December 16, 2008
Metro Says Google Transit Could Happen if it Made Them Money
$68,000. That's how much money WMATA earned from web advertising in the last fiscal year. It's also, according to the Examiner, what the agency says is keeping Washington's public transit riders from being able to use Google Transit, a story which has picked up considerable steam since Greater Greater Washington got it started and we reported on it last weekend.
Metro spokeswoman Candace Smith told the paper that “[integration with Google] can’t just be a private company getting something off the back of a public agency.” Because making only $68,000 from 16 million monthly page views is worth protecting? (Hint: that's really not much revenue based on that kind of traffic, guys. You should be doing way better than that).
WMATA is far from the only public transportation system in the United States facing budgetary problems. But somehow New York, Chicago, and Atlanta managed to make the incredibly large sacrifices required in order to join Google Transit's growing list of participating jurisdictions.
Certainly Metro needs to protect its revenue streams, but at the same time, doesn't a "public agency" have a responsibility to act in the best interest of that public? Stringing along a much-clamored for external service for almost a year, then canning it by claiming that it could cut in to all of $68,000 of the agency's dollars is pretty silly. Metro, we deserve better.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
How much would they charge to just STFU? Let's "make that happen." Because I find this hemming and hawing over chump change to be irritating.
[ report this ]
In typical WMATA fashion, this gets the "what's in it for me" approach instead of the "what's in it for the people" take...no wonder the Grahamstander on their board.
[ report this ]
So they made a dollar for every 2823 people that viewed the page last year? (16 million page views a month x 12 months / $68000) How many millions of more dollars would they make a year by making the system more accessible? They have a serious shortage of funds, yet it seems like they are going out of their way to make the system more easily accessible to more people, thus increasing their revenue. Idiots.
[ report this ]
Maybe WMATA can get Campbell Brown to advertise on their site. That might boost revenue.
[ report this ]
Wow.
Donation buttons on the site would raise more money than that.
[ report this ]
So Metro feels it can't collect the extra $186 a day from web ads via the fare box? Really...?
Make the information easier to access and people will be more inclined to use the service and, ya know, generate revenue. I don't think it would be that hard in the long run for the use of Google Transit (if allowed) to generate the extra trips needed to offset the ad revenue.
However, any move to Google will work best if the surrounding transit agencies move as well. What's Ride On, Dash, et al, stance to this?
[ report this ]
I'm guessing they could save 68K by outsourcing that portion of the site to Google. No need for more development, maintenance, bandwidth, server power, etc. for their shoddy trip planner.
[ report this ]
What I'd like to know is how much it costs WMATA to run their site per year.
The more people you direct towards Google for timetables, the less you have to do on your end (which isn't much right now anyway). I'm not saying scrap the site. But let Google do the heavy lifting and you can spend less time and money dumbing down the interwebs.
[ report this ]
You should link to the petition
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/campaigns/googletransit/index.cgi
[ report this ]
And everyone here should write what they've written here on the petition.
[ report this ]
mainland: i made that argument in my letter that i sent to the wmata board from the GGW petition site. it's a great point, i think.
in addition, i've always harped on wmata for the crap job they do earning advertising dollars. they have TONS of captive eyes every day, and they have all this space on the buses (for example, above the seats where advertising traditionally goes on the interior of the bus) which is never utilized to its maximum extent.
whomever is in charge of bring advertising revenue in at wmata is negligent, period. if this is the job they're doing, they should be fired, immediately, and a job search should be undertaken for someone who can actually bring in the dollars that wmata should have no problem finding.
[ report this ]
Wow.
Just, wow.
Do they think so little of their own site that they think that nobody will use it if Google Transit is working?
Obviously this also casts a new light on the clusterf*ck that has been NextBus. I always suspected it had to do with money and not, as they said, technical difficulties.
How do they explain the blatant lies about Google Transit they've fed for a year? Clearly the web group at WMATA talked the agency out of doing this (for their own benefit, of course). The only question is when.
Frankly I don't care that much about Google Transit. I probably wouldn't use it much. But it's the principal of WMATA having their priorities completely and utterly backwards that makes me livid.
[ report this ]
IMGoph I recall reading that when the subways were being designed the architects and engineers purposefully chose not to maximize the about of space available for advertising. It was a part of the model for a "community" subway. As for the buses, I'm not sure.
[ report this ]
CATOE, GET THE FUCK OUT.
NOW.
[ report this ]
i think this is a misreading. i think what smith means is that WMATA doesn't think google should get to keep any advertising dollars they'd collect on WMATA content in google applications.
the $68,000 you write about would be money WMATA makes from the google ads on wmata.com.
i'm not agreeing with metro -- i think they by not participating they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. just trying to parse whatever flawed reasoning they're putting out there.
