July 27, 2004
The B Train, Brought To You By Bloomberg
Holy cow, if the MTA really does find sponsors for the city's subway stations, Gothamist would definitely have a bake sale to raise money to get a really crappy, cheap subway station (probably something on the G) named after us! The NY Times' Michael Luo reports that the MTA has "quietly issued" RFPs from marketing companies to see what sponsorships they can conjure up, given the current fervor of corporations trying to reach consumers everywhere and the $1 billion deficit the MTA is facing. Why, it's only been in the recent past that subway cars are blanketed in one advertiser's message, now you could be getting on at Google Station (something in the old Silicon Alley, we think). The MTA argues that its transportation system is as valuable, if not more, than stadiums who get named after companies, since people take the train every day. Other cool transportation facts from the article: More people ride with the authority in 11 weeks than fly airlines in an entire year and every three years the authority moves the "equivalent of every man, woman and child on the planet." Of course, there are those worried about potential of corporations seeping into every part of our lives - and "how low will New York sink?" Gothamist found Gene Russianoff's (of the Straphangers) guarded answers interestin (he suggested the MTA poll NYC residents, as well as go slowly) because reveune from sponsorships would help keep subway fares down and hopefully have more money for subway upkeep to be better. But still, no one really wants a branded subway platform - we like them smelly and sweaty.
Luo's article points out that some subway stations are already branded: The 116th station is associated with Columbia University, 47-50 Street is Rockefeller Center, and Times Square is really named after the Times. Some other stations are branded, though not officially: Bedford is Hipster City; Seventh Avenue in Park Slope is MacLaren Baby Stroller Row; and on some game nights, the 7 is the Mets Express. The NY Times also speaks with people about the possibility of sponsored subway stations: "That's insane."
The Daily News brings up the subway violence this past year, while the Post cleverly comes up with Dairy Queens Plaza in their story. There was a book, Jennifer Government, from last year, where people have the last name "Nike," "McDonald," or "Nike"; Gothamist found it more clever in concept than in execution. Mayor Bloomberg tried to find ways to get value from I Love NY and Gothamist Sports on naming the Jets Stadium.
|
Buffalo subways and buses were routinely blanketed with ads for a single company (and sometimes the entire bus would be painted to be one giant ad -- the best one was the Mrs. T's pierogies bus). My favorite bus was the one that was entirely ads for Terence Muhammad's Wisdom Power Dollar Saver.
Seventh Avenue Park Slope has a couple other competing names: Lesbian Softball Team Lane or Adopted Chinese Baby Named Grace Sophie or Olivia Boulevard.
I havent sat down and thought about this a whole lot, and i'm sure people will be very quick to point on the downsides to me...
i know that i dont particularly want to pay for another fare hike. other than looking at annoying ads, would sponsered stations really be so bad...?
This is a fun idea... Smith & 9th could become Smith & Wesson. 57th Street could become Heinz-57th Street. Jamaica Center? Air Jamaica Center, of course! And Sheepshead Bay could be Boarshead Bay.
Whoring our transportation landmarks out to the highest bidder is the most retarded and insulting idea I've heard in a long time. Pataki should restore State funding to the MTA instead. Or raise gas taxes, or toll the East River bridges.
A huge positive would be no company would want to sponsor a stinky, nasty station. So I would assume besides branding the station, they would also want to improve it.
I hope a couple of air conditioner companies sponsor a few stops . . .
why don't they just do the adopt a station thing, kind of like a highway. so the station helps pay for the cleaning of that section. there is minimal branding, but a lot of good pr for the companies, and the mta can pass some of the cost to the adopting company.
Wow, Mike, raise this, raise that, tax, tax, tax...
Nevermind that the MTA is already well-funded, and is nonetheless one of the most consistently corrupt public agencies in the world. I say we dump the MTA and its lazy, thieving, pensioned bureaucracy, and privatize.
And it's funny how all your proposed hikes would affect only motorists (you obviously don't own a car). I say instead we get real about subway fares. As in most other cities, they should be graduated to reflect the distance one travels.
Maybe they could install revenue generating slot machines in the schools while they are at it. How about corporate sponsorship of every sidewalk square in town? What happens in a society that has substituted money for culture, community and a sense of place- when the money runs out? Yeesh. Anyway,for anybody who is interested in naming ANTYHING ELSE, here is a free, 52 page naming guide pdf: http://www.igorinternational.com/naming-guide.html
hmmm, sandra, great insight!
lets see how you react to this one - commuter tax. whats that? its unfair because you own a car and live in new jersey? or how about the ole' stock transfer tax? no, your financiar husband took you to mexico with his worldcom stock dump? no, not the estate tax, cause your moms crib in greenwhich is hot hot hot? or inheritance tax, cause you won't want to lose that degas, right? what we should do is get some good ole' boys who can break the MTA union, gut its insides and hire some ex-con lackeys to run it in conjunction with coca-cola or some other Awesome Private Accountable Corporation. Cause, shrug, you're just being honest. hell, those poor folk don't care if a huge chunk of their state tax goes to hwys they never drive on, so whatta you care if the mta gets a couple bucks a month. but the point is, we all know that privately run is better run. just look at all those well oiled private companies out there, looking out for you! the public! looking out for your 401K, your rights, your health. they're accountable right?
just like energy deregulation, except better, every train will run like the G train!!!!
