assi s tance toward accommodating transit to benefit everyo ne i n the community. They can be u sed t o supplement exis tin g regulations, or can be use d as a springboard for more com prehe nsive tra nsit goal s a ccording t o loca l p ref e rence. It wa s initially thought that acces sibil ity issues cou ld be addressed at the state l evel, but survey results reveal e d that it would be more appropriate at the local level. Transit acces s should include intergovern mental coo r d ina tion but if not possible, sole efforts wil l suffic e I f no standards are in place i t w i ll be necessary to overcom e obstac l es that could h ave been avoided In areas of Florida where transit service is j ust beginning obtaining legal documentation allo w i ng on-site bus service is advantageo us. Trying to go back a ft e r the sys tem is establish ed can be time-consuming, complicated, and less effective 35


Public Transit Access To Private Property Overall, Section 1 clearly establishes that private property developers/managers tend .to misperceive the effects of having transit vehicles and patrons on their property. Public transit agencies also tend to misunderstand issues of private property developers/ managers, particularly as they relate to incentives that offset negative impacts by allowing public transit access to their property. Clearly, the survey showed that the lack of communication and education on the part of both the private property developers/ managers and their counterparts at public transit agencies is a central issue. It is importqnt to note that motivation on the part .of private property developers and managers are different. Developers are primarily interested in incentives that can be offered to them during development or site plan review. (Discussed later is the role transit agencies should play during the development and/or redevelopment process, and the importance of. establishing loca l government policies that direct same.) Mall : ownersfmanagers have a different perspective. They are generally interested in cleanliness of the bus stop, amenities provided on site, andfor provision of maintenance. Understanding the incentives that are most important to these individuals, as represen ted above, to more advantageous negotiations when access is being requested. In order to effectively negotiate agreements with private property representatives, particularly mall managers, it is important for public transit agencies to define the role they are willing to play in alleviating some of the primary concerns identified. Transit agencies should be willing to provide valued services. The development of fonmal, written agreements defining these roles is critical. Items that should be included in these agreements, at a minimum, are provided in Section 3.8, Mitigation for Transit Access. 2.2 TYPES OF TRANSIT STOPS There are four different types (or uses) of bus stops, each having different needs, design standards, and location requirements. To determine the extent of site impacts it will be necessary to identify the type of stop and the approximate number of times a bus will enter and exit a site (The Transportation Research Board1 was used as a source for the following definitions.) Bus Stop An area where pas sengers wait for, board, and alight buses 36


P ublic Transit Acces s T o Private Property Transfer Location An area wh ere passengers wai t for. bo a rd, aligh t and transfer b e tween This means that t he l ocation is serv ed by m o r e than one bus rout e A tra nsfer location can be as s imple as a sto p or as complex as a fa cility w ith mul t i p l e bus ba ys. depend i ng on th e quantity of service provid e d. a nd R i de An access mode to transit in which p atr ons drive private automobiles t o a waiting area, park the vehicle in the area provided for th a t purpose, t hen ride the bus to their destina tion Layov er Zone A design ated stopov e r l oca tio n for a transit veh ic l e at o r n e ar the end of t h e rout e or lin e o r a t a turnback po i nt. T h is loca t ion usually h a s ameni t ies for bus d r ivers t o ta k e a break. 2 3 ECONOM I C BENEFITS OF ON-51TE TRANSIT SERV I CE On-site bus s tops encourage users to choose certa i n businesses over others due to the ease of access T h i s is especially t r u e w ith re g a r d to grocery s h oppi n g and w hen a busi ness is d i ffic u lt t o access b y w a lking. In g eneral peo ple are more to sho p whe r e business e s a re eas ily a c c ess i ble, esp e ci a lly e ld e rly persons who cann ot w a lk from an off-sit e sto p, o r mothers w i th small ch ildren w ho d o n ot feel safe crossing s t reets and par k ing lots. Transit service helps businesses by increasing access t o the labor pool which provides a greater selection o f employees to ch o o s e from and/or reduces la bor costs Tardiness and absent ee ism a re also reduced whe n w orkers have a r e li a bl e means of transpo rtat ion.2 On-s it e sto ps a lso contribu t e t o goodwill in the c omm un i ty. People a r e u s u a ll y a ware of those b u s inesse s who are committ ed to h e lping t he community a n d w hile not neces sarily measu r a b le in t erms of economi c r e turn, they ce rt ainly g a in a p osi t ive i mage. 37


Public Transit Access To Private Property 2.4 LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE COORDINATION Growth Management Act. First it is important to unde r stand a few basic requirements mandated under Chapter 163, Florida Stat u tes also known as Florida's Growth Management Act. Every local government is requ i red to prepare a comprehensive plan which specifies how they w ill accommodate growth for ten years in the future. Every mun i c i pality with a population of greater than 50,000, and every cou nty with a population of more than 75,000 must i nclude a mass transit element to the comprehen sive plan. This provides an opportunity to not only coordinate with an exi sting transit agency, but to determine the feasibil ity of transit within the following ten years. One result of the Act was the i nstitution of concurrency This means that public facilities (roads water. sewer, solid waste, d r ainage, parks and recreation, and mass transit) must have the capacity to serve new development. Section 163.3180(1)(b), F.S., affords loca l governments the option of us ing special level-of-serv i ce techniques in multimodal areas This woul d allow more capac ity for public facil it ies which means more ability to deve l op. Governments exe r cising this option may have addit i onal leverage to negotiate mass transit accessibility gui delines Local governments have the option of designating multimodal transportation districts in their comp r ehensive plans (.3180(15)(a)) These districts make pedestrian and transit movement a priority, and vehicle movement secondary. Designation of a mul timodal district is a concurrency strategy, but also requires specific design elements to support its integra t ion into the transportation system .' Essentially, this woul d be a transit-oriented development district where the focus of movement in the community is on pedest r ians and transit. Businesses within a multimoda l transportation district would be aware of the environment and would, most likely, be cooperative regarding transit accessibility. This may be the optimum circumstance for negotiating accessibility. as there is a good possib i lity that all affected parties and agencies are in correspondence. L ocal governments are also required to adopt Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that must be "consistent with and implement their adopted comprehensive plan" (.3202(1), F.S.) This is what puts the plan into action. I t contains detai l ed regulations for development. Whi l e it is important for transit agencies to coordinate with l ocal governments during the comprehensive plan and update process. it is equally important to coordinate during development and update of LDRs. Aggressive coordination during these p r ocesses will ensure that future development will, at least, accommodate mass transit 3'8


Public Transil Access To Private Propertv One effective means for coordination is thro ugh the Development of Regional Impact (DR/) process. A ORI is defined in .06(1) of the Florida Statutes, as any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county." Because of its potential effects, many agencies are involved in reviewing the plan, i ncl ud ing the Regional P lanning Council, FOOT, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) (if applicable), water management district(s), Florida Fish and Game Commission, Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Enviro nmental Protection, local governments. transit agency (if applicable), and any other source the RPC deems appropriate. This comprehensive review ultimately results in recommended conditions for a development order (00). The local government issues the DO, incorporating the recommended conditions. To ens ure implementation, the DRI must file an annual report which includes an assessment of compliance with each individual condition in the DO. Transit Development Plans (TOPs) must be completed by the transit agency and up dated every year, outlining a five-year pla n for the transit system. Information from the TOP is inco rporated into the Long Range Transportation Plan and ultimately, operating and capital improvements paid for via the Transit Improvement Program (see below). Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) are required by all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). These are strategic plans that demonstrate how the transporta tion system will be able to provide for growth in the next 20 years. The transportation system includes roads, mass transit ports, airports, and rail. The main difference between comprehensive plans and LRTPs is that the latter must include a demonstra tion of financial feasibility. It must show anticipated revenues, costs, and needs In nonattainme n t areas, the LRTP must also demonstrate how improved air qual ity will be accomplished. Very often. MPOs rely upon mass transit (mainly buses) for this purpose. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is completed annually by all MPOs, charting how the budget will be spent. This is im po rtant to transit agencies, since the majority of grant funding for transit systems filters through the state and u.s. DOT and must be accounted for in the TIP. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has many applicable standards and req uirements for transit systems and property owners/deve lopers No specifics of that 39


Public Transit Access To Private Property legis latio n will be discussed herein; however, it should be noted that anyone involved in negotiation for public transportation accessibility must be aware of any and all relevant applications. (Refer to: 42 USC 12101) 2 .5 TECHNIQUES FOR TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS Several techniques can be used to obtain transit accommodations on private property, with consideration given to whether the property is developed or undeveloped. Most regulatory methods and regulatory-type incentives (generally specified in a development order) will be exercised on undeveloped or redeveloped properties. Nonregulatory incentives (usually in the form of agreements, easements and leases) will, most often, occur with developed properties. Whenever possible, non-regulatory incentives should be made with the owner rather than the management company, to ensure an extended effective agreement period and to maintain the terms when a change in management occurs. Often, the transit agency is also the loca l government, and thereby has the authority to implement many of the suggested techniques. For the ben e fi t of transit systems who have a separate and distinct authority, agencies responsible for implementation are also ident i fie d. Prior to any discussion regarding strategies or regulation, it will be necessary to first identify and designate transit service areas. This includes areas currently being served by transit and areas or corridors that are expected to be served when route s are expanded. This .is different than the transit district which is usually identified for taxing purposes. Identifica tio n and designation will be done by the transit agency, preferably working with the local government, district Department of Transportation (Don. and MPO, if applicable. There are two types of approaches to achieving transit-friendly development: regulatory and non-regulatory (using incentives, disincentives, or agreements). Regulatory methods require certain actions, while non-regulatory methods encourage or drive desired actions. A regulation often increases the cost of development without providing a measurable economic return, while non-regulatory methods, such as incentives, provide a benefrt that is equal to or greater than the cost of rece i v i ng it. It is also necessary to develop policies that will dictate how and when methods are applied. Using a full range of powers is most likely to accomplish a desirable outcome, while obliging all affected parties.3 40


Public Transit Access To Private Property Although these techniques are best when i mp l emented prior to development, some can also be used for retrofit projects and/or redeve l opment. Even if an a rea is not i dentified as a redevelopment area, a change in land use usually triggers a site plan review, at which time the adopt ed regulations will have an effect. 2.5.1 Regulatory A regulatory approach dictates requirements They are created by adopti on or ord i nance and are written and applied as specified As such they can onl y be implemented by local governments. Predictab l e public pol i cy makes for sound investments and saves everyone time and money This provides a basis for fa i r and equal treatment, rathe r than arbitrary selection. Local regulations may include : Mapping Tra nsit service areas can be shown on a map. This is a simple way to identify affected properties. Those properties within the des ignated service area would be subject to transit negotia ti on po l icies or regulations at the time of development. S impl e iden tifica t i on of a transit a rea g ives developers and landowners notice of potentia l obligat ions. Zoning Zoning is the division of l and into districts with each district having its distinct regulations prescribing how the land may be used, and how development may occur Zoning may be app lied in a variety of ways. Transit Overlay District. Identifi ed propert i es are ass i gned a standard special zoning d i strict ( commercial residential, etc ) with transit contro l s being assigned in addition. The property and any improvemen t s the reon are subject to both the standard zon ing r egulations and the overlay restrictions that accommodate transit. These may address any issues of concern such as pedestrian circula t ion, transit stop(s) if the development Is over a certain size, turning radius shelters, etc Conditional Zoning (most commonly, Planned Unit Development) is the i mposit i on of specific restrictions upon t he l andowner as a condit ion of t h e rea l iz a tion of th e benefit of rezon ing. It permits use of particular property subj ect to conditions not generally applicable to land similarly zoned.' As applied here in, certain thresholds or identified properties w ithin the transit area would b e subject to a review befor e approval fo r development is granted. 41


Public Transit Access To Private Property Land Development Regulat i ons (LDRs) Accommodations for transit accessibility can be incorporated into land development regu l ations Th i s would specify when and how transit accessibility standards would be app l ied. LDRs dictate what development must do in order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy Samp l e l anguage: Bus Stops New commercial developments exceeding 100,000 square feet in gross floor area and all new residential developments of more than 200 dwelling units shall provid e onsite space for bus stops, to be coordinated with the transit agency. Such bus stops shall be separate and adjacent to trave l lanes In coordination with the trans i t agency, this requiremen t may be waived if there are existing transit stops in close proximity to the proposed project. Pedestrian Circulation A pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided for all development identified on the transit development map. Pedestrian ways shall be designed to provide access . between pa rk ing areas and the bu i ld ing entrance in a coordinated and safe manner. Shared walkways are encouraged between adjace n t commercia l projects. Pedestrian access points shall provide connections to the adjacent public sidewalk system, transit stops and outparcels, and shall be identified by using signage, variations in pavement, or markings 2.5 .2 Non-Regulatory Non-regulatory techniques emp l oy coordination efforts which r equire _good communi cation and negotiation skills They result in combined efforts and dividends, and will have varying r esults. Table 2.1 shows each contracting technique, identifies the agencies which have employing authority, and whether each would be used on developed or undevel oped properties. 42


Public Transit Access To Private Property Tabl e 2.1 Comparison of Contract Implementation .Transi t Local .' . ... ; : ex _. JSting Typ e of Cont ract . ;_: Agency< .Development Oevelopinen( '< I n cen tive s t/ )( t/ )( Disin ce n tives )( )( D ev el opment Agreements )( )( Jo i nt Deve l opment Agreeme n ts )( )( )( Memora n dum of U ndersta n din g t/ t/ t/ t/ Olher Agreements )( )( )( )( leases a n d Easeme n ts )( I )( )( t/ = used to a l esser degree I nce n tives I n ex c hange for publ i c amenit i es and design t hat furthers public transpo rt ation access d e ve l opers can be allowed to re lax other requirements Loca l governments may: Grant increased density or greater floor area ra ti o Lowe r parking requirements Decrease impact fees Reduce trip generation rates Reduce taxes Allow g r eater flexibility in m i tigat i on A sa m ple of density bonuses and impact fee r eductions, developed for use in Clark County, Washington i s found in Appendix F T r ansi t agencies may work with the loca l governments or d i r ect l y with property owners o r managers i n providing incentives such as permitting free advertising on buses o r she l ters .. 43


