Transit advertising--- Wrapped LRVs and Buses.

[jedi_tev]

I've worked for transit agencies that do full bus wraps, they're cool, RTD here in Denver had a couple of buses wrapped Jose Cuervo which i found to be odd, because it takes a CDL to drive a tranist bus and it's HIGHLY frowned upon to drive while impaired. I just think that an alcohol company shouldn't wrap a bus up.

While the irony can be appreciated, it is advertising revenue, liquor ads are not illegal and Prohibition is still only by local option.

I just think it sends the wrong message. I had a friend who actually thought it was a cuervo bus and you could shots of tequilla on board. I understand the advertising and prohibition is over.

[MILW205]

 

DART wraps the buses because they are mostly used by low income people who lack the know how and political leverage to complain. 

Well, I beg your pardon!  Sorry, but transit advertising has been around for almost as long as there has been transit.  And your comment is very derogatory (elite snobbery?) to so many who ride commuter trains lined with advertising cards from stations with platforms full of advertising.  And a lot of those commuters are not low income people who lack anything! 

As far as wraps blocking views from the inside.  They don't.  Windows are already tinted dark because of air conditioning and for eliminating the need for shades or curtains of old.  You can't see out at night or on dark days not because of a wrap but because of the windows.  Same with most automobiles now adays.

Transit advertising has been part of public transit for as long as I can remember, which is nearly 65 years.  But for the most part it is has been confined to advertising inside the vehicle, in panels over the seats, on the outside of the vehicle, and at the stations.  Painting over the windows is a recent practice at least in Dallas and Austin.

I said that most of DART's bus riders, as opposed to the train riders, are low income with exceptions.  Many though not all of the train riders are middle class.  In other words, with exceptions, the people who ride the city buses tend to come from a different socio-economic stratum than the people who favor the trains. 

In Dallas, at least, most of the people who use the commuter trains come from middle class suburbs.  The commuter rail stations and trains have no advertising.  None!

If you rode any of the buses in Dallas or Austin that have been wrapped, you would know that screen painting the windows severely blocks the ability to see out of them.  Again, as stated, I ride the bus three days a week.  I know what I am talking about, as opposed to many people who have an opinion about the joys of riding transit but who seldom if ever use it. 

I think Gardendance hit the nail on the head by raising the issue of visibility.  If you were an advertiser, would you choose: A) advertising on trains/train stations that are typically grade-separated and seen by just the riders themselves and perhaps a few people in cars (when rail crosses at grade, if at all).  --or-- B) buses/bus stops that are seen by both the riders and myriad other people -- pedestrians, bikers, people in cars driving along the streets, etc.

As for the issue regarding a correlation between buses and a lower-income constituency, it seems logical: bus networks are cheaper to create and are more flexible than rail; for a given amount if money, a city can provide more bus service than rail, thereby providing a denser network of transportation options to people who need it most.  Looked at from a slightly different angle, if the bus network focused on wealthy areas at the expense of poor areas, wouldn't there be cries of "underserving" the poorer areas?

Ultimately, wraps could be a matter of beauty being in the eye of the beholder.  I respect that you don't like wraps, and God bless you if you want to complain about them.  But as a daily mass-transit user, I appreciate the colorfulness/variety that they add, I don't have a problem seeing out the windows (as a bonus, wraps even help keep things cooler in the summer), and I view the extra revenue -- even if it is minimal -- as "every little bit helps".   

[Anonymous]

 

DART wraps the buses because they are mostly used by low income people who lack the know how and political leverage to complain. 

Well, I beg your pardon!  Sorry, but transit advertising has been around for almost as long as there has been transit.  And your comment is very derogatory (elite snobbery?) to so many who ride commuter trains lined with advertising cards from stations with platforms full of advertising.  And a lot of those commuters are not low income people who lack anything! 

As far as wraps blocking views from the inside.  They don't.  Windows are already tinted dark because of air conditioning and for eliminating the need for shades or curtains of old.  You can't see out at night or on dark days not because of a wrap but because of the windows.  Same with most automobiles now adays.

Transit advertising has been part of public transit for as long as I can remember, which is nearly 65 years.  But for the most part it is has been confined to advertising inside the vehicle, in panels over the seats, on the outside of the vehicle, and at the stations.  Painting over the windows is a recent practice at least in Dallas and Austin.

I said that most of DART's bus riders, as opposed to the train riders, are low income with exceptions.  Many though not all of the train riders are middle class.  In other words, with exceptions, the people who ride the city buses tend to come from a different socio-economic stratum than the people who favor the trains. 

In Dallas, at least, most of the people who use the commuter trains come from middle class suburbs.  The commuter rail stations and trains have no advertising.  None!

If you rode any of the buses in Dallas or Austin that have been wrapped, you would know that screen painting the windows severely blocks the ability to see out of them.  Again, as stated, I ride the bus three days a week.  I know what I am talking about, as opposed to many people who have an opinion about the joys of riding transit but who seldom if ever use it. 

