Transit advertising--- Wrapped LRVs and Buses.

[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.

[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. 

[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]

 

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.

[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".   

[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.

[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. 

[henry6]

 

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 all across the country.  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 many automobiles now adays.

[Anonymous]

DART wraps the buses because they are mostly used by low income people who lack the know how and political leverage to complain.  On the other hand, it has not wrapped the light rail vehicles because they tend to be used by middle class commuters who will complain and know how to do it. 

Anyone remotely familiar with public transit operations knows that no single citizen can prevent a transit agency from screen painting the windows of its vehicles? 

I can get the records regarding advertising revenues.  I can appeal the decision to the transit agency, the Board of Directors, or the city council that appointed the board, but I don't have the power to stop the agency from screen painting its vehicles. 

It seems to me that on the one hand you attribute DART's refraining from wrapping light rail windows on the potential of the clientele to complain better than the bus riders, primarily on class lines, but you still say that 1 person cannot make them do what one wants. That's at least a little bit inconsistent. No you don't have THE power to stop them, but you do have SOME power, and based on your first quote I have to conclude you think that DART is sensitive to the collective power of people who might not like wraps.

I tend to attribute absence of wraps on rail to the fact that rail has less visibility. Once in a while the rail vehicle goes places such as tunnels and private right of way, where the advertisers targets can't see it, while buses, and streetcars, tend to stay in traffic. This means that fewer eyes get to look at the advertisement on the rail vehicle than the ad on the bus. What's the prevalence of side of the road vs tunnel, elevated, middle of the swamp or cornfield on the light rail lines where you think the agency bases its window covering ads or lack thereof, on rider income class?

I agree that if wrapping the windows is a bad thing, then don't wrap the windows. Does anybody remember Pittsburgh's situation in the 60's and 70's? They had quite a few full carbody ads on their PCC's, and none on the buses. Did they cover the windows? Pittsburgh has lots of private right of way, but in those days all of those routes operated as streetcars downtown, so that may have helped convince the advertisers to pay for ad on the PCC's.

The DART Board and management are cognizant of the class difference between the majority of its bus riders and train riders.  The potential for complaints regarding advertising practices, while perhaps a consideration, was intended as an illustration of how different classes in the Dallas are treated, which a function in part of their ability to protest.  Poorer neighborhoods in Dallas do not have the clout of middle and upper class neighborhoods.  

As stated the light rail vehicles are seen as the pride of the DART fleet.  This was told to me by a high ranking DART official, and squares with how the Dallas power structure tends to operate.  I lived in Dallas for more than 32 years.  Because of the nature of my work, I came in contact with many of the makers and shakers.  I got a feeling for how they think.   

The DART Board does not believe it would send the right signal to paint advertisements on the light rail vehicles. 

DART paints over vehicles used mostly by lower class people while not painting over vehicles used by middle class people.  You can draw whatever conclusions you like from this practice.

I have ridden public transit for most of my life.  I am a keen observer.  I also back-up my observations with data analysis.  Remember, as I said, DART gave me ridership data on everyone of its bus and train routes.  I sliced and diced it extensively.  I have a pretty good idea of who uses the various segments of the DART system. 

Over the years I have ridden every bus and train route in Dallas.  For the most part the class of people on the buses is dramatically different from the class of people on the trains, although there is some crossover.

DART's light rail system runs above ground, with the exception of the roughly three mile Central Expressway tunnel.  The trains travel in a transit way through downtown, where they are seen by thousands of people every day.  If wrapping a vehicle was an effective advertising practice, the light rail trains have more visibility in Dallas and its surrounds than any bus. 

In Austin I brought the impact of wrapping a transit vehicle to the attention of the executive of a civic organization that had bought a wrap on a Capital Metro's bus.  Shortly thereafter the ad was removed. 

[gardendance]

DART wraps the buses because they are mostly used by low income people who lack the know how and political leverage to complain.  On the other hand, it has not wrapped the light rail vehicles because they tend to be used by middle class commuters who will complain and know how to do it. 

Anyone remotely familiar with public transit operations knows that no single citizen can prevent a transit agency from screen painting the windows of its vehicles? 