Public Transit Access To Private Proper;ty Disincentives In lieu of having incentives or regulatory requirements for accommodating transit, po lici es could be adopted that increase design standards or fees if accommodati o ns fo r transit access are not made. While this is better than having no policies regarding trans i t considerations, this is not a preferred method It actually sends a message that transit is a low priority, and allows developers the option of whether or not to participate Development Agreements Trade-offs between public benefits and development incent i ves should be legally recorded in a way that assures each party will follow through Development agree ments usually run with the use of the land; howeve r they can also run with the land, binding each successive owner. Agreements ensure that the terms for development are clea r and followed by all parties (See .3227 Florida Statutes for requirements of a development agreement) No amount of legally binding contracts or agreements will substitute for p l ayers that are aware of the agreements and will effect their implementation Thi s goes beyond the confines of t h e local permitting department P l anning engineering, and enforcement departments of the l o cal government, along with the regional planning counci l met r opo l i t an p l anning organizat i on, transit agency and whoever conducts site plan, transportation, and concurrency reviews needs to be aware of any incent i ves given, requ i rements conditions or agreements made. The following (Agreements, MOU, Lease) can be executed by any or all pertinent agencies, inc l uding local government, DOT, transit agency MPO, and/or RPC. Joint Development Agreements Joint development agreements specify how public and private developers will each contribute to the development of strateg i c projects, and hinge on the public and private sectors each performing on schedule. These agreements are particularly i mportan t with regard to redevelopment efforts. For instance a business or property owner agrees to insta ll awnings, lighting and lan d s c aping improvements, and the city commits to improve the arte r ial construct sidewalks, and consolidate driveways. Joint efforts are a good way for local governments to demonstrate their commitment to t r ansit and their willingness to assist in retrofitting for the benefit of the community. Memorandum of Understand i ng A memorandum of unde r standing (MOU) is an effective way to clea r ly document the role of each agency in helping to implement a plan An MOU sets forth goals, 44


Public Transit Access To Private Property objectives, actions, deadlines and funding responsibilities. This is not a contract to perform; it is merely an agreement of what needs to be done, imd should be fo11owed up with a contract for implementation. Other Agreements One way to protect transit accommodations is to get agreements from existing develop ment. These agreements may be nothing more than a commitment to allow a transit stop on the property, whether or not one currently exists. They can be as simple or complex as desired As stated previously, agreements should be made with the owner, rather than t he management company, so that the terms will remain in place when a change in management occurs These agreements would not necessarily negotiate any improvements. They may, however, involve negotiation and concessions by the local government. One area for negot i ation is to stipulate that b uses will stop only for boarding and alighting of passengers Possi ble concessions include contributing to maintenance, c leaning and/or surface repair of the bus stop and surrounding area. Sample agreements can be found in Appendix G. They include: Park and Ride 1. Between Hillsborough Transit Authority and a church to use the church property for a park and ride facility. 2. Between Hillsborough Transit Authority and Hillsborough County to use County property for a park and ride facility Bus Stop in Shopping Center 3 Between Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and a shopping center to allow bus stops concurrent with the use the shopping center including ingress egress, and layovers. Customer Amenities Agreement 4 Between Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority and a local government to permit transit operation and construction of amenities within the local government right-of-way. Hold Harmless Agreement 5. Between a private property owner and a transi t agency to indemnify owner from liabi lity arising out of negligent or careless operation of vehicles on site 45


Public Transit Access To Private Proeertv License Agreement 6. BetWeen private property owner and transit agency granting the use of the property for a bus stop in exchange for monetary consideration. leases and Easements These contrac ts allow use of the property for a specified purpose and term They specify the conditions for use and the circumstances for rescission of the contract. A sample Agreement for Easement between the Hillsborough Transit Authority and a private property owner for the construction. maintenance and use of a park and ride facility is located in Appendix G. 2.5.3 Policies Policies are general guiding principles by which agency affairs are managed. In simple terms, policies provide direction regard ing how to accomplish goals. Every agency, public and private, has policies that dictate the course of action. At the very least, there should be a policy that requires every permit application to be reviewed to determine if the property is within the mapped transit district. If so, that would trigger transit accessibility negotiations and/or applicable regu lations. Policies should be in place that would track agreements made or incentives given .In the event of retreat or failure to comply, appropriate enforcement actions can be taken. This. would ensure compliance and would validate the negotiation process. No single method is sufficient enough to fulfill solid transit accessibility goals. It requires a combination of methods, each serving a separate function in the process. Regulations might require a bus pad or stop, but incentives allow extra credit for benches, covered areas, protected pedestrian ways, transit information centers, etc. Incorporating enforcement policies ensures the intended outcome. Types of methods used will vary depending on location and development. 2.6 CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT It is assumed that each agency's legal staff will determine specific language for any agreement or contract. As such, what follows is a brief description of elements that should be considered for inclusion, where applicable. Identify the parties and their business addresses. Identify the location of the subject property. 46


Public Transit Access To Private Property Describe the terms of the contract: Who wants what (Transit agency wants use of property for ingress and egress) Purpose (Fo r picking up and dropp i ng off bus passengers) How many and/or how much, with an allowable maxim u m (16 times a day, not to exceed 20 time s a day) Hours of operation (12 hours a day from 7 :00a. m. to 7 :00p. m ) Exceptions (No Sunday service) What each party will do and/or what they will give to the other, such as incent i ves, constru ct ion maintenance, rep l acement, utilities, shelters etc. Can also include what each party w i ll not do or not give to the other (Property ownE!r will provide benches Transit agency will provide directional signs and will install repair, replace and maintain at no cost to th e property owner.) Length of Contract and Terms for Renewa l (100 years) Detail what happens If contract is breached (If property owner does not provide benches, transit agency will purchase and p r operty owner will reimbu r se tr ansit agency plus a 10% admi nistrative fee.) Delineate what happens when contract is terminated (Transit company will remove directional signs ) State reasons for contract term in ation (The owner's cost becomes too great. ) State conditions for cont ract termination (Owner must document costs incurred; must give 90-day notice of termination.) Each party provides proof of insurance Each party holds the other harmles s Transferability of contract (to successors or assigns) Any changes to contract must be made in writ ing 2.7 SITE PLAN REVIEW Local governments need to consider certain elements when reviewing site plans for transit accessibility. If a site does not adequately accommod ate the bus or Its patrons, i t can create c h aos for everyone-the transit agency, local government, private property owner. lessee, manager, and transit user 47


Public Transit Access To Private Property Pedestrian Circulation Transit trips usually begin and end with a walk. For people to walk safely and comfort ably, there must be access through and between development siies Good transit access begins with ensuring good pedestrian circulation. This also means eliminating or bridging barriers such as landscaping and swales that might interfere with accessi bility. (See figure, below.) iUrllL tiiii HII Source: Planning Advisory Service, One feature of neighborhood shopping centers that needs special attention is outparcel development. These are typically designed for automobile access (restaurants, banks, pharmacy, etc.), often w ith dri ve-through lanes.6 This can be particularly' dangerous to transit users who wish to pa tronize these facilities. For this reason, pedestrian circula tion should be addressed in relation to the bus stop and other facilities within the area. Turning Radii To accommodate a bus stop on site usually means consideration for larger turning radii. (See Appendix H for Bus Turning Template.) Building Overhang Building overhangs must be high enough to allow room for the bus to maneuver safely through the parking lot. Lighting Safety is an important factor for'transit users. A well lit area for waiting, along with good lighting for pedestrian circulation is needed 48


Public Transit Access To Privatt Property Sample language: lighting for safety shall be provided along walkways, at en tryway. between buildings, and in parking areas. Conveniences This may include a shelter and benches, trash receptacles, rest rooms, transit schedules, etc One way to ensure a s i te adequately integrates bus access and its accompany i ng patrons is to attach conditions to the Certificate of Occupancy This means that occupancy of the site will not occur until the conditions have been satisfied 2.8 MITI GATION FOR TRA N SIT ACCESS Mitigation invo lves reviewing alternatives to lessen the severity of the impacts of a particular action or activity. In order to adequa tely and effectiv e ly mitigate the effects of a particu l ar act i on or activ ity, i t is necessary to fully understand the potential adverse impacts of the activ i ty a n d i dentify the most effec t ive mechanisms available to lessen those impacts. Some of the most significant issues identified by tho se developers/managers related to a llowing transit access on the property included the physica l constraints of the site, the weight of transit vehicles, garbage generated by riders, and dripping fluids. Section 1 includes a summary of responses by private property developers/managers to a survey cond u cted by CUTR staff. In tha t survey private p r operty developers/managers were asked t o i nd i cate the level of i mportance of var ious i ncentives that could be offered to i mprove the cooperation between a private property developer/manager and the local transit agency and lessen the impacts associa ted with transit access As illustrated in Table 1 13 (in the previous section), the most important incentive that can be offered to improv e the cooperation between private property developers/managers and a local transit system is providing periodic cleanings of the bus stop/shelter area and/or t ransfer location. Other v a lued incentives i nclude general mai ntenance agreements, ongo i ng maintenance of the bus stop/transfer l ocation and the insta ll ation of concrete pads In order to effectively negotiate agreements with private property representa tives, particularly mall managers, public transit agencies should define the role they are willing to play in alleviating some of the primary concerns identified by private property 49


Public Transit Access To Private Property owners/developers. Mutually developed, written maintenance agreements are a step in the right direction when working with mall managers. Transit agencies should be Willing to provide some. if not all. of the follow ing: periodic cleanings of the bus stop(s) or transfer location site(s) and any adjacent areas and provide other maintenance act i v it ies as necessary; install amenities such as benches, trash receptacles and lighting; and install concrete pads in areas where vehicles will have dwell time. When developing an agreement, it is important to ident ify the frequency of cleaning; other maintenance activities to be performed and party responsible for performing each activity; definition of the boundaries of the area(s) to be maintained; kind and placement of amenities and specific policies for replacement; the number and structu ral composi tion of. concrete pads that will be placed and the maintenance of those pads; and any other i tems that may be necessary to completely define the roles and responsibilities of both the transit agency and the mall management. It is also importani to remember that other parties will, most likely, be include d in negotiations. such as the city or county planning department, engineering or code enforcement staff. 2.9 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Transit agencies should take the lead in making local officials aware of issues, goals, and concerns. Since local representatives sit on the transit board, it is logical for them to advise players within the local government(s) and to assist in pertinent application. I t is also important for the transit agency to work close ly with the DOT, RPC, and MPO, if applicable. The more coordination of agencies working together, the more likely transit incorporated into the plans and policies of each . When extending, changing or redesigning routes. the transit agency should secure agreements from private property owners first. As stated above, the agreements should be with the owner, if possible. There is often frequent turnover of property managers and lessees. making an agreement unstable. In the event an owner, manager, or lessee wants to remove a bus stop, the transit agency should check to see if any agreements or conditions are in place. This means checking internally and with the local government planning and/or permitting depart ment(s) to determine if an incentive was given at the time of construction. If so, negotiations will be necessary to detennine the private property owner's appropriate compensation. Additionally, the incentives given earlier will provide leverage to maintain the bus stop. 50


Public Transit Access Tt> Private Proeerty Since the DOT, RPC, and MPO work on a broader scale than the transit agency, it is beneficial to l<.eep a close worl<.ing relationship with them !his way, the y can provide ass i stance when local governments are developing plans, reviewing projects for concurrency, or for involvement with training It is also po li tically beneficial as they are the decision-makers for approving projects and fund ing decisions 2.9.1 Welfare to Work Program Many studies have shown that access to reliable transportation is a key factor in a person's ability to obtain and keep a tob. For many of these individuals, public transportation is their primary means of transportation. Recent fede ral and state initiatives, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 rekindled inte rest in how to prov id e needed transportation services to enable welfare recipients to secure employment and transition off public assistance permanently. 'in Florida the Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency (WAGES) act was established to limit the amount of t ime families may receive federal and state financial assistance. thereby ushering them into the workforce. Regional malls and shopping centers are strong employment bases for these individua ls, making public transportation access to these propertie s critical Wrthout the availability of safe and rel iable public transporta tion for their employees, mall merchants suffer from recurring absenteeism and tardiness among their employees. Allowing access to public transportation vehicles on priva te properties such as malls and shopping centers, provides unlimited benefits to both emp l oyers and their employees. Because of this, people involved with the WAGES program are usually happy to assist the transit agency and local governments when attempting to provide good access for po t entia l employees. 51


P u blic T r ansit Access T o Private Property This is a blank page 52


Public Transit Access To Private Proeerty ENDNOTES 1 Gray, B. H ed. Urban Public Transportation Glossary, Transportation Resea r ch Board, Washington, D.C., 1989. 2 Center for Urban Transportation Research, An Analvs"1s of the Economic I mpacts of Urban Transit Systems on Florida's Econom.Y, September 1997. . 3 Transit-Friendly Development Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, September 1994 4 Black, H. C., Black's Law Dicfronarv. West Publishing Co St. Paul; MN, 1991. 5 Morris, M., ed. Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations, American Planning Planning Advisory Service, 468. 6 A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. Vol. II: Applying the Concepts. Snohomish County Transportation Authority, December 1993. 53


Publi c Transit Access To Privat e Property This is a blank page 5 4


Public Transit Access To Private Property APPENDIX A T RANSIT PROVIDER SURVEY 55


Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 56


Public Transit Bus Access to Private Property Survey Please return by March 1, 1999 1. What types of private properties are directly served (i.e. bus must physically ent er the private property) by your transit agency. (Input the# of locations by type for all that apply). Further, please note bow many of the locations are served by a transfer location, a park -n-rid e facility, or a simple bus stop. # of these locations served by a: Bus Transfer Park & Facility TYPe #Served Facility Ride Regional Shopping Centers Community-Level Shopping Center (\Valmart, Kmart) Ne ighborhoo d-Lev el Shopping C ente r (Supermarket and minor tenants) Regional Office Parks Mixed-Use Development/Industrial Parks 2. a) Have you ever been requested to remove a bus stop from a private property location? No Yes ._ How many times?--'b) Did you relocate 1t on-site or 1t off-site? c) Please explain the specific site type and the circumstance(s) surrounding the manager's request to move. l 3. Have you ever relocated and then, due to public pressure, moved back to the original site? No n Y es -+ Howmanytimes? __ Please explain the circumstance(s).


