CTA Looks Into Naming Rights For Stations

screw that. sounds like it would make for one extremely cheesy-sounding public transit system. it would be an embarrassment to the city.

Sell away...
I don't understand why anyone would be adamantly against this if it helps to fix the CTA. Would people really rather use a sub-par commuter system in order to avoid having to call something by a corporate name?

"I guess Loyola, Merchandise Mart, and Sox/35th started a slippery slope."

Um, what? Those aren't corporate sponsorships, those are descriptions of where the stops are. Loyola is both next to the university and off of Loyola Avenue. The Merchandise Mart is where that stop is, just like Library is where the library is. And Sox/35th describes exactly that. Nobody paid for any of that.

I for one will glady ride a poorly maintained, limited service, corporate sponsorship-free public transportation system--just make sure there are no smelly people.

Tecki's got the right idea. Go whole hog. Although there's no reason you can't do both. This way there are tiers allowing for both big money title sponsorship of whole lines and lower cost, stop naming rights. Throw in signage and sampling rights at each stop and you're halfway there. I'm sure the CTA's got the demographics to show what target markets sponsors can reach based on each stop.

Does anyone really call it US Cellular Field? Most call it sox park, older people call it Comisky, some call it "the cell". Do you call it "Cloudgate" or "The Bean"?

No one's going to call these stations by these silly names. We'll call it whatever is shortest, clearest and most convenient.

This won't fill in the money hole. That takes actual reform. Kryptonite to the CTA Superman.

That being said, I'm still wondering why the CTA doesn't make full use of the advertising dollars/space available inside the buses and trains. Half of the placards up there are construction notices and public service announcements. If they made those relatively inexpensive-to-produce items more appealing to advertisers, maybe that would foot some of the bill.

And of the actual ads on the buses/trains, half of those are expired. My favorite example is the Top Chef season 2 ad that I presume was also advertising Top Chef season 3 six months later.

I can't wait to take the Kraft Macaroni and Cheese line to Skokie...

I understand some of the people who have a kneejerk reaction to the idea of selling the naming rights to stations. I remember ay back in college when the head of the Charlotte Area Transit System announced that they wouldn't use advertising on the exteriors of buses anymore.

At the time, young socialist that I was, I thought this was an excellent idea. No more clutter, no more consumerism, etc.

As a pragmatic adult, however, I have to say any new revenue for transit is good revenue. The state and federal governments can't be depended on to foot the bill, and there's just too much that needs to be done with the little money there is.

Advertising, real estate, whatever. Bring in the money!

I believe the reason why ad space on the CTA is underutilized is because they don't manage their own space - Viacom does. They have a contract with CTA, and just pay them a certain amount each year regardless of revenue. That's why there are old ads, empty space, and odd placements.

As to why they decided to start wrapping buses in crazysexycool ads for Living Single rather than properly manage existing ad space, I dunno.

Albany Parkour:

Who said I'm abandoing my principles? Just becuase I don't believe the same stupid shit I believed when I was in college? How far do you want to take this? I believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny in elementary school -- did I abandon my principles then, too?

Growing up means learning to see the world for the colorful mess it is, not stubbornly insisting that the world is in Black and White. That's the dead-end of the socialists, fundamentalists, communists and neoconservatives.

Legalize heroin? Sell kidneys? Ha ha. Ok, maybe not *any* revenue. You got me -- oh, that'll teach me to use hyperbole when commenting in a freaking blog.

And as for all your other comments, so your answer is ... what, exactly?

Eliminating waste and graft is just as important, but that's not enough.

The CTA would still need more money, even if we elimnated all the waste and graft. So, back to the naming rights, real estate, and whatever *reasonable* revenue generators the CTA can find.

Who said I'm abandoing my principles? Just becuase I don't believe the same stupid shit I believed when I was in college?

Yeah, who wants to believe things you learn in school? That be dumb.

Growing up means learning to see the world for the colorful mess it is, not stubbornly insisting that the world is in Black and White.

Morals are such a pain aren't they?

That's the dead-end of the socialists, fundamentalists, communists and neoconservatives.

Do I need to give you more rope, or can you get a good knot yet?

Only fanatics hold to their principles. Fucking Thomas Jefferson, fucking Lincoln. If only they'd been pragmatists.

Legalize heroin? Sell kidneys? Ha ha. Ok, maybe not *any* revenue. You got me -- oh, that'll teach me to use hyperbole when commenting in a freaking blog.

