4 ms·

The MTA spent wads of cash adding screens and displays all over platforms throughout the city -- ones which show ads for 30 seconds+ at a time instead of showin

The MTA spent wads of cash adding screens and displays all over platforms throughout the city -- ones which show ads for 30 seconds+ at a time instead of showing actual useful things like when the next train is coming, or whether there are service disruptions. Instead you get to stand there waiting for what feels like hours while trying to make decisions. Fixing that and catching up to public transit throughout the world is more important than redesigning the way the map looks.

woodruffw 5y ago
I think the bigger offense with the displays isn't the ads (the subway is already plastered with them, and the new screens will pay for themselves in that manner) but how remarkably crappy the panels are. I have corrective lenses that give me normal vision, and I have to really squint to make out station names and bullets on the digitized system maps that the panels display. I feel terrible for anyone whose vision is even slightly worse than mine, much less tourists who have enough trouble with the printed maps.
- afavour 5y ago
  I have fine vision and the maps are still terrible for me. If I get close I can see that the text labels for the stations are barely legible because the panel resolution is so poor. If only it were feasible to install high DPI eink panels instead. But then those ads wouldn’t be anywhere near as attention grabbing, would they?
- JulianWasTaken 5y ago
  There was a post I can't find at the minute by someone whose core point was "digital displays aren't always better than paper maps MTA, the displays are really hard to read and much lower resolution". It was a good design article to my recollection, but yeah I can't find it unfortunately. But: > I think the bigger offense with the displays isn't the ads (the subway is already plastered with them, and the new screens will pay for themselves in that manner) Of course seeing ads isn't new -- the point is the displays were put in at least partially to serve as station info. c.f. https://new.mta.info/accessibility/stationlab/CICs https://new.mta.info/accessibility/stationlab/CICs In my experience, they literally do not function that way, they don't give information in a timely manner such that you can decide whether to wait or not without standing there waiting till it finally shifts to the screen with service info, which can take minutes. But maybe we can agree both are big issues :) -- the map thing is certainly something I sympathize with -- all in all, I think the displays are a failure other than for making ad revenue, so we the transiters have lost again.
bobthepanda 5y ago
IIRC, they didn't actually spend any money. The model (which is pretty common in major cities) is that an ad agency paid to put those things there.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Bombarding people with adverts. In London farebox income in 2019 was £4.9b, and advertising was £158m. If there were no adverts (and thus the resulting theft of brain power - especially on moving ones on screens), a tube fare would have to increase from £2.40 to £2.47, a 3% increase. It's like this with many services that you buy - Sky TV's total subscription income was £11b, advertising £1.4b. A £30/month package coming with 20 minutes of adverts an hour would cost £34 with no adverts at all. (In reality I don't pay for sky, because it has adverts, so I guess adverts mean the cost goes from £30 to £0) Advertising is a cancer on the world.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    To be fair, I don't really mind the adverts on the tube. They're fairly often for things that are actually useful and that I wouldn't otherwise have heard of like plays / albums or taxi services. And most of them are paper posters rather than screens which makes them a lot less intrusive.
    - mFixman 5y ago
      Personally, I do mind them. It's hard to relax with so many aggressive ads in my face trying to sell me things all the time. London is already really good with restricting obstructive adverts in the city to buses and cabs; it's a pity that the underground is stuffed to the brim with them.
nojito 5y ago
Why do that when everyone has a smartphone and can get love train updates directly?
- jareklupinski 5y ago
  this is a good split: look up and use the public, free ad-funded network or look down and use your private, paid-for ad-free terminal
- iso1210 5y ago
  > can get love train updates directly Is that how you get to the love boat?
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Batteries run out and connectivity isn't guaranteed. I dont know if you've ever been to another country with unsupported connectivity, but it kinda sucks when you are low on battery and need to figure out where to go.
  - nojito 5y ago
    Sure but this thread is about the MTA in NYC.
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      Are you saying one of the most toursity places in the USA, dont get tourists?
      - nojito 5y ago
        Nope but you can easily charge your phone, get service, or just ask someone on the station when the train is coming in NYC.
- niij 5y ago
  Not everyone has access to a smartphone at all times.