[ report this ]
So this Google Transit thing.. I can do it on my Blackberry by downloading the Google Maps application and having the app route a trip for me. When it does this, it gives me driving, transit and walking directions. When I click on 'transit', it actually gives me Metrobus times. But it has a disclaimer in red: "These results may be incomplete - not all transit agencies in this area have provided their info."
God, WMATA, you are SO close. The layout is right here. Just fork over your timetables already! :)
[ report this ]
I wonder, since the routes are publicly available, could Google just say fuck you to WMATA and incorporate the information on their own? It might not be as absolutely accurate with out regular updates on changes from WMATA, but could it really be any more inaccurate and unreliable than WMATA's own trip planner?
[ report this ]
Metro is run by morons.
How much money will they be wasting on cleaning the new cloth seats?
And now this nonsense?
Every single person in an admin function should be fired.
[ report this ]
Clearly Metro has an indefensible position here.
They will not lose 100% of their web traffic, so it is unreasonable to make one entity pay that. In addition, would they give refunds to Google if every time another company asks for it?
How about if they just install LED lights in one more station? Paid for, and then some.
And how much did it cost Metro to hand out free hand sanitizers compared to how much it would cost to hand out schedule data? And how much does Metro pay to printing schedules? Maybe they could sell advertising there to offset costs. Paid for again.
[ report this ]
This should surprise no one. We're talking about WMATA here. 'Nuff said.
[ report this ]
And now, it turns out, Metro will be charging prak fares all day on Inauguration Day. Certainly they will rake in $68k more than they would have otherwise. Paid for again.
[ report this ]
To put it in perspective, they spent more on their new conference room furniture ($75k) than their paltry web ad revenue, but $68k is going to keep them from working with Google?
Beyond idiotic -- I'd really like to take Catoe to Junkpunchers, if you know what I mean.
[ report this ]
why the f*ck would anyone think architects and engineers decide how much advertising is displayed? signage is something produced by printers. the cases are produced by manufacturers. The property owner discides how much product they want to purchase. Architects and engineers have nothing to do with it.
Look up the definitions of these two professions, sumergocognito.
[ report this ]
Metro has a point. None of you would be doing a deal like this if someone else made most of the money while you are running out. $68K isn't worth it.
[ report this ]
sumergocognito: i'm talking about the space over the seats running down both sides of the buses. it's about 9-12 inches tall, and ads are about 20 inches wide. those spots are not unique to wmata buses, they exist on every bus in the country.
and most of the time, when i am on a wmata bus, those spaces are either empty or full of ads for things that happened 6-8 months ago.
wmata's ad-selling division (whatever that is) isn't doing a good job of filling the spaces they have.
[ report this ]
Stanton Park - The Greatergreaterwashington crowd certainly are happy that Metro is charging rushhour rates Innauguration Day. I'm thinking it's a covert plan by WMATA to get more funding. Couple million tourists, choke the system, grinding it to a standstill. Add the usual track closures and tunnel fires and NO TOILETS, and watch them come begging for more cash. "See? The system is falling apart! WE NEED MORE MONEY."
They charge rush-hour rates all day or the Metro crashes and burns. Either way, they make money. It's win-win.
[ report this ]
Wow Stapalouva, calm down. He was talking bout the fact the architects and engineers created a design to the whole metro system deliberately devoid of advertising, as directed. The Metro was supposed to be a model transportation system in our Nation's Capital. It was designed to be minimalist, clean and efficient. They did not want advertising or any other "clutter." Keep in mind at this time, the NYC subways, etc. were covered in graffiti, posted bills, and were filthy. DC's system was to stand in stark contrast.
We can all argue now, years later, how that vision worked. But the point is the stations, cars, etc. in the system were never designed to be sources of advertising revenue. Their hope was beauty and function would be enough.
[ report this ]
I never understood why they don't just put ads over those noise-damping plates in the station wall recesses. How difficult would it be to just silkscreen something over those? Baltimore used to make some decent money off ad space on parking meters. Definitely make more than the measly $68k they're making off their lousy website. Maybe then, they'd use Google maps.
[ report this ]
"Wow Stapalouva, calm down." That's not anger, but being stunned. There are actually people in this world that think architects are to blame for WMATA not making any advertising money? Wow.
sumergocognito's comment specifically stated that the architects CHOSE to prevent advertising. The architects did not. The client did. The architects fulfilled their wishes.
And learn to spell, if you're going to criticize other comments.
[ report this ]
Ranting and indignation on the internet feels good!