. 4. a) Have you evet challenged (legally or politically) a request to move? "No 1t Yes Were you successful? n No 1t Yes b) Axe you aware of any legal decisions related to transit access to private propetty? nNo 1t Yes Please specify: 5. For each of the following potential issues please indicate: a) Those that developers/property managers feel are reasons that public transit should not have access onto their property? ( ./ all that apply) reasons used by developers/property managers Physical constraints o f the site Limited # of parking spaces for layover/P -n-R Bus/auto accidents Vehicle weight (damage to pavement or curbs) Dripping of fluids Garbage associated with riders Fumes from bus Riders loiteting Perceived threat of crime Other 1t 1t 1t 1t 1t 1t 1t " (please specify---------------------' b) Please note which of the above reasons differ by the development location (rural, suburban, urban) and provide a brief explanation (i.e ., a suburban shopping center may have different concerns than an urban shopping center): I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I 'U II II


6 In your opinion, has your system ever been denied access or been removed from an existing private site due to racial or income discrimination because of the perception of rider profiles? (,I all that apply) 1t Racial discrimination 1t Income discrimination 1t Neither Do you have any additional comments? 7 What incen tives do you offer to private property developers/managers to assure a better working relationship? (,I all that apply) Installation of concrete pads 71 Free advertising space 71 Maintenance agreem e nts 1t Other incentives 71 Installation of amenities (shelters, benches etc.) 71 Maintenance of bus stops on site 71 Periodic cleanings (please specify): I.------3. ______ 2. _____ 4. _______ 8. Aie you aware of any local or state ordinances/laws in your jurisdiction that require public transponation access to private property? r. No n Yes__.. Under what circumstances? Please cite and explain below:


9. a) Do you participate in the review of new site plans orrezonings? 71 No 71 Yes b) What types of designs, amenities, and/or agreements do you request of the developers? l 0. Please share any other "Lessons Learned" from your relationships with private developers/managers. II. Would you please provide us with the names of the major developers in your community? 12. Would you please forward a copy of any interlocalland -use or maintenance agreements that you may have with private property managers/owners relatedto park-n-ride facilities or transfer centers, to CUTR at the address on the cover sheet? THANKS! Key Contact NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER Thanks again for your cooperation! Please return the survey by March 1, 1999. I I




Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 62


Pu b li c Tra n sit B u s Access t o Privat e P roperty Survey P l ease r eturn b y May 28, 1999 I. What tjpe of private property (ies) do you manage/d evelop. (Input the# of locations by type for all that apply). Facility TYFe Number of Properties Regional Shopping Centers Community-Level Shopping Center (Walmart, Kmart) N eighborhood-Level Shopping Center (Supermarket and minor tenants) Regional Office Parks Mixed -Use Developmentllndustrial Parks Other _ _______ 2 How impor'lant is direct access to your developmen t by the local public transportation system to the: Level oflmportance Most Not Important (-7 Important B Important Community 5 4 3 2 1 Retai l ers at your site 5 4 3 2 1 Employees of the retailers 5 4 3 2 1 3. Who makes the decision on whether th e developmen t allow public transportation access to your development? Local or state regulations require it Individual mall manager Regiona l office National office 4 a) Have you ever requested the local public transit system to r emove a bus stop/transfer location from your development? n No n Yes How many times? __ b) If yes, d i d they relocate n on-site, or n off-site? c) If yes, please explain the specific site type and the circumstanc e (s) surrounding your request to have the tranSit system move their bus stop/tranSfer l ocation.


8. What types of designs, amenities, and/or agreements are you requked by State or Local statute or ordinance, or by zoning requirements t o offer to the local public transportation systems (i.e shelters, transfer area, bus stop only)? 9. Please share any other "lessons learned" from your relationships with publi c transportation systems. I 0 Would you please forward a copy of any interlocalland-use or maintenance agreements that you may have with the local public transportati on system serving your development, to CUTR at the address on the cover sheet? T HANKS! Key Contact NAME: ADDRESS : PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: Thanks again for your cooperatioD! Please retum the survey b y May 28,


Public Transit Access To Pr ivate Property This is a blank page 66




Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 68


Public Transit Access To Private Property NON-FLORIDA PROPERTIES SURVEYED Director of Operations Mass Transit Administration of Maryland 300 West Lexington Street Baltimore, MD 21201-3415 Phone#: (41 0) 333-3434 Fax#: (410) 333-3279 General Manager of Operations Bi-State Development Agency 707 North First Street St. Louis, MO 63102-2595 Phone#: (314) 982-1400 Fax#: (314) 982-1432 Vice President Bus Operation Chicago Transit Authority Merchandise Mart Plaza P .0. Box 3555 Chicago, IL 60654-0555 Phone #: (312) 664-7200 Fax#: (312) 661-0112 Senior Vice President of Operations Dallas Area Rapid Transit 140 1 Pacific Avenue P.O. Box 660163 Dallas, TX 75266-0163 Phone#: (214) 749-3278 Fax#: (214) 749-3655 Assistant Director of Operations City of Detroit Department of Transportation 1301 East Warren Avenue Detroit, Ml 48207 Phone #:(313) 833-7670 Fax#: (313) 833-5523 . . . 69


Public Transit Access To Private Property Director of Bus Garage OJ)erations Metropo li tan Atlanta Rap i d Transit Authority 2424 P iedmon t Road N.E Atlanta GA 3032 4-3330 Phone#: (404) 848-5050 Fax#: (404) 848-5041 Director of Health and Safety Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 615 Superior AYenue, W. Cleveland, OH 44113-1878 Phone#: (216) 566-5100 Fax : (216) 781-4043 Deputy D i rector of Bus Operations Port Authority of A ll egheny County 2235 Beaver Aven ue Pittsb urg h, PA 15233 Phone#: (412) 237-7000 Fax # : { 4 12) 237-7101 Service Delivery Gene ral Manager Toronto Transit Commission 1900 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4S IZ2 Phone# : {416) 393-4000 Fax# : (416) 485-9394 Deputy General Manager Tri County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 4 012 Southeast 17th Avenue Portland, OR 97202-3993 Phone#: (503) 238-4915 Fax#: (503) 239-6451 70


Public Transit Access To Private Property General Manger of Transportation Operations Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Harris County 1201 Louisiana P.O. Box 61429 Houston TX 77208 -1429 Phone#: (713) 739-4000 Fax#: (713) 759-9537 Manager of Fixed Route Operations Orange County Transportation Autho rity 550 South Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92613-1584 Phone#: (714) 560-6282 Fax#: (714) 560-5980 Director of Operations Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver CO. 80202 Phone#: (303) 299-9000 Fax #: (303) 299-2363 FLORIDA PROPERTIES SURVEYED ( Denotes Response Received) 'Broward County Division of Mass Transit 3201 West Copans Road Pompano Beach, FL 33069-5199 Phone#: (305) 357-8300 Fax #: (305) 357-8305 Escambia County Area Transit 1515 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, FL 32501 Phone#: (904) 436-9383 Fax#: (904) 436-9847 71


Public Transit Access To Private Property Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 4305 East 21st Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Phone #: (813) 6235835 Fax#: (813) 223-7976 Indian River County Transportation (Cou ncil on Aging, Inc.) 694 14th Street P.O. Box 2102 Vero Beach, F lo rida 32960 Phone #: (561 ) 569-0760 Fax#: (561) 778-7272 Jacksonville Transportation Authority 100 North Myrtle Avenue P.O Drawer "0" Jacksonville, FL 32203 Phone#: (904) 630 3181 Fax#: (904) 630-3166 Lakela nd Area Mass Transit District 1212 George Jenkins Boulevard Lakeland, FL 33801 Phone#: (941) 688-7433 Fax#: (904) 683-4132 *Lee County Transit 10715 E. Airport Road Ft. Myers, FL 33907 Phone#: (941) 277-5012 Fax#: (941) 277-5011 *LYNX Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority 1200 West South Street Orlando, FL 32805 Phone#: (407) 841-2279 Fax#: (407) 244-3396 72


Public Transit Access To Private Property Manatee Cou nty Area T r ansit 1108 26th Avenue East Bradenton, FL 34208 Phone# : (941) 747-8621 FaX#: (941) 742-5992 Metro-Dade Tran sit Agency 111 N.W F i rst Avenue M i ami, FL 331 28 Pho ne#: ( 305 ) 375-5675 FaX# : ( 305) 375-4605 'Palm Beach County Transportation Agengy (PalmTran) 320 1 Electronics Way West Palm Beach FL 33407 Phone# : ( 407 ) 233-1166 FaX#: (407) 233-1140 Panama City-Bay Town Trolley P.O Box486 Pensacola, Florida 32593-0486 Phone#: (850) 595-8910 FaX#; (850) 595-8967 Pine ll as Suncoast Trans it Authority 14840 49th Street North C l earwater FL 34622-28 9 3 Phone# : ( 8 1 3 } 530-9921 Fax#: (813) 535-5580 Regio nal Transit System Gainesville RTS 100 S.E 10th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Phone#: (352) 334-2609 Fax# : ( 352 ) 334-260 7 73 .. -...


Public Transit Access To Private Proper{Y *Sarasota County Area Transit 5303 Pinkney Avenue Sarasota FL 34322 Phone# : (941) 316-1007 Fax#: (941) 316-1238 space Coast Area Transit 401 S. Varr Avenue Cocoa, FL 32922 Phone#: (407) 635-7815 Fax#: (407) 633-1905 VOTRAN 950 Big Tree Road South Daytona, FL 32019 Phone#: (904) 756-7496 Fax#: {904) 756 7487 20 RANDOMLY SELECTED TRANSIT AGENCIES-NATIONWIDE (* Denotes Response Received) Winston Salem Transit Authority 1060 North Trade Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Phone #: {91 0) 727 2648 Columbia, South Carolina Carolina Electric Gas Company 1426 Main Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Phone #: (803) 7 48-3303 City Transit Management Co., d.b.a Citibus Lubbock 801 Texas Avenue Lubbock, Texas 79401 Phone#: {806) 767-2380 74


Public Transit Access To Private Property Transit Authority-Lexington 109 West Loudon Avenue Lexington, Kentucky Phone#: (606) 255-7756 Greater Roanoke Transportation Co. 1108 Campbell Avenue, S.E. P.O. Box 1347 Roanoke, Virginia 24032 Phone#: (540) 982-0305 Spokane Transit Authority 1230 West Boone Avenue Spokane, Washington 99201 Phone #: (509) 325-6000 Westside Transit Lines 90 First Street, Gretna, Lo uisi ana 70054 Phone#: (504) 367-7433 Columbus Transit System 814 Linwood Boulevard P.O. Box 1340 Columbus, Georgia 31902 Phone#: (706) 571-4882 Memphis Area Transit 1370 L evee Road Memphis, Tennessee 38108 Phone#: (901) 722-7165 75


l'ubUc Transit A cuss To Privat e Property NON-FLO RIDA PRIVATE PROPERTIES SURVEYED (* Denotes Response Rece ived) M erle Hay Mall 3800 Merle Hay Road Des Moines, I owa 50310 Southridge Mall 1111 East Army Post Road Des Moines Iowa 50315 Hanes Mall Silas C,reek Parkway Winston-Salem North Carolina 27103 Peachtree Mall 3131 Manchester Expressway Columbus, Georg i a 31909 Chesapeake Squa re M all 4200 Portsmouth Boulevard Chesapeake Virginia 23321 Military Circle Center 880 North M i litary Highway Norfolk Virg i nia 23502 Lynnhaven Mall 701 lynnhaven Parkway Virginia Beach, Virgini a 23452 Sunland Park Mall 750 Sunland Park Drive EIPaso, Texas 79912 *Cielo Vista Mall 8401 Gateway Boulevard West EIPaso. Texas 79925 76


. Public Transit Access To Private Property Fayette Mall 34 73 Nicholasville Road Lexington Kentucky 40503 Turfland Mall 2033 Turfland Mall lexington, Kentucky 40504 Northtown Mall 4750 North Divis i on Spokane, Washington 99207 Woodland Hills Mall 7021 South Memo r ial Drive Tul sa Oklahoma 74133 Tulsa Promenade 4102 South Yale Avenue Tulsa. Oklahoma 74135 Park Mall 5870 East Broadway Tucson, Arizona 85711 The Tucson Mall 4500 North Oracle Road Tucson, Arizona 85705 Ala Moana Cente r 1450 Ala Moana Boulevard Hono l ulu, Hawaii 96814 Bayfa i r Mall 248 Bayfair Mall San leandro. California 94578 Eastmont Town Center 1 Eastmont Town Center Oakland, California 94605 ... .,... ..... ''' 77


Public Transit Access To Property Newpark Mall 2086 Newpark Ma ll Newark, California 94560 Hilltop Mall 2200 Hilltop Mall Richmond, California 94806 C h erry Cree k Shopping Center East F i rst Avenue Denver Colorado 80206 Georgetown Mall 3222 M Street, NW Washington, D.C 20007 Montgomery Mall 7 101 Democracy Boulevard Bethesda Maryland 20817 springfield Mall Regional Shopping 6500 Springfield Mall Springfield, Virginia 22150 Meyerland Plaza Shopp ing Center 4700 Beechnut Street Houston Texas 77096 The Galleria 5015 Westheimer Road Houston, Texas 77056 'Saybrook Mall 500 Saybrook Mall Drive Friendswood Texas 7 7546 Greenspoint Mall 208 Greenspoint M all Houston, Texas 77060 78


Publi c Transit Access To Privat e Property Willowbrook Mall Highway 249 Houston, Texas 77070 st. Claire Squar e 134 St. Claire Square Fairvi ew Heights Illi nois 62208 Chesterfield Ma ll 2g 1 Chesterfield Ma ll Chesterfi eld Miss ouri 63017 Saint Louis Galleria 1155 St. Louis Galleri a St. Louis, Missouri 63117 Jamestown Mall 175 Jame s town Ma ll F l orissant Missouri 63034 Mayfair Mall 2500 North Mayfai r Road Wauwatosa Wiscons i n 53226 Northridge Ma ll 7700 West Brown Deer Road M i lwaukee, Wisconsin 53223 Southridge Mall Sout h 761 h Street Greend ale, Wisconsin 53129 Eastpoint M a ll 7839 E astpoint Mall Baltimore Maryland 2122 4 Towso n Town Center 825 Dulaney Valley Road Towson, Maryland 21204 79


Public Transit Access To Private Property Gallery at Harbor Place 200 East Pratt Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Fashion Valley Center 7007 Friars Road, Suite 392 San Diego, California 92108 Chula Vista Center 555 Broadway Chula Vista, California 91910 Grossman! Sh opp ing Center 5500 Grossmont Center Drive La Mesa, California 91942 Eastland Mall 1800 Vernier Road Harper Woods, Michigan 48225 Fairlane Town Center 18900 Michigan Avenue Dearborn, Michigan 48126 Northland Mall Shopping Center 21500 Northwest Highway Southfield, Michigan 48075 FLOR IDA PRIVATE PROPERTIES SURVEYED (* Denotes Response Received) Melbourne Square Mall 1700 West New Haven Avenue Melbourne Florida 32904 Merritt Square Mall 777 East Merritt I sland Causeway Merritt Island, Florida 32952 80


Public Transit Access To Private Proper{'! Desoto Square Mall 303 301 Boulevard West Bradenton, Florida 34205 clearwater Mall 20505 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33764 Tyrone Square Mall 6901 22"d Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Aventura Mall 19495 Biscayne Boulevard Aventura, Florida 33180 Dadeland Mall 7535 North Kendall Drive Miami, Florida 33156 Cutler Ridge Mall 20505 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33189 Orange Park Mall 1910 Wells Road Orange Park, Florida 32073 Regency Square Mall 950110 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32203 The Avenues 103000 Southside Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32256 The Oaks Mall 6419 West Newberry Road Gainesville, Florida 32605 81


Public Transit Access To Privale Property Cordova Ma ll 510 0 North 9"' Avenue Pensacola, Flo rida 32504 University Mall 7171 North Davis Hi gh way Pensacola Florida 3250 4 Edison Ma ll 4125 Cleveland Avenue Ft. Myers, F lorida 33901 Palm Beach Mall 1801 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida 33401 The Ga r d ens 3101 PGA Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33410 Boynton Beach Mall 801 North Congress Av e nue Boynton Beach Florid a 33 426 Orlando Fash ion Square Mall 3201 East Colonial Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 The Florida Mall 8001 South Orange Blo sso m Trail Orlan do, Florida 3280 9 Altamonte Ma ll 451 East Alta monte Drive Altamonte Spri ngs, Florida 32701 Sa r asot a Square Mall 820 1 South Tamiami Tra il Sa rasota Florida 34238 82