I can get the records regarding advertising revenues.  I can appeal the decision to the transit agency, the Board of Directors, or the city council that appointed the board, but I don't have the power to stop the agency from screen painting its vehicles. 

It seems to me that on the one hand you attribute DART's refraining from wrapping light rail windows on the potential of the clientele to complain better than the bus riders, primarily on class lines, but you still say that 1 person cannot make them do what one wants. That's at least a little bit inconsistent. No you don't have THE power to stop them, but you do have SOME power, and based on your first quote I have to conclude you think that DART is sensitive to the collective power of people who might not like wraps.

I tend to attribute absence of wraps on rail to the fact that rail has less visibility. Once in a while the rail vehicle goes places such as tunnels and private right of way, where the advertisers targets can't see it, while buses, and streetcars, tend to stay in traffic. This means that fewer eyes get to look at the advertisement on the rail vehicle than the ad on the bus. What's the prevalence of side of the road vs tunnel, elevated, middle of the swamp or cornfield on the light rail lines where you think the agency bases its window covering ads or lack thereof, on rider income class?

I agree that if wrapping the windows is a bad thing, then don't wrap the windows. Does anybody remember Pittsburgh's situation in the 60's and 70's? They had quite a few full carbody ads on their PCC's, and none on the buses. Did they cover the windows? Pittsburgh has lots of private right of way, but in those days all of those routes operated as streetcars downtown, so that may have helped convince the advertisers to pay for ad on the PCC's.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

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.

[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.

[Phoebe Vet]

matthewsaggie:

That's why people like me, here in Mecklenberg County, trust people like you to make the decisions.  We know they will be considered dispassionately.

[matthewsaggie]

Charlotte had a presentation at the last Transit Commission meeting regarding resuming advertizing on the buses and possibly trains. The consensus of the commission is: 1. We like the clean image of our system, without the ads, wraps, etc. and have recived a lot of positive comment on it. 2) after a while the wraps do start to cause problems with the paint. 3) there was a feeling that if we put ad's back on buses, but not the trains,  it would revive the "class" issue we have had here in Charlotte where some have portrayed the train as for the rich and the bus for the poor, 4) the revenue is simply not there to make it worth the problems.

In the last year Charlotte had exterior ads we netted a little over $150,000. (We still have interior ads, and will be adding shelter ads.) The Ad agencies said that if we started again we could net about $750-$1M but to be honest, nobody at the meeting believed them. It would still less the 1% of our budget. Even Mayor Myers, of Matthews who opposed ending the ads in '98 supported leaving them off now. Obvoiously, if revenues become a problem, we may revisit the issue, but its dead now.

--matthewsaggie 

[Anonymous]

Charlotte does not have any wrapped vehicles.  We used to, but then a new guy took the helm of CATS he discontinued it because he didn't like the appearance.  I thought they looked good.

As I said, they don't have to cover the windows.

Wraps are not paint, they are essentially a full vehicle single decal.  If they are properly made they are flat black on the inside and have holes in them when they are over the windows.  I had them on one of my vehicles and had no problem seeing through them even at night.

But if that bothers you, just don't let them cover the windows.  Problem solved.

The issue is not whether they have to cover the windows.  The issue is that they have screen painted over the windows on some of the transit vehicles in Dallas and Austin, as well as Orlando and a number of other transit systems.

Of the vehicles in Dallas and Austin that have been screen painted, there are four windows that have not been painted.  The first is the wind screen.  The second is the driver's window.  And the third and fourth are the windows in the passenger doors.  The reason, of course, is because these are the windows the driver must be able to see from clearly to safely operate the vehicle.  If screen painting did not diminish the ability to see through the windows, why have they not painted these windows?  The reason is because it is against the law.  And it is against the law because screen painting windows reduces visibility.

Anyone remotely familiar with public transit operations knows that no single citizen can prevent a transit agency from screen painting the windows of its vehicles?  

I can get the records regarding advertising revenues.  I can appeal the decision to the transit agency, the Board of Directors, or the city council that appointed the board, but I don't have the power to stop the agency from screen painting its vehicles.  