Hey, Doh. Duh. You need to grow the fuck up. And grow some brain cells while you're at it.
That little rant of yours shows all the intelligence of um, Michael Moore. I made a couple points in my post. You managed to sidestep both, emit the usual social-parasite hysterics, and make all kinds of assumptions. Like, the girl has a car, so she must be some socialite from the suburbs. Sorry pal. I have a car because I live in Astoria. And I believe in privatization because it works.
You don't think so? Hmm. The Met. Central Park. The NY Public Library. There are a few examples for you. Some of the best "public" services the city has to offer. And you thought those were run by the city, right? Wrong.
I deal with the city hospitals for a living. I also deal with private hospitals. The HHC pays better. Its employees take longer vacations and have better benefits. Their hospitals are also unmitigated shitholes. If I were an HHC employee, I might want things to stay as they are. I might even holler for more funds so I could get a raise. But as a taxpayer, I say enough is enough.
And that's pretty much how I feel about the MTA. And I'm not alone. The days of city officials hightailing it to the islands with our hard-earned tax dollars, and then bewailing their chronic budget crises, are numbered.
Honestly, as long as the geographically relevant name was still included on the maps, I couldn't care less if they branded the stops. If they had branding in the late 90's maybe the PR money that frivolous companies like Razorfish and Urban Fetch threw away could've gone towards subsidizing station maintenance.
We are a whiny bunch, aren't we. We pay some of the lowest taxes in the developed world.
These are 1999 figures, which are pre-Bush, (and pre tax cuts):
1. Sweden 52.4% GDP
2. Denmark 49.4
3. Finland 46.3
4. Belgium 45.9
5. France 45.5
6. Austria 43.8
7. Italy 42.7
8. Norway 41.8
9. Luxembourg 41.7
10. Netherlands 41.6
11. Czech Republic 39.3
12. Hungary 38.9
13. Canada 38.0
14. Germany 37.5
15. United Kingdom 37.0
16. Greece 36.9
17. Poland 36.4
18. Slovak Republic 36.0
19. Iceland 35.9
20. New Zealand 35.8
21. Switzerland 35.0
22. Spain 34.8
23. Portugal 34.2
24. Ireland 31.9
25. Turkey 30.8
26. Australia 30.2
27. Japan 26.7
28. United States 26.0
29. Korea 24.3
30. Mexico 17.2
I'm not going to get all political on whether taxes are good or bad (a whole different debate), but let one thing be clear: WE DON'T PAY "HIGH" TAXES, so get off of your "taxpayer" high horse. We're 28th on the list. We pay less than HALF the taxes of the most taxed nation (Sweden).
Of course our government programs and subsidized services are starving for cash: the cash isn't there.
but sandra, what is your point? privatization does not equal accountability, nor does it equal efficiency. just as you point out, the same can be said for how heavily we subsidize some of the most 'private' appearing industries. neither answer is wholly successful in any situation, but your ponce on the tax guy rhetoric is as shrill and unintelligable as the privatize school lunch folks. plenty of us pay for things we don't use, we all subsidize something we don't personally benefit from. the question remains, what has energy deregulation, drug deregulation, and communications deregulation brought? 1. enron. 2. world com. 3. see this weeks NYTReview of Books... You can sing the praises of private management but Mass Transit is a public utility and should be managed as such. Period. And by the way, the Central Park Conservancy is about as close to subway sponsership as renaming the Bethesda the Blimpie Fountain, and slapping a logo on it.
Sandra,
I completely agree with you that that MTA is probably quite corrupt, and that certainly needs to be addressed. Public benefit corporations like the MTA, the Port Authority, etc. deserve a lot more scrutiny than they have received.
Yes, I want to raise taxes on car drivers. Absolutely. I want motorists to *begin* to pay their fare share of the costs they inflict on society. You may have noticed that in a City like New York, cars significantly degrade our quality of life, our health, and our communities. Adding insult to injury, they are largely unnecessary! We are blessed to live in a City that, due to geographical constraints throughout most of its history, was planned to be compact, multi-use and pedestrian-friendly (in theory).