Public Transit Access To Private Property Southgate P l aza 3501 South Tami am l Tra il Sarasota, Flor ida 34239 Broward Mall 8000 West Broward Boulevard Plantation, Florida 33388 The Galleria 2414 East Sunrise Bou le vard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Pembroke Lakes Mall 11401 Pines Boulevard Pembroke Pines, F lorida 33026 Coral Square Mall 9496 West Atla ntic Bo ule vard Coral Springs, F lorida 33071 83


. Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 84


Public Transit Access To Private Property APPENDIX D RESULTS OF THE TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY 85


Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 86


Publi c Transit Access To Private Property TRANS I T AGE NC Y S UR V E Y RESU L T S Table 1 : Properties Served ond Service Types Faci l i ty Type. Total Se.ved By Bus S top By Transfer By Pa rk & Ride Facil ity Regional Shop Ctr FL 56 4 0 35 5 20T A 21 1 8 20 3 Largest 47 21 26 3 Comm Shop Ctr FL SO(+many) 37 (+alln prev .) 16 11 20TA 41 34 14 2 Largest 32 25 15 3 N eig hborhood Shop Ctr FL 61 57 3 20TA 61 56 9 5 L argest 6 (+50+) 3 (+50+) 2 1 Roglonat Office Pall

Public Transit Access To Pri vate Property Table 2a: Have you ever been requested to remove a bus stop from a private property lo cation? No Yes Total . . . FL 0 12 .. ... .......... .' 12 "t'. 20TA 2 7 9 : .:..-..-;.,;_ Largest 2 8 '10. ... ... .. .. Total 4 .. 27 31 . Ta ble 2a2: How many time s have you bGGn requested t o move? 1-Siimes M or e than 5 times TotOJ .. .. ,.. FL 7 4 (countless 5+. t oo many 25) 11 20TA 4 3 ( 1 0, -100, nume r ous) 7 .. Largest 7 1 (28) 8 Total 18 8 26 ' . Tabl e 2b : Did you relocate on-site or off--site? On-site Off-site Bot h T o tal FL 2 5 5 12 20TA 1 3 3 7 Largest 2 2 4 8 Total . 10 12 5 27 Supplement 2: Site Type and Circumstances from Table 2a, Table 2a2 and Table 2b Site Type and Circumstances FL T h e manager of Krnart wanted the sto p moved away from the f ront of his store due t o exce ssive noise from kids loitering at the stop. Albertson's (2 times); Priva te Owner Shopping Center (1 time) Ask to vacate b y management/reduce pcesence and volume Too many undesirabl e people hanging around stop 1) Destruct i o n o f pavement (Veterans Memorial Pari<. county pa rk; p rivate road, apartment comp l ex); 2 ) Buses Leaking Oi l ; 3) People spending too much tim e a r ound; 4) Garbage associated with riders Normally due to Httering and/or property damage l$sues 1) 163 ST Mall: redeveloping front of Mall, moved to baek; moved farther to back moved to s i d e street; 2) MDCC College: moved away from buildings for 2 days; 3) Cutler Ridge Mall: Mall redevelopment, moved t o outlying area 1} Florida Mall M.31t expansion consumes existing bus stop.: 2} Orlando International A irport bus lay ove r impeding traffic flow.: 3) Winter Park Mall-demolition of Mall. developer not interested i n transa e l ement.: 4) Or Phillips Marl

20TA Largest FL Public Transit Access To Private Property Damage to Pa11cing Lot. Rlcfers Loitering Did not want the bus In front of his $ lore Movement has been for b\Js stops, puDout and shetters. Generally transit conflicted with site access or was a maintenance problem. . 1) Mall reduced number or stops on s ite: 2) Shopping center wanted stops removed Varies B us was causing damage to parlopper parlopping) to center to host center Transfer Center relocated. Rlcfers accessed mab lh

Public Transit Access To Private Property No amenities were prov i ded. Bus stop was eventually relocated to the origi nal JC Pen ny s ite. 1) Sarasota Sq. Mall: mall asked us to move WITHIN the sije, then they asked agai n to move us back due to thei r customer comp laints; 2) Southgate ask ed us to move off site. but i ntervention of City Engineering Dep t restored ou r stop. 20TA Oue to custom e r conveni ence Shoppin g center realized customers rode the bus N ot relocated to o r iginal site, however d i d rerou te bus to provide mo re convenient access to facility Largest R eg i ona l shopping centers d i d not want buses b ecause they were percei ved to be contrary to the image the shopping centers wanted to project The disabled community threat ened a d emonstration However, pub l i c pressure caused reversal of decision prior to im p l ementatio n of relocation We reloca ted afte r pub lic and empl oyee pressu re to a d iff e r e nt site Table 4a: Have you ever challenged a request to move? No Yes Total FL 6 5 11 . 20TA 6 3 9 ' L a rgest 6 4 10 T otal 1 8 12 30 Tabl e 4a2: Was tho challenge successful? Not Suecessful Successful Total FL 1 4 5 . . -.. 20TA 0 3 3 Largest 0 4 4 ' Total 1 11 12 Tabla 4b: A r e you aware of a n y legal decisions related to transit accass to private property? :rotal No Yes . -,_' :"FL 11 1 ,.1 2 2 0 T A 9 0 9 Largest 8 2 Total ., :, 31 Supplement 4: Legal Decisions from Table 4b Legal Decisions FL SeeAHy General Opinion #AGO 98--81, Did 1 2, 28,98 20TA Buffalo, NY Lar gest New Jersey Shopping center found l iable after d i sabled transit rider was criti cally injured whil e trave lfjng betw een re-located b u s stop and the center, after shoppi ng center forced remov a l of on-s ite b us stop. 90


Public T ransit Access To Private Property Tabl e 5a: Devel opers./Prop erty Managers' Reasons for D enyin g Access to Property FL 20TA Largest .. T otal < ... Phy s ica l Const raints 7 5 7 19 .. Limite d Parking. 6 5 7 18 ' Accidenls 4 2 1 7 .. Veh i c l e we i ght 9 6 8 23 . ., Fl u id Drippings 7 3 7 17 Gar b age 8 5 5 18 ... . .,, ,,, . Fumes 7 4 5 16 loitering 12 5 6 23 .. . Crime 8 4 8 2 0 Other 4 2 3 9 .,, ... ... Total 72 41 57 170 Supplement S a : Other" Reason s from Tabl e Sa R easons Liability Issues F L Our pa s s engers a r en't the i r wstomers "T r ans i t Ri d ers don' t spend money" Blockina stor e f ront s and hand icap r amps Danger to customers crossin g the street. 20TA Congeste d area around malls/shopping cente rs, bus could oompou ri d. Buses a r e large vehicles; travel lane s are smaJ ier than s tanda r d A f r aid transi t users wiJI use shoppers parking. a lso expressed fea r that trans i t wilt b ri n g '"undesirab les'" Largest fro m inner city o u t t o subu rban maU. Minima l economic v a lue o f the transit customer No p asse .nQers shop a t cent er thev on l y mak e transfe r s the r e Supplement S b : Differe n ces by Develop m ent L ocation for Tabl e Sa D i fferences A ll above pe-rtai n t o urban area sh o pp i ng oenter M i x o f a ll, no d ifferenc e b y type. O l der sh o pping cen ters trying to re b uild bus i ness (u n clea r ) to have the most concerns re lati vely unive r sal FL Property Manage r s /Dev e l o pers all t end to grasp at any o f t h e a b ove excuses r egar d les s of t hei r l and u s e Sa r asota Square Mall h as a lways allowe d u s t o be a t their main en t rance. neeessar i ty Indicative of a "suburban propensity. However. t his is no t no diff e rence same Reaso n s typically differ b y type of center and clien t e le. All checked i tems have been use d but vary by e i th er local or the area deve l oper. If th e y have had favo r ab l e experiences elsewhere the y 20TA a r e m ore i n clined to p r ovide faciliti es Travel lane Reasons do n o t differ by developmen t l ocation All a r e u r ban shoopina centers ( reoionaO T hese reason s seem to be unive r sal re gardless of location OC' type or development. Large st All wer e abou t t h e same, METRO h as very lim i ted usage of private p r o perty We dea l with a number of the above is s ues o n a daiJy b as i s w ith rega r d to b us stops in general. O n pub l ic right of ways more s o than private property. 91

PAGE 100

Public Transit Access To Private Property no d i fferenc e s All of the above have been argued in urban and suburban a reas Crime threaiurban mall; Parking commun ity shopp ing center Regional mallm i n i mal economic val ue of the transit custome r. T here are no djffe rences by locatio n Table 6: In your opinion, has your system ever been denied access or been removed from an existing private site due to racial or income dfscrimination because of the perception of rider profiles? Racial Discrimination Income D iscrimi nation Neither Fl 2 3 7 . ; :: 12 ... : .... : :,. . . . 20 T A 1 4 4 Large$1 3 2 5 . :10 f To1at 6 9 16 :31 Supplement 6: Comments on Questi o n #6 (Discrimination) Comments "We don't want those kind of peo ple here" marlple who can cause problems but they buy t heir products. 92

PAGE 101

Publi c Tra11sit Access To Privat e Prope rty Table 7: What Incentives do you offer to private property developers/managers t o assure a better wo r k ing r elatlonsh;p? FL 20TA Largest Total Concrete Pads 4 5 4 13 A menities 10 8 6 24 F ree Ad S pace 1 0 0 1 Maintenance of stops on site 9 6 6 21 Maintenance Agr eemenls 4 0 3 7 Periodic Cleanings 5 5 6 16 OCher I ncentives 4 1 3 8 Total 37 25 28 90 Supplemen t 7: "Other Incentives" rrom Table 7 Incentives We indicate major shopping centers served in our advertisements/bu s maps FL Shelter s Amenities Bus passes Put n ame or prope
PAGE 102

Public TransitAccess Ta Private Property drcumstances if there isn't a provision for transit serv ice. The restrictions may vary by l ocation and type of development. Some development arrangements require Transit access to be permrtted in r eturn for developer being granted a h i gher modal split i n t ransportation impact fee assessments. We now requi r e public access during site process 20TA One mall had barred bus acoess for about seven years I worked the City Admin. Chamber of largest Commerce to alert them to the p r oblems. Oue to competition, the mall wanted to expand The C ity required bus access before Issuing permits This was by way of ordinance Table 9: Do you parti cipate in the review of new plans or rezonlngs? No Yes ... Tatar ... . : :': FL 1 1 1 . 12 .. 20TA 3 6 9 .. Largest 1 9 10 . -.. Total 5 26 . 3t Supp l ement 9: Requests of Developers for Table 9 Requests Manatee County P lanning sometimes requests a bus stop/shelter if appropriate. otherw ise they have been successful a t gett ing enhanced design stipu lations, bike/ped enhancements. community spaoe. enhanced buffers sidewalks, and traffic calming devices which are all beneficia l to transit. High overhangs, enough room to drive the bus safety through the parking lot ADA Aocess bus bays, shelters Street width to comply with code and ordinances. Tuming radius must clearance standards 1) Shetters, bus bays, trash cans, benches according to the size of the development: 2) Agreements in which developers have to buy bus passes fo r a certain period of time. FL Try to spec ify 125 foot bus pull-off lanes and space availability for passenger she lters. tras h receptacles, information kiosks, bike racks, and/or b i ke l ocke rs. Depending on the land use and property location. lYNX requests pull out bays, shelters, and/or transfer facil i ties tha t are tied in to the ORI. Turning radi i; walkways; adjacent to sidewalks or buildings; concrete pads; safe ingress & egress; ligh ting Sidewalks, benches, shelters, I nformation display pane ls; we get what we can In a recent agreement tne developer was g r anted a reduction of i mpact fees of $8 ,000 in retum for building a shelte r foundation and granting PSTA a 99 year easement agreement. Shelters. concrete pads. publ i c access Bus pull-offs, bus shelters Bus pulk>ffs Use agreemen ts: lease or easements for long term loca ti on. Each s ide is individually negotiated to 20TA maximize site use share costs and coor dinate amenity provision We request. but cannot require, tum out bays, concrete pads and wheelchair pads She l ler pads handicapped shelters Hold harmless letter from owner for nonnal wear and tear of bus operations Wlleelcl1alr pads 1 ) Shelter for passengers or adequate space to i nstall our own shelter. 2) Adequate luming radius for buses. particularfy through parking lots ; 3) Reinforced pavement to support we ight o f buses METRO has faci l ities in various locations i n the City of Houston When a developer submits a site largest p lan near one of these facilities we require them to provide us with building lines, driveways, and utilities. I f a developer perceives a need for transit seN'ice we provide a manua l titles Access by Design. This outlines <11 desi gn criteria for the movement and staging of buses. However. we a re usually 94

PAGE 103

FL 20TA Largest Public Transit Access To Pri vate Property c:Qntacted after the fact 1) Cone
PAGE 104

Pubiic Transit Access To Private Property Table12: Submitted Agreement(s) as Attaehment(s)? . No Yes DoNo! Have FL 7 4 1 20TA 8 1 0 Lar gest 8 1 1 '.: '10"'"'-'"'' -:::..-. .:l<::-'1 :-:;:-... ... . .. ,;.:.. Total 23 96

PAGE 105


PAGE 106

Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 98

PAGE 107

P u blic Transi t Access To P r ivat e Property DEVE L OPER/P R O PERTY MANAGER SURVEY R E S U L T S T able 1: P r o perti es M a naged I Dev e l o ped Fac i lity Typ e N eighbor M M ixed-Use O ther: stsip 1 0 # Regio n a l Comm-Level Level Reg i onal OevelopJ i n center com p ri sed Tot a l S hop Ctr Shopping Ctr Shopp i ng Office P ar k s dusuial o f ci n emas a n d Parks restaurant l>ar Fl orida 504 1 1 507 1 1 512 1 1 20TA 607 1 1 613 1 1 616 1 1 609 1 1 2 30 La rgest 7 0 8 1 1 711 1 1 702 1 1 714 30 30 718 1 1 Tota l 39 2 1 42 Table 2: Importance of Dir e c t Access t o Company's De v elopment b y Public Transportation System to the: Comm u n i ty Retailers Employees of Retailers F lorida 504 5 5 5 507 3 3 3 512 5 3 3 2 0TA 607 5 5 5 613 5 3 3 616 3 3 3 609 4 3 3 30 La rgest 708 5 4 5 711 5 5 2 702 2 2 3 7 1 4 5 4 3 718 2 3 3 99

PAGE 108

Public Transit Access T o Private Pro p e rty Table 3 : Wh o ma k es the d e c i sion on wh ether the de ve lo p ment will allo w p u blic transportation access to your developme nt? F L 20T A L a r gest Local o r Indiv i d u a l 10 # S tat e M all R e g i o n a l N ational T ota l Regu lation s O ffi oe Office Requi r e i t Manag e r F l ori d a 504 0 0 0 I 507 0 0 0 I 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 20TA 607 1 0 0 0 6 1 3 0 1 0 0 616 0 1 0 0 609 0 0 0 1 30 l a rgest 7 0 8 0 1 0 0 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 702 0 1 0 0 7 1 4 0 1 0 0 7 1 8 0 0 0 I T otal 1 7 0 4 Table 4a1: Have you ever requeSted the'local public transit s ystem to remove a bus stop /trans f e r location from your development? No Yes 3 0 3 1 3 2 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 12 T o tal ::T o t a l \ > . .. .. I ... Table 4a2: How many times have you been r equested to move? 1 t i m e 2 t imes N o answer F L 20TA 1 Lar gest 1 1 -T o ta l '-.... ... ,.. .. 1 . : ..... -,..;: ......... . 1 .. . 1 :--,; . ; .. :: _,. . ... 100 . k .... '''/ 0 ,A, ,.. ; .;.->.' 3 I ... ..