[Phoebe Vet]

Charlotte does not have any wrapped vehicles.  We used to, but then a new guy took the helm of CATS he discontinued it because he didn't like the appearance.  I thought they looked good.

As I said, they don't have to cover the windows.

Wraps are not paint, they are essentially a full vehicle single decal.  If they are properly made they are flat black on the inside and have holes in them when they are over the windows.  I had them on one of my vehicles and had no problem seeing through them even at night.

But if that bothers you, just don't let them cover the windows.  Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Wraps do not have to cover the windows, but I don't see any problem if they do.  You can see through them.

Whether or not they are a significant source of revenue depends on how much you charge for the space.  For race cars, which incidentally do use wraps which do not cover the windows, the sponsor is the PRIMARY source of income for the team.

They changed from decals and paint to wraps because wraps are faster and easier.

I daily rode public transit for 37 of the 39 years that I worked for corporate America.  I still use it three days a week to commute to the University of Texas.

Capital Metro is the bus system for Austin and its surrounds.  They have wrapped several of their buses, so I have experienced as late as this week the effects of painting over the windows.  Doing so greatly reduces the ability to see outside of the vehicle, especially on a low light day and at night.  My guess is that you don't see any problem with painting over the windows because you are not a regular rider on vehicle that has been wrapped. 

When I was in Charlotte in May, I did not see any train sets or buses that were wrapped.  I'll bet the trains are not wrapped.  If any of the buses are wrapped, I did not see them.  I rode both while I was in Charlotte, where by the way I lived for more than four years. 

DART could allocate its entire advertising revenue stream to wrapped advertisements, multiple it by ten, and it will still be an insignificant percentage of its income. 

[Phoebe Vet]

Wraps do not have to cover the windows, but I don't see any problem if they do.  You can see through them.

Whether or not they are a significant source of revenue depends on how much you charge for the space.  For race cars, which incidentally do use wraps which do not cover the windows, the sponsor is the PRIMARY source of income for the team.

They changed from decals and paint to wraps because wraps are faster and easier.

[Anonymous]

MILW205 

I'm a bit confused as to why the impetus is on DART to provide the marketing data on wraps that you are seeking.  Why should DART care what the marketing data is?  All they should care about is if it makes additional money.  Instead, I would think that it is the advertisers who should be concerned about marketing data: they make the decision whether or not the additional cost of the wraps is justified.  Perhaps approaching the advertisers requesting marketing data would get you the info you are seeking?

I'd be intereseted in seeing verification of your assertion for the rationale of why DART wraps buses and not LRV's.  In any event, the additional revenue that wraps bring in helps the transit system, contributing towards their ability to serve clientele that have no other alternatives.  

DART is owned by the citizens of Dallas as well as those in the other participating service communities.  It is a taxpayer funded entity, and they pick-up approximately 78 per cent of DART's costs.  DART is obligated to serve the interests of all the citizens in the service area, irrespective of whether they use the services, because they are paying for it. 

Under the Texas Open Records Act, DART is required to make available to the citizenry information regarding its revenue and expense streams. 

DART is obligated to use its equipment, i.e. buses, light rail vehicles, as well as its facilities, in a manner that enhances the quality of life in its service communities.  Thus, when its paints its vehicles in a manner as to reduce the quality of the service provided to its constituents, which is not just a ride but a comfortable ride, it is obligated to demonstrate why it has agreed to the practice. 

Clearly, those who buy the advertising should know whether wrapping the vehicle is more effective than painting their message below the windows or on the back of the bus.  I have asked some of them for data showing that wrapping the vehicle is more effective, but only one advertiser, another public agency, responded.  They don't have any data to demonstrate that wrapping a transit vehicle is more effective than an ad placed below the windows.  They responded probably because they too are subject to the Texas Open Records Act, and they probably figured out that if I know enough to challenge them, I know how to get information through the open records act.

Approximately 18 months ago DART gave me a bus by bus, train by train, station by station analysis of its riders.  The data was contained in Excel spreadsheets that enabled me to slice and dice it to gain an understanding of who uses what services. 