I think Gardendance hit the nail on the head by raising the issue of visibility.  If you were an advertiser, would you choose: A) advertising on trains/train stations that are typically grade-separated and seen by just the riders themselves and perhaps a few people in cars (when rail crosses at grade, if at all).  --or-- B) buses/bus stops that are seen by both the riders and myriad other people -- pedestrians, bikers, people in cars driving along the streets, etc.

As for the issue regarding a correlation between buses and a lower-income constituency, it seems logical: bus networks are cheaper to create and are more flexible than rail; for a given amount if money, a city can provide more bus service than rail, thereby providing a denser network of transportation options to people who need it most.  Looked at from a slightly different angle, if the bus network focused on wealthy areas at the expense of poor areas, wouldn't there be cries of "underserving" the poorer areas?

Ultimately, wraps could be a matter of beauty being in the eye of the beholder.  I respect that you don't like wraps, and God bless you if you want to complain about them.  But as a daily mass-transit user, I appreciate the colorfulness/variety that they add, I don't have a problem seeing out the windows (as a bonus, wraps even help keep things cooler in the summer), and I view the extra revenue -- even if it is minimal -- as "every little bit helps".   

If screen painting the windows does not reduce visibility from inside the vehicle, why do the transit agencies not paint the driver's side window, the windshield, or the passenger door windows?

In Dallas the trains go through town on a transit way.  They are seen daily by thousands of people.  Moreover, with the exception of the Central Expressway tunnel, they run above ground.  Most of the routes parallel roadways where motorists can easily see them.  They are seen by many more people, on a per unit basis, than the buses.

[Phoebe Vet]

Samantha:

Perhaps your confusion is because you keep talking about screen painting, which does, in fact, block light through the window.

A wrap is an adhesive film.  The area over the windows has holes in it.  Such things have been used on custom vans and some station wagons for many years.  You can buy small ones in any auto supply store.  IT IS NOT PAINT. They don't reduce visibility any more than a window screen does on your home windows.  I bet the windows on those vehicles are already tinted.  The windshield and windows opposite the operator are also tinted, but not as dark.

There have been valid reasons why some systems object to puting advertising on the outside of their vehicles, but your visibility complaint is easily addressed.  Just don't cover the windows.

[Anonymous]

Samantha:

Perhaps your confusion is because you keep talking about screen painting, which does, in fact, block light through the window.

A wrap is an adhesive film.  The area over the windows has holes in it.  Such things have been used on custom vans and some station wagons for many years.  You can buy small ones in any auto supply store.  IT IS NOT PAINT. They don't reduce visibility any more than a window screen does on your home windows.  I bet the windows on those vehicles are already tinted.  The windshield and windows opposite the operator are also tinted, but not as dark.

There have been valid reasons why some systems object to puting advertising on the outside of their vehicles, but your visibility complaint is easily addressed.  Just don't cover the windows.

The buses in Dallas and Austin are screen painted.  It is not the light screen painting that was popular on pick-up trucks in Texas.  Mercifully, most of Texas good old boys stopped painting the rear window of their pick-ups years ago.  And a few good old gals too.

The windows are lightly tinted, but it is the paint on them that greatly reduces the visility from inside the bus.  If you don't believe me, take a trip to Dallas or Austin, especially on a low light day, and give it a go.  Make sure to wait for one of the buses that has been painted from head to toe and front to back with an advertisement. 

Again, if the view from the inside of the bus is not inhibited by screen painting over the windows, how come they don't paint over the driver's side window, windshield, and front passenger door windows.  After all, think what an impact an ad might have on motorists coming toward the bus, hopefully in the other lane. 

[Warren J]

My experience with wrapped vehicles has been on Washington DC's Metro and buses where several years ago, advertisers (Virginia Lottery, Chevy Chase Bank, etc.) had taken to wrapping subway car-pairs as well as buses. Although I haven't seen this done recently, when it was permitted on the rail cars, the effect was quite bizarre. As only a pair would be wrapped on a given train with the other car-pairs left in bare aluminum, it was quite startling. I suppose the advertising was easier to see from a distance such as when the train's route would parallel a highway; it was quite difficult to read by a passenger on station platform due to the sheer scale of the images.

I also wondered whether the practice was discontinued as it did not fit in with the system's Modernist aesthetic that was decreed earlier by the Fine Arts Commission or that advertisers wanted something more readily legible to the train rider. Presently, film-wrap advertising is limited to exterior panels below the train's window line and film-wrap ads above the window line inside the cars.

As for the buses, the advertisers were not that same as those of the rail cars but were more imaginative. I recall a jungle-motif on one bus that was advertising "being green". Now that Metro is currently running mostly LNG or hybrid-electric buses, wrapping is no longer seen. I suppose the current graphics showcasing these alternative fuel vehicles has taken precedence.