PAGE 109

Public Transit Access To Private Property Table 4b: Did you relocate on-site or Offsite? On-srte Total . -" . FL ': . 20TA I 1 1 .. Largest 2 2 . To ta l 2 1 3 . " !01

PAGE 110

Pub li c T rmrsi t Acc ess TQ Private PrQpertv Table 5 : o f Importance for d ecid i ng w he ther t o allo w /continue to a llow p u bli c t ransit se rvi c e ac c e s s onto prop e rty Physical limi ted# Bus/auto Vehic l e D rip pi n g Garb age F umos Rid ers P e rceived Comp l a inls O t h er: Oamage to 10# Constcaints of Parking A cc i d e n t s Wei g h t F l u i ds as s ociated fro m b u s Loiterin g threat o f from tenants/ trees overhangin g Ride r s c r i me c u s t o mers entrance s F lorida 50 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 507 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 512 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 3 20TA 607 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 613 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 616 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 4 1 609 4 1 1 5 5 4 2 5 5 3 30 L a rges t 708 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 4 3 711 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 No answer 7 0 2 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 714 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 18 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 The y do not phys i cally e n t e r the property; they dro p at curb li ne 102

PAGE 111

lnstalralion of /011 Con<;rtte Pads Florida 504 5 507 5 5 1 2 4 ZOTA 607 3 613 5 616 1 609 5 30 Largest 708 3 711 5 702 5 714 5 718 4 Public Trnnsit Access To Private Properlll Tab 6: Level of Importance of Incentives that could be offered by a trans i t system to improve the cooperative working r elationship Reduce d onMaioten. lnola!Jalion of Pe tiodk: Maintenance of sfte Free ad space Agretments Amenities bus stops on space site r e qulreme nts 4 s 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 3 s 2 5 5 1 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 103 Other: Cootribulion to ma&ntain ring roads used by buses No an,wer

PAGE 112

Publi c Transit Access To Private Proeerty Ta ble 7: Are you aware o f any local or stat e ordinancesn a ws i n your jurisdiction that requir e public transportation access t o private pro perty? No Yes FL 3 0 20TA 4 0 La r ges t 5 0 : .: .:: '' 5 ': . Supplemen t 8: Types of desi gns, amenities and/or agreeinants req uired by Stat e or Loca l statute or ordinanc e or by zonin g r equ i r e m e nts to offe r t o the local public tra n sportation systems Types FL not known n one to our ki'IOw'le dcre b u s s top o n ty 20TA To my knowledge, none Unsure (see a tt ached) Lar ges t none u nknown none Supplement 9 : "Lessons learned" from relati onships with public transpo rtation systems Lessons none under used: ridership not part o f OJ$tomer base: perce ived hfgh level s of ctime : not safe: s.he-tte!'"i, rid ing, FL loca ti o n s k eep w aitin g area o f empty buses away ffom ma ll buiktin g (fumes. traffic. l oit e ring} ; hav e good re l ationsh i p with RTS so prob'ems get handled qui c kly! Ma i n t enance/House keep ing prob l e m s we1 e o u r biggest i ssues wit h t h e public t ransporta tion sys-tem. Ou r parking 20TA l ot pavemen t was ruined In a reas from the b u s traffic and the "s h e lter" af'6a was never ma intaine d pro p erty. I t h a s h e l ped d ecreasing fro m seven to oMtV.oM bus serving Ci ek> VIS-ta Mal l. N/A A m ajotconcern is dam age to aspha lt f:SjM:CiaUy at stop signs d u e to th e wei ght a n d frequency of schedules Larges t Asp h a lt rep a irs are e xpensive a n d d isrup tive. We'Ve a lways h ad a good rel ationship and out co m mun ication with various d epts.t peopk! h as a l so been so ltd. We bot h recogn i ze we n eed each other to make the process worX f o r o u r eustometS. c li e nts a n d p u b li c. Table 10: A n y attachments? No Yes NIA -:-: Toia l .. FL 3 ..... ; 3 .. -. ' ..... ,_ f : ...... 20TA 4 .. 4 ':'.: . . '\., .. Largest 3 1 1 9 3 .. .. ,._ .. .. Total .. 1 0 ..... < ' . > 1 ,. ;.; -; i:, 1'' .... 12 .. .. .; .,. $ . ... -_ .;.:' -.,.. 104

PAGE 113

Public Transit Access To Private Property APPENDIX F SAMPLE INCENTIVE POLICY !05

PAGE 114

Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 106

PAGE 115

SAMPLE I NCENTIVE POLICY Language and tables from Clark County, Wa shington' Density Bonus An y d e v elopment wittJin [the trans it overlay district] shall receive a density bo n us equal to the percentage :;hewn In [Table 4-2 ] if f ive or more of t he actions in [Table 4-3 ] are impl emented These bonuses are in addit ion to underlying zoning bonuses if the required criteria are met. Non-residentiat (resk!ential and nonresidanlial): Nat applicable Dmnnine boM lor e.l.Ch U$e 10 !hi s table Traffic Impact Fee (T/F) Reduction In recognit i on of the potential reduction in vehicle trip demand t hat may resul t from the impl ementation of tra n sportation demano management measures, a reduction in the TIF may be g ranted pu rsuant to this sect i on with the implementation and maintenance of the corresponding action In Table 4-3. Developm ent within Tier I of the [Transit Overlay District] may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of transportation Impact fees assessed against the development upon impleme ntation of the corresponding actions In Table 4-3 upon staff review and approval. Any deve l opment within Tier II of the [Transit Overlay District] sha ll be entitled to th i s incentive provided that the requi rements .. are met. The maximum reductions ident i fied In Tab l e 4-2 are based on nationally accepted relationships between transportation demand managel')'lent measures and traffic generation For actions(s) that require regular maintenance, as noted In Table 4-3, the TIF reduction granted shall be revoked and shall become due if the regular maintenance is discontinued In whole or in part.

PAGE 116'in "" 1lwil CMl1oy lli5lrl::r c l Mtt 1:\t en '"4 I cannedions 10 tt.e ne:vest Wtbt b de'teloprnents Commercial dt.tbj:tnttll w.f\ich WCU!d t.e tot an emplqou $1Jbjt:d to. .. Oirtd Wllk.lbibwrty ccotdco to desrirelico ($lx:.\ u 1 I*'<" stllocl) If RSldenllol U.-'11. 0< 1D cwl;ln (lld>U I l:a:i&J Wtl!ll:i>ft IIIGftSile-b:s-sillp(loih..,..j 0t plur.od-., "'P-v ""'" 1!l!! "*""' "*"1s 1 '""* 1o1 C.'Jli.IN) ............... ........ -., "tM. '*"" bb (-1'11 6<1dy. KaS>l .. Ocsilralioft 01101 (10) I"Noil .. lla01iUts illc<;otad in a crwr.!t sutjt:;t to MJA JlCII;jirsnenll 12'4 IS 1,. IS 1. Cited in Morris, M .; ed. Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulatlons, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, No. 468, December 1996.

PAGE 117

Public Transit Access To Private Property APPENDIXG SAMPLE AGREEMENTS !09

PAGE 118

Pub/k Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 110

PAGE 119

HILLSBOR OUGH TRANSIT AUTHORITY . :' : PARKAND-RJQE I'A.CD.JT .. . ..... ..;' ,'' 1 ',I .. : :,.; ::: ',; AGREEMENI 1HIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this d a y of by l!Dd between HILLSBOROUG H TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a.k.a., HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT, 201 East Kenn.edy Bou le vard, Tampa, Florida, 33602, hereinafter called and_ hereinafter called "CHURCH" ' . . 'WITNESSET..H: . : :. .. WHEREAS, the cooperation of the parties is necessary to provide park-and -ride facilities in the in t e r est of efficient transportation by en c ouraging car pooling van pooling and the use of public transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consi d eration of the p re m ise and the m ut\lal understanding set forth herein; the partie s agree: I. HART may continue to use the park-and -ride facility on CIDJ,-C,H land located at the . : . . . .. \t . hereipafter ca11ed tlie ''Property". The design of this facil\ty s!>a)l be maintained in accordance_. with plans and specifications of the original agreement the CHURCH and the Florida Department of Transporta t ion hereinafter called "FOOT' under WPI # Any changes in the use of the park-and-ride facilities or new/added provisions or construction be agreed upon by both parties in writing. I

PAGE 120

A. Assume all construction costs for improvements t o expand of the park-and-ride facility B. c as negotiated with' the : 'CHURCH ifi.t is detenn .\rteli that additio1,1al spa c es i'Jldlor :.' : .... : :,,: . ..: 0 : .. : ,:.: ... ;,.,' 0 amenities are justifi ed. Construct.a aluminum canopy cover shelter Without benches at the north end of th e parking area behind the ex i sting co'!crete pad as in Attachment "A"-. Reseal t)le asphait lot, identify and mark the facility by appropriate sig!!S and pavement markings as to its restricted use as i n dicated in Attachment "A" and as agreed upon by the CHURCH. Removed or arrange f o r the removal of any vehicle pa r ked at the CHQRCH real property that appears abandoned or left at the property more than one week. 3. . CHURCH s hall: . . . . . ,. . ... . : .. ... : : ... .... .: : . !.. . . : ... : .... . : ' ; :>: . .' :... : : : ... . A Allow tlie land to be us ed as a park-and-ride facility, Monday through Friday, during the hours of 6 : 00AM to 6:30PM, except as otherwise agreed for support of shuttle service for the Lightning hockey games, and to use the aluminum canopy cover shelter as the . designated pick up and drop off point for the transit patrons . B Mainta i n the facility real property and assume the nonnal maintenance co sts thereof 4 The CHUR.R here)>y gives ; t;rarits, bargains and releases to HART a to enter upon tha t portion of. the described in the orjginal project plans of. FDOT a11d for any fUture. : . : .. : . . ........ :.,: . . . : ..... .. ., . . impr ovements that are mutually agreed upon by both parties The license is granted by the CHURCH upon the condition that any future construction upon the property by HART shall not exceed the limits outlined in the t r ansit needs detennined by HART and that all grading or sloping shall conform to all existing structural improvements AOI
PAGE 121

within the limits designated, and all work will be performed in such a manner to avoid damage to existing structural improvements. The license shall expire upon the date of this ayeement or the completion of each construction addition of the said projecl . . . . . \ . S. .. The CH!JRCH iepiesen.tsanawarrant$ that it has fee simple title to the Properiy\viihouhny . restrictft>n, easement or exception that may prevent the use or the Property for park-and-ride purposes 6. The term of this agreement shall be a minimum offive (5) years and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter without modification unless canceled upon with a sixty (60) days prior wrirten notice by either party aft er the fifth year. In th e event that the CHURCH cancels t he agreement prior to the fifth year of the term, or if the CHlJRCH d:faults under this agreem. ent by failing to abide by the terms and conditions set. . !he CHU'RCH to theuno'!nt paid by J:lAR.Tfor the _. ....... .-... . . ..: -.r-. .. .. := . ... improvements to' the faciliry on a pro .. niteci oasis of. tO% of the full. cosi for year ofthe five (5) year term. Such reimbur sement shall be made in one lump sum payment at the end of the calendu year in which the CHURCH cancels the agreement or defaults in it's performance of this agreement_ HART shall provide the CHURCH with a statement of improvement costs, and no portion of the improvement cost shall be due or payable by the CHURCH nfter this ngreemen. t been in force fo: five (5) yeus. 7. To the C!(tent provided by Jaw, HART shall indemnify and hold the CHURCH harm less from . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . ' 1,, .. all liab ility, claiins, and judgeinents (including artomeys fees) arising out of work undertaken by HART or the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION pursuant to this Agreement or due to the negligent acts or omisSions of HART, its contractors, subcontcactors, employees, . agents or representatives. 3

PAGE 122

It is specifically understood and agreed that this in
PAGE 123

. lil.:n,--n::_ ' I I . , ; : : .:: .. . .. . : .... :. . ; .. . . . . . I I l I I l I I I I .. . . I \ r.--: I 1 STAFF --iiPAAAING I 01,'1.-Y 1 TOTAL PARKING SPACES= 98+ 2 Hdcp TOTAL PARK & RIDE SPACES== 98+'2 .Hdcp . . . APPROPRIATE APPROACH SIGNAGE; add four Trailb.lou:er signs PAVEMENT MARKING CONOITION:fair .. . .. . . . . . . . PjtOPERTY SIGNAGE: install4 new stgns . . . . . . . . . . LIGHTING: None : . . . . . SECURITY: None-Church not openregularly during bus route hours. PHONES: NoneChurch phone not available.during bus route .. N . . . -. . : :: ,.

PAGE 124

; EiiLLSBOROUGH I'RANSIT-AlJTHOlUTI' . i>AR:K .AND-RmEFACILriT:'. '' ....... .... .. , ,.;, AGREEMENT TinS AGREEMENT, made and entered into thls :day of by and between . lDLLSBOROUGH TRANSIT AU1HOlUTY, a.k.a., lDLLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL 1RANSIT, with address of 4305 East 21st Avenue, Tampa Flor:ida, 33605, hereinafter called "HART', and HILLSBOROUGH COUNT; apQliti cal subdivision of the State of Florida. hereinaft e r called the "COUNTY". . WITNESSETH: . . ,; . . : . : .:_: :. .. : =-: : ; : : :.. . .. . .. . WHEREAs; the"cooperaiion' of tile partie$ is necessary to pioVide park-and-ride facilities" to proiiiote efficient transportation by encouraging car pooling, van pooling and the use of public transportation. NOW, TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the premise and the mutual understanding set forth the parties agree: 1. HART may continue to use the park-and-ride facility on "COUNTY'' land located at the hereinafter called the "PropeF'Y'' as indicated "N'. Tlie de5ign i>f .. . . . . . . . : .. . . . . . . this facility shall be maintained in accordance With plans and specifications of the original agreement between . the "COUNTY'' and tjle Florida D e partment of Transportation ,"hereinafter calltd "FDOT under WPI Any changes in the use of the park-and-ride facilities or new/added provisions or construction shall be agree d upon by both parties in writing. AGaEEU
PAGE 125

2. HART sbaU: A. AsS1111le aU constructi'?D costs for improvements to expand the park-and -ride facility as : "': ; : ':' : 1'' : '' ,' : : '1 : , '," . 'negotiated with -ihe""c,Ot:lNTY' : if it is determuied that aii dior } ,, ,.,.. '' ,., :.; , '; ci. ,,: .. , ; ... , ,'_, ' , ameniti es are needed . B. Install improvements which s hall but not be limited to, safety fe atures of a p ublic pay pho ne, r estrict ed to outgoing calls only, approved "No Loiteri.og" si8ns a t the shelter and e ntranc e to tbe property, trailblazer signs along State Route 60 to ilidicate the location site as indica ted in Attachme n t "B". 3. The "COUNIY'' shall : A. Allow the Property to be used as a park-and-ride facility, Monday through duri.og the hours of 6:00AM to 6:30PM: .. B ,. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ., . ; PlPPrty.anq ..... ..: . . r esealing of the asphalt lot, identificat ion and marking of the facility by a ppropriate sigo.s pavement marking s as to its restricted use. 4 The "COUNIY''. heceby gives, grants, bargains and releases to HAR't a license to enter upon that portion of the Property described in the origiM.\ project p \&Jis ofFDOT and for any future improvemen ts or p ublic meetings that are mutually agreed upon by both parties. The licens e is granted by the "COUNTY" upon the condition that any construction upon . . . : . . , . . \. : . jhe Property by sliall riot the limit'S o utlincd iii Attac lulient B and )ii $e 'bans it . ' needs d etermined by HART and that all grading or sloping shall conform t o all exlsting structUral improvements within the limits desigoited, and ari work will be performed in a manoer .to avoid damage to existing structural impro ve men ts In the ev ent of future constructjon, and if damage occurs as the result of this constru c tion t o existing structural improvements, 2 .