The user profiles show a different pattern between the people who use the city buses and those who use the light rail trains and suburban express buses.  The majority of people using the city buses are traveling from or to low income neighborhoods, although there are exceptions.  This led me to conclude that a high per cent of the city bus riders are from low income neighborhoods, mobility impaired, or senior citizens.  Moreover, DART told me that approximately 43 per cent of the people who use the city bus service do not have access to a personal vehicle.  I crossed checked this data with the American Public Transit Association and found the pattern to be similar to that in the other large Texas cities.

The express buses, as well as the light rail system, tend to be used by lower middle to middle class patrons, many of who are commuting from and to the suburbs.  Only 13 per cent of the people who use these services do not have access to a personal vehicle.  Lower class patrons also use the light rail system, or the Trinity Railway Express (TRE), but they are usually fed onto the trains from bus routes that force feed the system, or they are dropped off at one of the rail stations.  However, this is not completely accurate, because the Red and Blue lines that serve the southern portion of Dallas pick up and drop off passengers from low income neighborhoods.

DART did not tell me that they wrap the buses because the majority of people who use them tend to be lower income people.  A reasonably well placed DART official did tell me that they don't wrap the light rail vehicles because they are the pride of the fleet, and they did not think that wrapping them is appropriate.  You can draw whatever conclusion you choose from that comment. 

I have ridden every bus and rail route in the DART service area.  My observations tend to support the conclusions stated above.  By contrast only a few of DART's executives and managers use public transit on a regular basis.  And the last time I check no DART Board members ride transit on the regular basis.  How is that for an endorsement of public transit?

In 2007 DART's total income from Passenger Revenues, Advertising and Rent, Sales and Use Tax, Federal Grants, State Grants, Investment Income, Capital Contributions, and Other Income totaled $635.7 million.  Of this amount Advertising and Rent accounted for $9.4 million or less than one per cent.  DART does not publish how much incremental income was generated by wrapping the buses, but it would have been considerably less than $9.4 million.  I would be surprised it is was more than two or three tenths of one per cent. 

Wrapping a bus with advertising is a very marginal source of income.  Clearly, whether low income rides get a transit service is not dependent on wrapping a bus or train from head to toe and front to back with an advertisement.  

[MILW205]

Madison Metro claims that bus wraps contribute a substantial amount of money to the bottom line.  Not enough to elimnate the required subsidy, but enough that it could make a difference between balancing or not balancing the yearly budget.

I am OK with bus wraps from the standpoint of the outside looking in.  A one-theme bus ad in some ways is less an eye sore than a hodge podge of messages plastered on a bus.

The problem I have with the wraps is from the inside looking out.  Bus windows are more than for looking at urban scenery.  You want to see out to tell whether you are approaching your stop, and you want to be able to do this whether you are in a seat or standing and hanging on to a stanchion.  Looking out through the wraps is like looking through cheese cloth.  You can see out, but the view is both dimmed and blurred.  From that point of view (pun intended), bus wraps are annoying. 

If they could wrap the bus (or LRV I guess) with a billboard that didn't cover the windows with that cheese cloth effect, I would be 100 percent for it for the money it brings in to the transit agency.

I second the observation that the problem is from inside the bus looking out.  Not only does wrapping the bus make it difficult to see, especially at night and on cloudy days, but on a low light day the atmosphere inside is depressing.  Painting over the windows is the big problem. 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), the "T" in Fort Worth, and Capitol Metro in Austin wrap some of their buses.  As a regular rider I get the inside impact.  Interestingly, DART does not wrap any of the light rail vehicles or the TRE equipment.  Only the buses are wrapped. 

I asked DART why they wrap the buses, since it appears that a prominently displayed sign below the windows or on the back would do the trick.  They claim the wrapping produces better results and the wrappers pay more for it.  When I asked them for the marketing research data to show that the wrapping is more effective, they gave me the deer in the headlights look.  They don't have any data to support wrapping or painting the whole bus.  They have been sold a bill of goods with money attached to it.

DART wraps the buses because they are mostly used by low income people who lack the know how and political leverage to complain.  On the other hand, it has not wrapped the light rail vehicles because they tend to be used by middle class commuters who will complain and know how to do it. 

