The vision of Steven Spielberg's Minority Report was prescient: the Washington Metrorail system is going to turn into an ad-saturated, visually overwhelming mess. Remember the scene where Tom Cruise goes on the Metro while he's being pursued by government agents? And the ads in the station are calling people by name? That's only a little short of what they've got planned for our beloved Metro.
If you've never been to D.C., the Metro is the only thing in the city that works, as everyone agrees. It's clean: drinks and food are banned. It's also fairly safe, although there is the occasional pickpocket. The cars' interiors are quieter than churches -- everyone is reading, napping, or perhaps talking quietly (except for some obnoxious mobile phone users). A fun fact: the producers of the movie "No Way Out" filmed Kevin Costner in the Baltimore subway, even though he was supposedly traveling on the Metro. They thought viewers would never believe that a subway train could be that clean.
Compared to driving the nasty streets of this area, the Metro is a refuge for sanity, a place where other riders and I can get 90 minutes of reading done instead of navigating through the dismal, traffic-clogged streets twice a day.
The Metro management has nurtured this genteel culture since its creation three decades ago, but now they are going to throw it out the window with great force. They aren't just going to have some advertising. Oh, no. We must have huge banner ads in the stations...and televisions blaring ads on the cars! Not only that,
...Transit officials also plan to drape advertising from the sides of parking garages, hang commercial banners from banisters inside the busiest stations, hoist advertising signs on light poles in station parking lots and sell ad space on bus shelters. "We want to leave no stone unturned," said Leona Agouridis, Metro's assistant general manager for communications.
Why is all this happening? Money! God forbid any public space not be turned over to Mammon, just because the Metro system is losing some money! Distilled to its essence, Metro wants to
Drive everybody crazy. No longer will we be able to relax on our way home. We have to be little captive rats for the ad agencies.
Raise the prices. They just hiked fares this year, and now they're going to do it again.
Screw their best customers. Aside from the increase in fares, they stopped giving 10% bonuses when riders put $20 or more on their farecards -- in other words, the very people who ride Metro frequently. Also, they used to have reserved parking for a monthly fee, with the parking fee included. Now you have to pay the reservation fee, and the regular $3 a day fee on top of it.
When music companies saw that CD sales slumped, they announced price cuts increase sales. Metro saw ridership decline, so they jacked up the price of their service. Does that make even a little bit of sense?
Economics aside, destroying what little peace there is in our public areas is unconscionable. No wonder Americans find self-reflection so difficult: no matter where they go, somebody is trying to sell them something.
Eric, what alternative universe do you live in? Metro actually works? Whaaaaaa?
I usually agree with your insightful posts but you sound like a whiney bourgeois bohemian in this one.
If corporate advertising, allowing newstands and shoe shine boys, etc., allows for fare rates to stay stable then I'm all for it.
An interesting piece. Upon reflection, I have absolutely no sympathy for you whatsoever. You, as a Metro rider, pay for Metro. Unfortunately, I pay for Metro too, and I live 2000 miles away from D.C.! The only reason Metro has worked as well as it has is because it's been partially funded by all U.S. taxpayers, not just those in the metropolitan D.C. area.
When I lived in San Francisco, I rode BART, (San Francisco) Bay Area Rapid Transit. It's bascially like Metro; both were built by Bechtel at roughly the same time. Except that BART isn't as clean as Metro, it doesn't run quite as well as Metro, and it's a lot more expensive than Metro. Oh, and BART has advertising too. And people selling things in the stations.
Why the difference? Because BART is paid for solely by its riders and those persons in the San Francisco Bay Area. Metro riders have been sucking on the federal government's teats since Day 1.
If you want good service, you should be willing to pay for the actual cost of it.
Aside from escalators forever breaking down, trains running late. The occasional small rail fire, corruption, mismanagement, etc, Metro's great.
And not being able to drink water on the Metro peeves me. Really. Water doesn't stain.
I hate Metro commutes. It's great for going down to Adams Morgan on the weekend with my boys, but I hate it for business commuting. You'd think the morons who designed it in the 70s could have designed it to allow for express and local platforms. So much of the Metro ridership gets on at the termini of the lines like New Carrollton or Greenbelt. Certainly express trains to and from said termini would be great at rush hour. But noooooo...
I have been called many things in my life. I have endured many insults. But "whiney [sic] bourgeois bohemian" is a first.
Ken, ads will not stabilize the fares -- they'll only make up, at most, half of the deficit that Metro says it needs to fill. But instead of becoming more efficient, or even lowering its rates, it starts to harass its core consumers. I'll grant you that they occasionally have mechanical difficulties, which is to be expected, since they use machinery. But unlike Washington vehicle traffic, which can double your commute if it rains, my Metro commute rarely differs by five minutes either way.
I'm not sure why complaining about a goverment service makes me whiny, much less bohemian; I'm middle-class, so I guess by definition I'm bourgeois. I simply don't think that public spaces need to be sold off to the highest bidder for a small reduction in operating costs. It doesn't even work, because it forces Metro to postpone necessary changes to make it more efficient.
Bill, I don't know where you live now, but if you're in a major metropolitan area, I can practically guarantee that your locality gets federal transportation dollars. It's one of the favorite flavors of pork on Capitol Hill, dontchaknow. As far as BART being free of federal subsidies, you're flat-out incorrect. Right now, the feds are spending a cool three-quarters of a billion dollars on a BART extension to San Francisco airport. Congresshuman Tom Lantos boasts of many instances of federal funding for BART and other transportation items that only benefit the Bay Area.
It would seem the federal sow has many teats, no? If you've driven on an interstate highway, you've received a subsidy. I have major problems with using federal money to alleviate local problems, but at least DC is owned by the feds. They have to spend money on it.
Mr. Johnson, the summa mamas don't think you're a whiny bougey boheme. we think you're the cat's meow.
and I agree with you about no ads on Metro. It's not going to be as pleasant a ride if they start making it an eyesore. I'll bet you money that they start having more graffiti.
What's wrong with appealing to the "bourgeois", when that unappreciated caste makes up a huge portion of Metro ridership?
Why, thank you, smockmomma. That's by far the best compliment I've received all week. You all aren't so bad yourselves.
Eric,
What's going on? One minute your an emperialistic, foaming-at-the-mouth neoconservative who loves capitalism and next your a euroweenie who wants to put decor and peace of mind above economic freedom.
Make up your mind.
For a surcharge, you'll be able to ride in the first-class cars with no advertising. :-)