PAGE 126

HART or its contractors shall be for the pertinent repairs to the Property. S. The "COUNTY'' represents and warrants that it bas fee simple title to the Property without any restriction, easement or exception !J!at may prevent the use of the Property for paxk ao.d-ride . : t . . . t : puryoses . . . 6 The Term of this Agreement shall be for a period often (10) years and shall remain in effect from yeax to year without notific ation unless canceled upon sixty (60) days prior written notice by either party. In the ev e n t that the "COUNTY" cancels the Agreement prior to the t enth (I Oth) yeax of the . term, or if th e "COUNTY" defaul ts under this Agreement by falling to abide by the terms and conditions set forth herein, the "COUNTY" shall reimburse to HART the amount paid by HART for the improvements to the facility on a pro rated basis of 10% of the full cost for each unexpired year of the ten (I 0) year term. Such reimbursement shall be made in one Jump sum l -:. : .... : the end the cai e ndar in which the' "COUN:I_Y'' cance_ls the . . . . . .: ' . : . t : : . . . .;. . .... . : -::: . :.. . defaults in i t s performance of this Agreement. HART shall provide the COUNTY'' with a statement of iinprov e ment costs, and ho portion of the improvement cost shall be due or payable b;Y the "COUNTY'' after this Agreement bas been in force for ten (I 0) yeaxs. 7 To the e>etent provided by Jaw, HART shall indemnify and hold harmless, the "COUN1Y" and its directors, officers employees and agents :from any and all claims, damages, liabilities, fmes and expenses, including court costs and reasonable attomeys' fees in any manner arising out of a"ctions or its anC! aa4 the in . . . . . performing this Agreement, provided, however, that HART shall not iildem.niiy the "COUNTY" for the acts or omissions of the "COUNTY". To the extent provided by Jaw, the coUNTY" shall illdemnify and h()ld harmless, HART and . its directors, officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, damages, liabilities, fmes . 3

PAGE 127

and expepses, court costs and attomeys' fees in any manner arising out of actions or omissions of the "COUNTY", its employees, agents and contractors in performing this Agreement, provided, however, the "COUNTY" shall not indemnify HART for the acts or ;< : .. on;issionsofHART. . . . . : . . 8. This Agreement shall be modified only in writing and signed by both parties. 9. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the. parties ..

PAGE 128

.AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALAMEDACONTRA COST A TRANSIT DISTRICT ANP This Agreement Is made this day of t_h: Costa Tr ans i t D i strict I" AC Transn ") and RECITALS :iby end between 1, Ac Transit is a public transit egency formed under Public Utilities Code 24501, empowered to p r ovide public tra nsportatio n aervicee, end Is the Owner of a certain retail shopping facility known a s Shopping Center" } \'lhich Is identified In Exhi b it A attac hed to t his Agreement and I ncluded into I t by refere nce. :2. AC Transit desires use of the road way and common area within the Shopping Center to provide public bus transportation services to the Shopplng Center. NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the promises, covenants, and conditioll6 contained In this Agreement, the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Owner grants to AC Tran&it Ingress end egress on Its property and to establish b u s stops Within the common area of t he Shopping Center In the area Identified on Exhibit A. Untll the new bus stop s ere eatabfished, AC Tra n s i t ahall continue to operate from the existing bus stop AC Transit ecknbwledges that several other public transporta tion agencies will be allowed concurrent use of the Shopping Center to establish bu s routes and In connection therewith AC Transit agrees that no more than two (21 (Including layovers) will be 011 the property at any given time unlese otherwise agree d to in wr iting by the Owner. In spite of th e foregoing, Owner understands and agrees t h at o n occes i on end for short per iods of t i me, there will be three (3) buseG !Includ ing layovl!tE) on the p r operty at any given time. Such use shall not be conside red a breach of this Agreement provided such use Is the exception end not the ru l e. 2. AC Transit may make up to seventynln e (79) bus stops per dey, but In no event, more than ninety (90} bus stops per dey, without the prior written consent of Owner: A stop consists of a bus coming to a stop for the purposes of loading passengers and unloadi ng passengers, Including layovers. Owner .

PAGE 129

Page 2 agrees the "72 Line" can layover. e.t the bue step t o decrease th e overall traffic congestion. Such layovers shell not begin until t he new bus top Is operational. The limi tation on t he number of stops shall not commence until D ecember 3 1995. 3. ;.Ac Tr a nsi t may provide to Hilltop sav e n days per week. 4. A C irans\t, at Its expense, shall inlrtall, r epair and m aintai n signage which shall b-e c onsistent with AC Tra nsit company aignage Such slgnage ehall be only directio na l In natute and shall not contain a ny promotional, matketing o r advertising information, but may conteln notices of service edjus tments. As used In this paragraph, "Signage means the pole, route ide n t i ficati on flag and schedule holcjer (which may have an AC Trans i t logo on it), which : Identifies the locat ion whe r e en AC iransit bus will lo ad or unload passenger&. The s i ze, location end number of signs shall be subject to Owne r's pr ior approval. Owner understands end agrees that all aueh s l gn a ge must be In compliance with the AmeJicans With Disabilities !ADA) . AC Transit, at It s sole cost, shall remove and repair any damage caused by the slgnage upon termination ol this agreement. 6. Owner ahall be responsible for the repair, maintenance end up\<.eep of the roadways and common areas of t he Shopping Center, Including the areas used by AC Transit under t his )\gre ement AC Transit r ecognizes Owner's right to close certain portionG of the Shopping Center, includin g the bus r outes, In order to prev .ant public dedications; for the purposes of repair and maintenanc e; and In order t o comply with any appiioable state local or f ederal regulat ions governing t he use of the Shopping Center roadways or Common Area If the closure of any p ortion of t he Shopping Center affects AC T r ansit's rights to Ingress, egress or use of the bua stops, Owner will. usa its b!lst efforts t o provide AC Transit with no lees than 24 ho urs' notice and p ro vide alternate bus ro utes which take into considerat ion t h e needs of AC Tra nsit concerning safety factors and operational criteria of the buses. In ihe s;ase of an e mergency, Owner shall provide notice t o AC lransit ae soon as reasonably practicable unde r the circumstances an d provide lllte r nate bus routes s ubject t o th e provis i ons of th ls paragraph 6. II Owner reasonably determlnas that th e number of buses o!' th.e Shopping Cente r Is creating traffic congestion and/or tr affic It reserves t h e right to t alle w hatever remedies ere necessary to re lieve traffic congestion and/or trefllo h azards lncluaing, but not l i m i t ed to, decreasing or lnc reaslng the number of b us atop locations; edju61ing the number bus stops at any

PAGE 130

7. a. 9. 10. 11. 12. Page 3 . one given time during the day and/or total number of stops pe r day, In such event, Owner will provide AC Transit In making Its final determination. AC Transit agrees to Indemnify and eave harmless Owner and each partner, Its agents, offioere, directors, subsidiaries and affiliates from end against every legal claim, assertion of liability, demand, property damage, or personal injury, or bodily injury {Including reasonable attorney fees and court costs), Including, but not limited to, claims of any kind or nature which result from the errors, acts, omissions or negligence of AC Transit and from any claims of any kind or nature which may. arlee between AC Transit and other bus companies allowed concunent use of the Shopping Center, Owner agrees to Indemnify and save harml!S& AC Transit . i ta Board of Directors, agents, officers, en,cf a!filia'tes from end against every legal claim, a ssertion of liability, demand, property damage, or personal Injury, or bodily Injury (inlcuding reasonable attorney f ees and court costs), inc.luding, but not limited to, claims of any kind pr nature which result from the errors, acts, omlsslpns or negiigence of AC Transit and from arw of any kind or nature which may arise between AC Transit and other btis companies allowed concurrent use of the Shopping Center. Prior to the execution of this Agreement, Owner shall provide AC Transit with a certificate of Insurance . : Use of the Shopping Center by AC Transit Is for the mutual benefit of AC Transit and Owner and does not represent a commitment by either party to continue services. 'This Agreement shall commence De.cember 3, 1995 and thereafter is subject to termination by either party with ninety (90) days' prior written notice, Neither party may assisn or transfer thls Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Each notice that a party is require:! or desires to give, shall be deemed to heve been g iven when delivered or eenf by certified mail, return receipt requested, or personally delivered to the addresses as follows: This Agreement may not be emended, revised or altered. except as agreed by both parties and evidenced In written form executed by both parties,

PAGE 131

13. 14. 16. J7. 18. Page 4 If either party commences en action ageinst the other party arising out of or In connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party rea .&onable attorney's fees and costs of the suit as determined by the Any fntention 'to create a joint venture, partnership, or agenoy rel!it!onship between the parties is expresaly disclaimed. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, ISUch holding shall not Invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.' This Agreement Is entered into and ehetl be Interpreted end enforced In accordance with the law$ of the State of California. The waiver of any party of the breach by the other of any term. covenant, or condition herein contained shell not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, or condition herein contained. Thts Agreement cont;;tns the entire agreement between the parties. No promise, represent8tion warranty or covenant not Included In this Agreement has been or is relied upon by any party to it.

PAGE 132

CUSTOMER AMENITll!S AGREEMENT Thls Customer Amenities" Agreement, dated as o f 1995, is entered into by and between the CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a body politic and .corporate of the State of. Florida created pursuant to Part II, Chapter 343, Florida Statutes, (here i n referred to as "LYNX") and the CITY OF ". a municipal corporation of the State of Florida (herein referred it. as the "CITY"). In consideration of the premises contai!led herein, LYNX and the CITY agree as fo ll ows: 1. Definitions: A. "Agreement" means this Agreement and its attachments. B "Contract" means an agreement between LYNX and Contractor relating to the coqstruction, operation, and placement of any Customer Amenity at OJ1e or more locations within the CITY C. "Contractor" means any person retained by LYNX to construct, install, locate o r maintain Customer Amenities". D "Customer A)Tienity" o r "Customer Amenities" means any passenger shelter transit sign, specialty paving, system map/fare information, transit vehlcle waiting benches (i.e. bus benches), leaning rail ; trash receptacle, newspaper stand, landscap i ng, public ielephone, courtesy telephone, lighting, bicycle storage, information kiosk, bus bay, reader board, computer bulletin, drinking fountain, bathroom, auto .parking or any other item provided for the use, comfort and conven i ence of customers using the transit services of LYNX as described in the Customer Amenities Manual published by LYNX from time to time. . . E. "Transit Stop Site" means an area within or adjacent to the public right-of-way or other location within the corporate 1irillts of the CITY designated by LYNX as the location where a transit vehlcle may stop to pick up or discharge passengers. 2. Background. A. City of ------The CITY fmds that a need for C u s t omer Amenities exists throughout the City of The CITY finds tliat providing Customer Amenities" throughout the corporate limits of the CITY is within the best interest of the public The CITY lawfully possesses certain rights-of-way and desires to grant

PAGE 133

a license to LYNX for the specific purpose of LYNX's entering into and onto the public rights-of-way in the corporate limits of the CITY for various purposes, including public tninsit operations and providing Customer B. LYNX. LYNX is an agency of the state created by Part n, Chapter 343, Florida Statutes, and is authoriied to plan, develop own, purchase, lease or otherwise maintain, operate and manage a regional public transportation system and public transporta tion facilities in its service area, including Orange, Seminole and Osceola counties and within the corporate limits of the CITY. LYNX has the authority to install and maintain Customer Amenities, and to contract with third parues to act on L)'NX's behalf(or the design, installation, construction, placing and maintenance of Customer Amenities. LYNX also has the right to enter into agreem e nts with private property owners to construct, install, place, and maintain Customer Amenities. The construction, installation, maintenance, and use of Customer Amenities within . will benefit and enhance its public transportation LYNX intends to use revenues derived from advertising in, on or from Customer (\menities to support public transit services 3. Duration. Unless terminated sooner under Section 14 hereof, this Agreement shall expire 5 years from its effective date as determined in accordance with Section 5 hereof, unless renewed by mutual of the parties, or t heir successors, or assigns 4. of Right-of-Wax. The CITY hereby grants LYNX the license to construct, maintain and operate Customer Amenities at Transit Stop Sites located on public rights-of-way within the corporate limits of the CITY. The CITY recognizes and agrees that such Customer Amenities may be constructed, installed, maintained, and operated pursuant to a Contract. LYNX shall not place any Custome r Amenity upon any part of a public right-of-way that would adversely affect the rigiits or interest of any other public or private person cir entity authorized to use such right-of-way. LYNX and the CITY both recognize and acknowledge that, subject to Agreements with the land owners, LYNX has the right to place Customer Amenities on private property located within the corpOrate limits of the CITY. The CITY hereby authorizes LYNX and its Contractor t o place Customer Amenities on such private property adjaCent to the right of way; with zero set backs required. 2

PAGE 134

5. 6. Effective This Agreement shall become effective on -------. Selection of Contractor. . LYNX shall be responsible for the selection of the .Contractor to construct, install and maintain each Customer Amenity in accordance with this Agreement. 7. Selection of Tran sit Stop Sites. LYNX each Transit Stop Site, including determining whether said locations are adjacent to county, state, federal, or city roads, or any portion thereof, and shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable local, state or federal laws or regulations, subject to such waivers, varianCes and exceptions as have and may be approved in the future. 8. Construction of Customer Amenities. LYNX will be responsibie for the construction of Customer Amenities ori Transit siop Sites. LYNX shall exercise its best reasonable efforts to not hinder or impede the free flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic along the Transit Stop Site. Subject to such waivers, variances and exceptions as have been and may be approved in the future, LYNX shall comply, or cause Contractor to comply with all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations governing to the placement, construction, or maintenance of any Customer Amenity. LYNX agrees that work required or performed pursuant to this Ag reement will be done in accordance with applicable building standards and specifications of the CITY. 9. Maintenance. LYNX shall be responsible for the maintenance of all Customer Amen ities and the CITY shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Transit Stop Site. 3