While these increases in taxes and fees may be a temporary hardship on a few (though, really, if you own and drive a car in NYC (especially in Manhattan), you are both probably both well-off and a masochist), I suspect that everyone will benefit on the whole. Take a look at the studies done on the benefits of East River bridge tolls, for example -- less traffic in congested Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods, cleaner air, etc. And of course, money for transit -- even new transit in areas where people are unfortunately dependent upon their cars.
Government is the determiner of the transportation, and thus, "place" itself. It you don't believe me, just imagine what this country would be like without the Federal highway system. They had to raise taxes to fund that too, no? Sure, it had benefits, but also great, terrible costs that we are just beginning to tally. Now some are beginning to understand that the era of the automobile is over. There are better approaches to transportation.
Sure, Tax-Playah, we (and our corporations) don't give up as much income as the Europeans. And? The Europeans don't have the best health care or universities in the world. Or as high a percentage of home ownership. Or as many entrepreneurs. Or as low an unemployment rate. I could go on.
Anyway, we're talking about New York here, and one thing's for certain, New Yorkers do pay the highest taxes in THIS country, even as we struggle with the highest cost of living. And our "public services" - and which of these ought to be sustained is quite open to debate - ought to be accountable, whether they are run by public OR private agency. I think Sandra's point was, the MTA - like the HHC, the NYCHA, the DOE, and all our other shady governmental acronyms - has proven itself time and again to be unworthy of the public trust. It's amazing that our memories are so short, and that at times like this, the best we can do is cry for more cash to be thrown at them.
you need a car in astoria? that's funny, i just use the subway. then again, i'm just a michael-moore lovin' lib.
I would love to have my own branded station... I would put posters of me everywhere...
I'm not so sure I agree privatization = more accountability.
But ... here's common sense for you. If you're a business owner, with two employees who are more or less equally responsible, loyal, productive, etc., and you need to lay one off, which will it be? The guy who will do the job for $50K and a 401K, or the one who demands $75 and a pension? That should be pretty simple for anyone who can count.
Joe- "...The Europeans don't have the best health care or universities in the world..."
You think we have the best health care system? Personally, I think it's dismal.
Christina -
When Europeans with cash get sick, they come to America. Do you live in New York? Ever hear of Sloane-Kettering?
I didn't say it was free. I didn't say it was cheap. I said it was the best.
Wouldn't part of "best" mean that even people who don't have "cash" can be taken care of by competent (at the very least) doctors and medical personnel without having to give up half of their monthly take-home pay? So it's "best" for those who can afford it, and the rest of us are shit outta luck...
John,
So in other words, you want SOMEONE ELSE to pay the medical bills you can't afford (or don't want to pay on a payment plan.)
Isn't that what socialized medicine boils down to? Here, you pay your bills, and then pay Uncle Sam half your income in taxes, so you can pay mine too.
I don't think so.
Yes, I do currently live in NY. I have been insured, and uninusured in NY and outside of NY. And I still would not call America's health system the best. Unfortunately, everyone gets sick/injured, regardless of their ability to pay. It's not just the slackasses who can't pay medical bills. There was an interesting article in the Village Voice a couple weeks ago about the dilemma that college graduates face being in transition from college or their parents insurance, to trying to find their first job, hopefully with benefits.
I think if I were to chose the "best" health system it would be Canada. But that's just me.
And, no, I had not heard of Sloane-Kettering. But I looked it up. (I havent been in NY all that long)
I was watching Style Wars this week and thinking to myself, "Why didn't the advertisers just pay the writers to do whole cars as ads? Then everybody'd be happy."
Still, kind of makes all those "quality of life" arguments worthless. What's the difference between a train or station covered in graffiti or an advertisement to the poor sucker on his way to work? Besides the fact that writers have no money and Pfizer/Ford/Bechtel does? At least graffiti never asks you to buy something.
There's already advertising at school, in the paper, on TV - there even looking at product placement deals for novels and video games. Frankly, I'd rather see a whole car bombed (with graffiti tags - don't arrest me, Patriot Act people) than some ad for Great Adventure.
I just wish we could take the tax dollars that are going to the Red State leaches and put it back into the MTA, etc, etc. And throw in some accountability too.
Joe,
No, I want healthcare to be affordable, at the very least, which it's not. I want people who are unemployed or who work in one of the many industries or occupations that don't provide healthcare to either be able to afford it or to have it provided for them. If that means more taxes, then I'm for it. If you want to call it socialized medicine, that doesn't change my mind. I think that in a country as great as ours and as advanced as ours, the fact that a great percentage of our nation lives without the realistic possibility of being able to afford to visit the doctor without putting it on layaway is disgraceful. The president is willing to work towards putting a man on Mars and eradicating steroid use from professional sports--how about we dedicate some of that money and time to making sure that people with potentially life-threatening ailments don't have to avoid going to the doctor (or go too late and leave their family with massive bills) because they aren't covered for it or can't afford it?