I have fought back.  I send a letter to the advertisers advising them of the impact of wrapping on transit riders and telling them that I will not buy their products or services because of it.  If enough people followed suit, I suspect the advertisers would change their tactics.

I'm a bit confused as to why the impetus is on DART to provide the marketing data on wraps that you are seeking.  Why should DART care what the marketing data is?  All they should care about is if it makes additional money.  Instead, I would think that it is the advertisers who should be concerned about marketing data: they make the decision whether or not the additional cost of the wraps is justified.  Perhaps approaching the advertisers requesting marketing data would get you the info you are seeking?

I'd be intereseted in seeing verification of your assertion for the rationale of why DART wraps buses and not LRV's.  In any event, the additional revenue that wraps bring in helps the transit system, contributing towards their ability to serve clientele that have no other alternatives.  

P.S. - Re the original question, I've seen subway cars in NYC that were wrapped on the inside, but not the outside.  IIRC, it was promoting the HBO TV series "Deadwood".  Evertyhing was covered: seats, walls, doors, windows...everything except safety-related signage.

[Phoebe Vet]

Just as NASCAR sells sponsorships for team race cars, so transit agencies could sell sponsorships for individual buses and trainsets that cover the cost of operating it if not the cost of aquiring it.

Would you care if a bus was wrapped like a UPS truck, or if a trainset was wrapped like a FedEx truck?  Both of those companies have airplanes painted in their colors.  I bet USAirways would sponsor the bus or trainset that goes to the airport.  I bet McDonalds or Pepsi would gladly sponsor a school bus or two.  Corporations have huge advertising budgets and are only interested in how many potential customers will see it.

Lowes, which is based in Mooresville near Charlotte, paid Speedway Motor Sports 5 million dollars to name the Charlotte race track "Lowes Motor Speedway" for 5 years.  I bet they would pay a reasonable amount to wrap a city bus or trainset in Lowes colors with their logo.  They pay Hendrick Motor Sports more than 20 million dollars a year to wrap Jimmy Johnsons's racecar in Lowes Colors with their logo on the hood.  The NFL Carolina Panthers play in Bank of America Stadium. The NBA Charlotte Bobcats play in Time Warner Arena.

Just a thought.

[oltmannd]

It's not just the light rail that gets wrapped.

And frankly, even Amtrak has put wraps on the Horizon cars, IIRC.

...and Amfleet for Allen Iverson's sneakers

...and Acela for the History Channel

[JT22CW]

It's not just the light rail that gets wrapped.

And frankly, even Amtrak has put wraps on the Horizon cars, IIRC.

[oltmannd]

Good idea gone bad....

Here in Atlanta, MARTA had a good idea.  They started a "tourist loop" bus.  There actually were two loops that ran past all the popular tourist spots and museums.  They used a pool of shorter CNG busses and that were clearly marked "Tourist Loop" using a special logo that make it easy to identify. And, they put up special signs telling passengers where to board and what the fare was.

They only did two things wrong.

1.  The busses only ran every 30 minutes.  You could walk between most places the bus seviced in that time.

2. They wrapped about half the busses in advertising. The most prevelant ad was for a local exterminating service whose add features a giant caricature of an angry rat!

Ridership was near zero.....go figure...

[daveklepper]

But Egged Jerusalem does wrap our transit buses but it seems less opaque than some I've noticed elsewhere.  I'd say about one bus out of twenty is wrapped.

[Phoebe Vet]

Remember when we used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I know a terrorist has never hijacked a bus or a light rail vehicle in the US, but one can never be too carefull, can one?

[DMUinCT]

  Homeland Security seems to be relaxing the rules as 911 fades into the past. 

A full wrap pervents law inforcement from seeing what is going on inside the Bus or Trolley.  If the windows are not covered was always OK.

 

 

 

[Nataraj]

SF muni has wrapping on some light rail cars.

[Phoebe Vet]

CATS used to wrap their buses, but they stopped quite a while ago.

I thought it was a good idea, but someone at CATS didn't.  He said it looked tacky and only brought in a couple hundred thousand dollars a year.