PAGE 135

10. Removal of Customer Amenities. A. During Agreement Term. LYNX shall have sole discretion to remove any Customer Amenity located in or adjacent to a public right-of-way if LYNX determines such removal is necessary and appropriate in LY:NX's sole determination. LYNX shall be responsible for the removal of such, and, notwithstanding such removal, thereafter the Customer Amenity remains the property of LYNX. Upon the mutual agreement of both parties, the CITY may purchase such Cus t omer Amenities from LYNX. B. Upon Expiration or Termination of Agreement. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, LYNX shall remove all Customer Amenities .from the Transit $top Sites. LYNX shall also restore the Transit Stop Sites to substantially their original condition. LYNX shall retain ownership of the Customer Amenities. The cost of such removal and restoration shall be paid by LYNX. 11. .. SpeciftcatiQns and Permits. . ... A. . . . Permits and Variances: . LYNX shall timely apply to any applicable jurisdiction, including the CITY an
PAGE 136

c. Compliance with Construction Specifications. Except as varied, excepted or waived, LYNX agrees that the Customer Amenities will be designed, constructed; installed and located on the Transit Stop Site in accordance with applicable governmental Jaws, ordinances, regulations anc! codes, including the Standard Building the Manual of Uniform Standards of Design Construction and Maintenance of Streets and Highways, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and any other nationally-recognized standards (e.g., specifications created by the Urban Land Institute). The parties agree that notwithstanding any spec i al design standards or criteria of any particular area in the CITY the Customer Amenities may be designed so as to conform to the visual identity program of LYNX. . 13 Compljance With Applicable Zoning Requirements. A Customer Amenity .shall not encroach on any sidewalk or pedestrian way between ground level and an elevation of eight feet (8') above the sidewalk or pedestrian way. Any Customer Amen i ty which generates revenue through advertising or other means shall: (i) be no closer than one hundred feet (100') from any low density residential zoning district, (ii) maintain a minimum four hundred feet (400 ) spacing between advertising panels facing the same direction, and (iii) shall not contain any sign or advertising copy greater in size than six feet (6') by four feet (4') equal size, opposite facing sides, provided that the sign or advertising copy may be double-sided. 14 of LYNX Pursuant to Section 337.407(2)(a), Florida Statutes, this Agreement is the written authorization by the CITY to LYNX (or for L YNX to direct any contractor) to construct and mainta i n any Customer Amenity at any Transit Stop Site and place commercial advertising thereon LYNX shall control all procurement, construction, management and all othe r processes pertaining to the des i gn, construction, installation, location maintenance, and providing of any Customer Amenity. 15. Termination of Agreement A. For Cause. If LYNX fails to fulfill ;my obligation hereunder or violates any material covenant, term or condition of this Agreement the CITY shall give LYNX 5

PAGE 137

written notice of such failure o r violation. If such failure or violation is not cured within thirty (30) days from the date on which LYNX receives such notice, the CITY may terminate this Agreement which shall be effective upon LYNX receiving a written notice from the CITY to that effect or .. such other date specified in the notice If the CITY terminates this Agreement pw:suant to this subsection A., then LYNX shall, at its expense; remove all Customer Amenities from the Transit Stop Sites ancl shall the Transit Stop Sites to substantially their .original condition within on hundred and" twenty (120) days after receipt of the terminat io n notice from the CITY or such other date as may be agreed upon by the parties. B. For Convenience. The CITY may revoke all or any part of the authorization, license and approval granted to LYNX by this Agreement at any time upon giving notice to that effect. Such revocation shall be effective upon LYNX receiving a written notice of revocation from the CITY or such .other date specified in the notice. If the CITY terminates this Agreement pursuant to this subsection B then LYNx shall rempve all"Customer Amenities from the Transit S!OP Sites and shall restore the Transit Stop Sites to substantially their original condition within one hundred and twenty (120) days after receipt of the termination notice from the CITY or such other date as may be agreed upon by the parties. 16. Beme4ies. This Agreement shall be governed by and subject to the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be in Orange County, Florida. remedy herein conferred upon any party is intended to be eJtclusive of any other remedy, and each r emedy shall be cumulative and s hall be in addition to every other remedy give!) hereunder or now or hereafter eJtisting at law or in equity or by sta tute or otherWise. No single or partial exercise by any party of any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall preclude any other or further eJtercise thereof. 17. Assigna:t!ilitt LYNX shall not assign, sublet convey, or transfer its interests in Agreement without the prior written consent of the CITY; provided, however, any merger by LYNX into a different governmental agency or any substitution ofLYNX. by a di(ferent governmental agency shall not req uir e the CITY'S prior written consent. 6

PAGE 138

TRANSIT S TATION LICENSE AGREEMENT TffiS TRANSIT S T ATION LICENSE AGR.EEME N T ( this "Agreement") is entered into 1U of this day of 1997, by and between Property Owners Name (_Owner _"),and the C E NTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY a body politic and corporate and an agency of the State of Florida, and its contractors, agents and employees CL YNX"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, LYNX operates a public transit system that transports the public throughout the Central Florida area; ana WHEREAS, it is critical to the success of tlte public transit system that passengers have safe and convenient locations to wa it for and to board LYNX vehicles; and WHEREAS, it is beneficial to Owner and its officials, employees, agents and guests that vehicles operated by LYNX pick -up and drop-olf passengers at a transit station located at transit station address : and WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in their mutual best inter ests that the transportation facility is an integral part of the community and functions ns a community activity station; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in their mutual best interests to place a transportation facility partially on -,--_Owner 's Property for use as a transit station for LYNX vehicles, which will provide facilities for the embarking and disembarking of passengers to and from LYNX vehicles and to provide a convenient, accessible and more comfortable location for passengers t o wait for LYNX vehicle s ; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the Owner and LYNXagree as follows: Section 1 Transit S i te Agreement Ownel' hereby grants L-YNX a license (the "License") t o enter upon that certain of real property loca ted in Orange County, Florida, more particularly described and delineated by the site plan attached hereto as composite Exhibi t A and made a part ben:of(th e "Transit Site ) for the sole and limited purpose of installing a public transit station, subject to all of the terms and conditions provided for her ein. Owner agrees LYNX may install and use a facility for pnssengers ofLYNX vehicles which consists of a tmsh receptacle ( s ), a beneh (cs), a sign (s), and n passenger waiting shel ter (s) nnd sucfi other items ns may be mutually

PAGE 139

Scs;tion 13Time of the Essence. Time is o f the essence of the Agreement. Scc;tion 14 Severability. If any sentence, phrase, paragraph, provision or portion of this Agreement is any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction; such holding shall not affect the validity remaining portion hereto. Section I 5 License to Use Copxrighted Materials 9nd Trademark R ights. Owner acknowledges that LYNX owns and holds all right, including trademarks . copyrights nnd trnd secrets in and to all elements of the Transit Station nnd related structures, designs and drawings, including without limitation, the passenger waiting she lter LYNX hereby grants _Owner a revocable license to usc such rights in the Transit Station and related structure, designs and drawings during the term of this Agreement for the purposes addressed in this Agreement. _Owner shall acquire no right or interest in any oftltese elements by virtue of the Agreement nnd all uses of these elements and related rights shall inure to the benefit of LYNX. _Owner agrees not to challenge or otherwise interfere with the validity of LYNX's rights in these elements or LYNX's ownership of these elements a related rights. AGREED TO by the parties hereto as of the dnte first nbove wrien. Two Witnesses: Two Witnesses: By: _____ == CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: ____ ===

PAGE 140

' This Agreement made and entered into on this ___ day of between ("Owner") of .. ("Site") and . : .byand For, and in consideration of, operating bus or public transit service for Route at a frequency of no more than one bus per half-hour, and/or i nstalling a shelter on site for Route passengers only, and at no time to be used as a transfer staiion, Owner shall hold harmless and indemnify for any and all normal wear and tear to pavements, sidewalks, curbs, or gutters located within property lines of this site caused by vehicles. will be responsible for any and all damages to p avements,-sidewa\ks, curbs, or gutters and landscaped areas caused by either the negligent or careless operation or fluid lieaks of any vehicles. will also be responsible for the installation and maintenance of one crosswalk across ring road and two pedestrian crossing signs at crosswalk location. will indemnify Owner from any and all liability, loss or damage OWIIer may sustain as a result of claims, demands or judgments against Owner arising out of the negligent or careless operation of vehicles .on. the Site or during the loading and discharging of passengers on or from vehicles while on the Site Witness the following signatures and seals as of the day and year first above set forth:

PAGE 141

' I 1 LICENSE AGREEMENT TffiS LICENSE AGREEMENT (the Agreement") made and entered into: by and betwe en (Li censor) and (Licensee). Transportation District Commission WITNESSETH: WHEREAS Licensor is the owner ofthat certain tract or parcel of land in Chesapeake, V irgini a which tract or parcel is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorpo rated herein (the "Property ); !llld WHEREAS, Licensee desires to use as the designated area located within the Property for the purpose of a bus stop; WHEREAS Licensors agree to permit. such use as license purs uant t o the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and NOW T HERE FORE, for and in consideration of the sum ofTen and No/100 dollars {$10.00) and other good and valua ble consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree as follows : 1 Propert)l. Licensor agrees to permit Licensee to use the parking l ot depicted on Exhi bit A for the puipo se o_fa bus stop. Licensee agrees that neither Licensee's use of Licensor's property, or the use of said property by anyone authorized by Licensee shall be interpreted to give right to anyon e to limit, interfere, interrupt, or in any manner. affect Licensor's current, or future business operations: At Licensor's sole discretion in the event that such Lice nsor's business operations are interrupted or hindered by L icensee's actions, or the actions of anyone claiming under Licensee, this Pdcing Li cense Agreement shall terminate within thirty (30) days after Licensor's written notice to Licensee of Licensor's intent to tellilinate this License Agreement. 2. P!!!JlOSe. The parking lot shall be used by Licensee solely for the purpose of allowing Licensee vehicles to access, stop and w ait for its passengers who wait, board, alight and transfe r only within th e area described in the attached E xhibit A. 3. Terrn. The teem of this License described in this Agreem ent shall commence on t he date hereof and shall expire on May 31, 2000; and shall automatically renew f or a period of one year, each year thereafter, or until either party gives 90 days notice to the other party to terminate this Agreement. Licensor may require Licensee to relocat e the bus stop by giving 90 days notice . 4. Maintenance of the Parking Lot. Licensor hereby agrees to maint ain the Parking Lot in reasonably good condition; and at its sole discr et ion. However, Licensee agrees to maintain the immediate area surrounding the bus sto p free of trash and debris. l

PAGE 142

5. Ins uraoce/Hold Haonless. Licensee will indemnify defend and hold the Licensor harmless from and against any and all liabil ities, losses, demands, debts, causes of action, fllles, penalties, damages (in cluding consequential damages), jud gments and expenses (including witho u t lil)litati o n attorney' s fees and court cost, including those incurred atalllev. e l s of appeals through the final determin ation th er eof), or claims m ade against Licensor or against Licensor's title to the Pr:operty, ris ing from or relating to injury to any person or damage to any property caused by any act of Licensee, its employees, agents, invitees, licensees or contractors, or arising from or relating t o the use, maintenance, occupation or operation o f the Pr operty b y L icensee, or its employees, ag ents, i!lvites, licensees or contractors, other than such l osses caused by 1he gross n egligence or misco nduct of Licensor. Licensee is self-insured. 6. Alterations In no event and under no circumstan ces shall Licen see make any alterations, additions, repairs or improvements to Property without permission of Licensor. Any improvements including waitin g shelt ers, walk areas and will be at Licens ee's expense and must be approved by L icensor. Licensee agrees to main tain those improvem ents in good condition and at expense. Li censee fu rther agree s t hat Licensee shall pay all expe nses for said improv ements in fas hion to p revent any liens from being filed by suppliers or laborers against I,.icensor' s property. All Licensee's contractors performing any work for Licensee or Licensor's property shall adequately bonded and insured. Further, Licensee agrees to reimburs e Licensor, \vi thin reasona ble time, for all e x penses, inc luding reasonable attorney's fees, incurre!i by Licensor as a result of Lice nsee's fail ure to perform according to the terms of.this agreement. 7. Subli ce nse and Assignment. Licensee agrees that it will not subli cens e or assign this Agreement. 8. Non-Exclusjv e. This Li cense is non-exclusiv e and Licensor may use and may permit others to use the Parking Lot for purpose whatsoever. 9. DefaUlt Remedies. Licensor shall give Licensee written notice or' any default on the part of Licensee Should License e fail t o correct or cure any such defa ult within five (5) days from the date of receipt o f notice thereof, Licensor shall have the right to term inate this Agreement by giving written noti ce of its election to do s o. ln addit ion, Licensor shall have such other rig ht s and remedies a s may exi s t under law or in equity, which rights and remedie s may be exercised by Licensor inde pendently, concurre ntly, and cumulative l y. The failure of Lic ensor at any tim e to exercise any right or remedy herein given to Licensor shall not b e deem ed to operate as a waiver by Licensor of its right to exercise s uch rig ht or r emedy at any other or future time lO. Attorney's Fees. In the even t of a breach of this Agreeme nt by either party the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs in enforcing thi s Agreement, including, but not limited to, its reasonable attorney's fees and other costs incurred in the enfor c em ent of the performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, attorney's fees and litiga tion expenses incurred at all lev e l s of appeals !hrough the final d ete rmination thereo f . 2

PAGE 143

11. All notices as required or permitted under this Agreement must be in writing and will only be deemed properly given and received (a) when actually g iven and received, delivered in person t9 a party who acknowledges receipt in Writing, or (b) one (I) business day after deposit by private courier or overnight delivery service, if such courier or service obtained a written acknowledgment of receipt; or (c) two (2) business days after deposit in the United States Mail, certified or registered ma,il with rerum receipt requested and postage prepaid. Licensor Licensee TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION 12. aindjng Agreement. The terms and conditions of this Agreement and the covenants and agreements herein contained are binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, suceessors and assigns. The indemnities set forth in this Agreement shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. 13. Entire Agreement. This instrument containS the entire agreement between the partie s regarding the terms and conditions of the Agreement of the described prop erty all oth e r agree ments relating to the subject matter bf this Agreement are hereby incorporate d herein and there a re no oral or written conditions, terms, understandin gs or stipulations pertaining t o this Agreement which have not been incorporated herein. 14. Unenfors;eahility. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason and to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of t his Agreement and the application of such provisions to the other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby but rather shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by Jaw. 15. Qoyemjng Law: This Agreement and all of its provision s sha ll be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Jaws of the State of 16. No Regresentations by Licensee Licensee acknowledges to and agrees with Licensor that Licensee is accepting the parking lot in a AS IS" condition "WITH ALL FAULTS" and specifically and expressly without any wamnties, representation or guarantees, either express or implied, of any kind, nature, or type whatsoever from or on behalf of Licensor. .License acknowledges that Licensee has not relied, and is not relying; upon any i"nformation document or other literature maps, sketches projection, proforma, representation, or warranty (whether express or implied, or oral or written, o r material or immaterial) that mayhav ( been given by or made by or on behalf of Licensor. . 3