woodruffw 5y ago

I think the bigger offense with the displays isn't the ads (the subway is already plastered with them, and the new screens will pay for themselves in that manner) but how remarkably crappy the panels are. I have corrective lenses that give me normal vision, and I have to really squint to make out station names and bullets on the digitized system maps that the panels display. I feel terrible for anyone whose vision is even slightly worse than mine, much less tourists who have enough trouble with the printed maps.

afavour 5y ago
I have fine vision and the maps are still terrible for me. If I get close I can see that the text labels for the stations are barely legible because the panel resolution is so poor. If only it were feasible to install high DPI eink panels instead. But then those ads wouldn’t be anywhere near as attention grabbing, would they?
JulianWasTaken 5y ago
There was a post I can't find at the minute by someone whose core point was "digital displays aren't always better than paper maps MTA, the displays are really hard to read and much lower resolution". It was a good design article to my recollection, but yeah I can't find it unfortunately. But: > I think the bigger offense with the displays isn't the ads (the subway is already plastered with them, and the new screens will pay for themselves in that manner) Of course seeing ads isn't new -- the point is the displays were put in at least partially to serve as station info. c.f. https://new.mta.info/accessibility/stationlab/CICs https://new.mta.info/accessibility/stationlab/CICs In my experience, they literally do not function that way, they don't give information in a timely manner such that you can decide whether to wait or not without standing there waiting till it finally shifts to the screen with service info, which can take minutes. But maybe we can agree both are big issues :) -- the map thing is certainly something I sympathize with -- all in all, I think the displays are a failure other than for making ad revenue, so we the transiters have lost again.

bobthepanda 5y ago

IIRC, they didn't actually spend any money. The model (which is pretty common in major cities) is that an ad agency paid to put those things there.

iso1210 5y ago
Bombarding people with adverts. In London farebox income in 2019 was £4.9b, and advertising was £158m. If there were no adverts (and thus the resulting theft of brain power - especially on moving ones on screens), a tube fare would have to increase from £2.40 to £2.47, a 3% increase. It's like this with many services that you buy - Sky TV's total subscription income was £11b, advertising £1.4b. A £30/month package coming with 20 minutes of adverts an hour would cost £34 with no adverts at all. (In reality I don't pay for sky, because it has adverts, so I guess adverts mean the cost goes from £30 to £0) Advertising is a cancer on the world.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  To be fair, I don't really mind the adverts on the tube. They're fairly often for things that are actually useful and that I wouldn't otherwise have heard of like plays / albums or taxi services. And most of them are paper posters rather than screens which makes them a lot less intrusive.
  - mFixman 5y ago
    Personally, I do mind them. It's hard to relax with so many aggressive ads in my face trying to sell me things all the time. London is already really good with restricting obstructive adverts in the city to buses and cabs; it's a pity that the underground is stuffed to the brim with them.

nojito 5y ago

Why do that when everyone has a smartphone and can get love train updates directly?

jareklupinski 5y ago
this is a good split: look up and use the public, free ad-funded network or look down and use your private, paid-for ad-free terminal
iso1210 5y ago
> can get love train updates directly Is that how you get to the love boat?
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Batteries run out and connectivity isn't guaranteed. I dont know if you've ever been to another country with unsupported connectivity, but it kinda sucks when you are low on battery and need to figure out where to go.
- nojito 5y ago
  Sure but this thread is about the MTA in NYC.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    Are you saying one of the most toursity places in the USA, dont get tourists?
    - nojito 5y ago
      Nope but you can easily charge your phone, get service, or just ask someone on the station when the train is coming in NYC.
niij 5y ago
Not everyone has access to a smartphone at all times.