PAGE 144

17. Limitations on Licensor's Liability. Any liability for damages, breach or nonperformance by Licensor or arising out of the subject matter of, or the relationship created by the Agreement will be collectible only out of Licensor's interest in the Property and no personal liability is assumed by, or will !it any time be asserted against, Licensor, or his successors or assigns, if any, being expressly waived and released by Licensee . . . 18. Multiple Counter;parts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of multiple counterparts whlch, when taken together, shall constitute a complete, fully executed Agreement 19. ADA R&Quirements: If customers an improved passage to access at its expense or to terminate its stop at :is required by ADA regtilations to provide agrees to make needed improvements IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have h ereto set their hands and seals as of the day improvements and year first above written. LICENSOR : Name: Title: Name: Title: (CORPORATE SEAL) IJkENSEE: TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION By:.__,.,..-------------------Name: Title: Name: Title: (CORPORATE SEAL) 4

PAGE 145

'FOP. EASEI!ENT .; This)GREEUENT .FOR is made and entered into this
PAGE 146

s. Purpose of . Crnntor hereby gr01nt an easeoent 1n favor o! HART over the Property tor. the construction, maintenance and use ot a park nnd ride facility. . s. P.a.rk a.nd Ride FacilitY. MART and its respective successors, maKe the.improvements necessary for utilizing the Property tor the purposes stuted herein (hereincalled "Facility"). HART"shu.ll acquire all necessary permits tor tqe construction o! the Facili'ty Tbe design, location and of the Facility shall be in accordance with plans and specifications mutually agreed upon by both parties prior to construction (which .aad specitica.tions together with all amendments and moditicat"ions tbereo1 agreed upon by both parties are hereinafter call'e. d the "Plans and Specifications" are incorporated by reference aud made a part bereot). Tbe costs o! the Facility -including tbe' design, permitting and construction (herein called Costs11) shall be borne sol'ely by HART. The Facility shall be construction in a quality manner for the uses of the gr&hted herein and shall be constructed in with the standards required by all applicable governmental aut6or1tiesor agencies havios jurisd1ct1ou over tbe: Facility. KART sb&ll take all reasonable precautions during the construction of the.Fae111ty to prevent damage to the Property. Completion ot tbe Facility shall be deemed to haveoccurred upon receipt by Grantor ot the certitieAte b7 the supervisins engineer tb&t the construction of.tbe Facility bas been in with the Plans and Specifications. Upon completion ot the Facility, HART shall turcisD to Grantor a statement ot the Facility 1 Otbor Improvements: completion ot the Facility and during the term ot tbis Agreement; HARTsball have the right, but not the obligation, upon .. obtaining the prior written consent ot Grantor, consent not be unreasonable withheld, to construct, install or otherwise make in addition the Facility, such alterations and improvementson the Property t rom time to time as HART. shall consider nee'E!:ssary or desirable to conduct or operate the as provided herein (herein called "Other ImproVements). Th Other shall be cons-eructed in a qyality manner and shall be constructed in accordance wit:b the minimum governmental: authorities or agencies: having jurisdiction ovei the Other Improvements. Upon completion o! any Other Improvements, KART shall furnish to Grantor a o! the costs o! the Other Improvements and said costs shall be added to 'and become a part of the Facility :Costs. : Fixtures and EauiDment. HART shall have the rieht tO 1nstall.on the proper'y .such equipment, fixtures and machinery HART shall necessary or desirable tor the use o! the.Property as.provided hereln. HART shall have the risht to remove any fixtures or a.t HART's sole discretion, provided HART repairs any damage .eause"d by such remova.l. : . . 9. M aintenance. U.pon .comP,letion pt the. Facility, Grantor and all ot the Property, Or a portion 'thereat, shall have the to repair the"Property including the Fic1lity and other Improvemeots. The manner o1 repair and maintenance shall be. sufficient in &11 respects for the uses in this Easemen(and in accordanc& with the minimum standards required by the ._pplicable governmental authorities or aSeneies having jurisdiction over the Property includinc the Facility and Other Improvements. All costs of repair and shall be borne by .Ornntor, its successors and n.ssigns: 2 ...

PAGE 147

10. Utilities and Services. Grantor GrAntor's expense, turn1sh dna the following services to the Property: electricity, any and air Conditionint ia.cluded in the Facility,l.ightiag, toilet room supplies, jaai tor. se:r.vic:e water, sewage, garbagt> disposc.l, building security, and any other such routine services as are necessary for the use of the Property: us provided herein. 11. Access. Both Grintor and HART, and their successors and assigns, shall tull access and ingress and egress to aad tromthe including tbe Improvements, witb the understao.dicg ot the Grantor that the prior1t1%ed use of tbe Facility will be for HART1s park and rido patrons through Friday during service. 12. shall use berein without !irst the otbe:r pa.rty . Neither KART nor Grantor for the stated obtainin& the prior written consent of 13. Term of Easement:. This Agreement sha.ll 'c& atfective for a. period. c;-! (5) years !rom tbe date hereof., aud shall reoain in effect from year-to year tbereatter under the same terms and conditions set fortb herein unless caricelled by eitber party by written notice as provided herein given not less th&u sixty (6G) days prior to the eud of any yearly period. . 14. Recording; Termination. This Agreement sball be Public Records o! .Hillsborough Florida Upon tbe termination of this .'Agreement as provided herein, the then owners ot the Easement and tbe Property, respectively, shall enter into an Agreement for Termination of Easement wllich shall be recorded in tbe Public Records of Hillsborourb County, Florida and this shall become nulland void. . . 15. Re' irDbursement ot. Facility Costs. In the eVent Grantor shall not renew this, Agreement eaeb year until and including the tenth year from the effective date o! Agreement or in the even t Grantor sha11 elect not to abide by tbe terms and conditions set fortb in tbis Agreement, Grantor shall reimburse to HART the ot the Facility Costs on a pro basis often perc.ent (lOX) of the :to'tal facility Cos"ts 'for each unexpired of the (10) year term. Such reimbursement shall be a total lump sum due uPon expiration of the then current one.year term ot tbis Agreement. No portion .of such reimbursement shall be clue or payable a.fter. this Agreement has rema.ined in 'torce for a tota:l period 6! ten (_10). yea7s. 16. Insurance. Grantor shall procure and maintain tire and extended cov,erage insurance tor t he full replacement v ,alue or the Facility and Other lcn_provements located on 'the Property, for protection aga.inst loss or damage by tire, windstOrm, or other hazu.rds oi:dinarily included 'in the of "extended coverage" as such term is used in .the insurance trade. HART shall procure ariP maintain all insurance which it deems necessry tor its .protection atainst loss Or to any of the personal prope'rty. improvements or fixtures located o n the Property and.' belonc:ing: to HART.

PAGE 148

. Grantor and/or HART. shall also procure and main tain iD force & t times durio. g the term of this :Agreement general liability insurance Grantor and HART (and in the policy) against aay liability whatsoever occasioned by any accident on or about the Property.or any appurteoanee thereto, in such minimum amounts as shall be &greed upon by Grantor and HART for injury t o any one person, tor aur, one accident and :tor .:property damage. HART1.s responsibilities will pertain to coverage during the operation of its services to the Facility. . . All requir.ed to be carried by either party under tbis Agreement shall be written with au insurance comp&ny or companies authorized to. do businsss ln the State of Florida. Such policies shall contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel change the insur&nee coverage without firsttiving v both parties ten (10) days. prior written notice. 17. In the event the Facility and Other be totally destroyed by ure, windstol'!" or other easualty, o r in the event the Facility and Other Improvements sbould b e. so that rebuilding or repairs cannot be completed witbin one bundred eigbty (180) days after the date of either Grantor-or BART may at its optioa by written notice to the other given not more than tbirtY (30) days after date of such casualty, terminate' this Agreement. In such event, Grantor shall.reimburse to HART tb8 amount of tbe Facility Costs on a. pro rata basis as provided in Section 15 herein. In tbe event tbe Facility and Other Improvements sbould'be damaged by tire, windstOrm, or otber casualty but onlY to the extent tbat rebuilding or repairs ca.n be coaplet.ed w ithin one eighty (180) days after tbe 4ate of sucb damage, or it tbe damage should be more serious butneither Grantor or HART elects to terminate this Agreement then Orintor thirtY (30) days after the date o! sucb damage commence rebuild or repair the Facility and/or Other lmproveUlents and shall proceed witt> reasoiaa.ble dili'gence restore the Facility and/or Other Improvements to substantiallY the same condition in which it was immediately prior to .the happening of the casualty. . . 18. Indemnification;, itART and GrantOr, and their sucCessors and assigns, and:hold Grantor and KART, respectively, and owners of a.ll or 'part of the Property and of the respectively, harmless from any. and all damage cost, suits, liabilities or expenses, including attorneys fees, by virtue of the following-: (a.) Any default:or breach b) HART or Grantor, respectively, or their successors or assigns, any ,or. their obligations or responsibili'ties. under this. Agr .eement; and (b) Any 'injury .or :deai' h o! pers.ons or dUnage to property caused by or irisingout ot any act or omission ot HART o r Grant-or, respeCtively; or their respective employees, servan.ts, agent s t l.essees, patrons, ;uests, invitees, successors, representatives or on the Propert y oi-in connection with the Eas e raent ;,.provided however that neither HART Orantor, and their :sUCcessors or assigns., sball not be or liable default, injury, death or di.raage tb&t occurs M\Ue not the owners o! ttJe . Easement Created by this or of ullor any. part ot the Property, respectively, 9Ut rnther only tht then o! tho Easement or Vroperty , .respeetively, tLt that time shall be so responsible liablo. *HART nor Grantor shall be liable in any way to the other party r any such injury, death or property damage caused by or arising of any willful, wanton or grossly ne9li9'ent act or of HARt' or Grantor or their. employees, servants, agents, tehants, patrons, guests, invitees, successors; : .representatiVes or assi9ns. 4 -

PAGE 149

. 19. 1! Grantor or KAnT, or tbeir respective !411 to comply tno1r respoDs1b1lities an4 Gruntor or as case m be, or tc1r successors or sb&ll have r1Bbt proceed 1c any action ia a court of competent Jurisdictioo io Hillsborough couoty, Florida, eitber for spee!t1e pertormaaee or tor dama ges or 20. litiga.tJ.on party shall on appea.L In conaection witb tbe to recover costs incurred 1neludinc ees wbatber incurred at trial level or 21. B1ad1ue Etteet. Notwitbstandiae grantinc an4 assltnmeat Ot rig tt under tbis Arreement, the rights aa4 beDe!its and the obligations aod liabilities created hereunder for KART as owner of tbe Easement &ball only apply to the tbea ot asemeat and tbeir respective employees, servants, agc=ts. lessees, teoants, patrons, cuest&, 1av1;ees, successors, legal representatives and assigDS. TQe r1Chts and a.nd the obliga.tions a.nd li.a.bilitios cre&ted hereunder tor Grantor a s owner ot tbe Property sball run itb tbe Property ud cba.ll ooly a.pplJ to tbe t.beo preseat owners of &.11 or a ny pLrt ot tbe fee title to the Propert? .nd their respective e11ployeos; s trvaats, acents. lessees, teaa.a:t&, pa.trolls, r;ues'ts, cuecessors, legal representative aud ass1,us. Tbe ot or any pazt of either tbe Easement or Property sball only be responsible for tbe obligations LDd liabilities ot such interests that Qar accrue during such ot o.uersbip, 1nd in no event shll: (1) &n owner of either of iatcrests be obligated or liable !or a de!ault b ereunder ot a prior owner; or (11) ao Ooaer ot e1tber of said iaterests be oblic&ted or liable !or & de!au1t Of a owner. Subject to liD1tattoa set forth in tbe seateace, aoy oner of all or any part of tbe property be deemed bave tbe liabilities and o! Grantor herecnder iae14eot to by of the land so acquire d and aar future oner of the Ea.$emea.t sba.ll be deeme, d to -tbe liabilities aod obligatioDs of KART hereunder incident t:o by virtue o r the interest so L& set fortb in tbe preceding sentences of this Section 21 sball aot lim!t tbe responsibility and obligations of aay future owner of all or any part of the Property or the respectively. to a=d thereafter to aad tbe Property to th required under this Agreement, regard.less"wbetber tbe 1ailure t o do so first by tbe OGaer o! the Property or the Easement, as applic&ble 22. Notice. 'ifbenever aD}' cotice may be ;iven or ia requ1red to De g1ven under tbe terms of this Agreement, tbe :same sllall tie delivered by ba.nd delivery tbrough the UD1ted States.Mail. Certified Returo Receipt Requested. postace prepa1d, addressed to the parties as follows: 'to B.AR.T;. with copy toJ To Gr:J.ntor: . . AREA TBANSlT Atta: Cliff Haydea Deputy 4305 tast 21st Avenue Florida 33605

PAGE 150

. or sucb uddresS.n's any o{ the parties may designate for himself or itself by notice. Notice be deemed. C'iven when clelive"red b) hand or placed iri the Uni'ted States Mail as, . .. Moditica.tion. are no other acreemei:tts. promises, or uncsertak.111S's tietween the parties except as specific:a.lly .set forth berein. No altera:tions, cbanges, t:lodificatioris, or amend.meDtS shall be made to this' Agreement except in and by the then owners ot Property and tbe Easement and recorded in the Public Records ot Hillsborough County, Florida. . 24. Florida Contract : '!'his Agreement shall be deemed contract and according to the laws o! such state., regardless ot whether:: this Agreement is beizlg executed by &DY, of the p2.rtie s hereto. in other states or oth,orwise; . .. 25. in several origind. : T liis is being eacb ot which shall be deemed an .... . 26. Effective Date>' !I'l11s Agreement "Shall all .. etteetive date o! the date.tbat the parties bereto duly execute tb1s Aereement. G

PAGE 151

Public Transit Access To Private P rope!JY APPENDIX H BUS TURNING TEMPLATE 143

PAGE 152

Public Transit Access To Private Property This is a blank page 144

PAGE 153

BUS TURNING TEMPLATE . c I .. ... -.v-C: ....... ..... "'""" / 90' Path or tctl I .:--. -. (tOf'lt / -", '.. ,,..-r -,. '\"-I .j. \ ; '\ .. \ Path of hgl'lt \ tCCI' Path of left front whee l Beginning of turn 'o I SCALE: l" =20' NOTES: i . : tea : I : reor \ ... ,, ' ', ' ', ' \ ', \ \ ', \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . 9() . 135' ' ... . .... ', ' l 18() . I I I ' ' ' ' ',, The above diogrom should be considered mm1mum for o standard bus. Radii of 55' (outside) and 25' (inside) ore recommended for pavement edges or obstructions. Articulated buses con be accommodated within the above envelope. Source: Designing lor Transit. Metropolitan Development Board, 1993


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.