Thank you for dissembling.

Eliminating waste and graft is just as important, but that's not enough.

Oh I think you'd be surprised what a system that isn't burdened with patronage, cronyism, theft and nepotism can actually get accomplished.

Look at the DMV. Jesse White (another fucking idealist, fuck him, grow up!) streamlined the system, cleaned out the decades of graft and made it work. Have you been to the DMV in Illinois lately? Shorter lines, greater efficiency, better working environment for employees. After his reforms the Secretary of State's office actually managed to tackle issues like teen driving regulation and drunk driving. When you aren't mired in nonsense you can actually expand services.

Actually, Albany, Lincoln was often--or even mostly--a pragmatist, and often found himself at odds with the radical Republicans, who were fanatics and hard-core idealists.

Jefferson, slave-owner that he was, and with the types of campaigns he ran, was hardly the idealist you are trying to make him to be. Hell, his purchase of all that land from France was more pragmatic than idealistic, as he even admitted he had no authority under the Constitution to buy Louisiana.

I wonder sometimes if you have learned your history from brochures or post cards or History Channel programs.

"Yeah, who wants to believe things you learn in school? That be dumb."

Questioning what you learn in school is a sign of an independent mind, so are you saying we need to accept everything we are told?

And this I don't understand: We both agree that the graft, corruption and incompetence in CTA need to end, but you want to pick a fight over the morality of selling naming rights?

And I stand by my point that the CTA would still need the money. An independent audit showed that, even if all the waste, graft, etc. were eliminated, the CTA would still need higher revenues to do its job.

Face it - without serious budget reform on part of the state, city, and the CTA itself, there will be no solution and selling the Blue Line Western stop naming rights to Menards will not make a dent.

Dang, you beat me to it. But yeah, what you said.

I'll be cab drivers are still waiting on that revenue that putting those big advertising lights on the tops of their cars was going to bring.

"Only fanatics hold to their principles. Fucking Thomas Jefferson, fucking Lincoln. If only they'd been pragmatists."

Actually, they were. For better or worse. Jefferson compromised on the Declaration of Independence, cutting out references to abolishing slavery.

Lincoln made it clear that slavery was a side issue to him, that the suffering of millions of people was less important to him than preserving the union:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Now, if you want to equate my supporting selling naming rights for stations to continuing chattel slavery ... well, that would be a stretch. My point is simply that you may want to try some other "idealists" for your example if you want to indict me.

Mother Teresa perhaps? Whose unswerving devotion to her principles allowed countless women and children to suffer and/or die becuase she opposed birth control?

As I have said: I haven't abandoned my principles, I simply have newer, and hopefully, better ones today than I did 10 years ago. If I'm wrong, hopefully I will learn and evolve, and have even better ones before the next 10 years are up.

But saying I'm immoral or abandoning all principles becuase I think the CTA should take reasonable measures to increase revenue, is really just goofy.

gerobobo:

I think you are absolutely right. Enormous reform is necessary for the CTA. And selling naming rights won't solve everything.

But what I think we are all getting wrong here is this "either/or" mentality. Supporting naming rights does not mean opposing reform, and supporting reform does not mean opposing naming rights.

I happen to support both reform and naming rights, because my observations from living in many different cities have shown that most transit systems, whether well-run or not, are in a constant need for more money. To maintain existing infrastructure, to pay pensions, build new infrastructure, pay for gas, etc.

However, instead of debating the relative merits of selling naming rights to stations as part of a solution to this problem, we are talking about the morality of Abraham Lincoln.

I knew at heart you are a cynic, in that you usually take the dimmest view possible of other people and their motivations.

The man is making his argument on the cynical estimations of some of the loudest puff-balls in the media. The Mother Theresa smear is odious and comes from Hitchens snotty little exercise in controversial-ism.

To call a spade a farm implement does not make one John Deere.

Don't worry, Albany. I don't want to know you either. Not just from what you've written here, but from other posts of yours I've seen on this site. It is funny to accuse me of snark, when your first response to me was nothing but.

The only reptillian one here is you, attacking people for no reason other than to assert your own moral superiority, accusing strangers of being immoral or unprincipled.

You assert that by choosing to evolve my principles over time based on new experiences and knowledge, I have become unprincipled. But the truth is, I know when it is time to change and, hopefully, improve.

For example. I used to believe that homosexuality was wrong, mostly becuase of what I heard from people around me. But I grew up, learned a thing or two, and now fully support all civil rights for gays and lesbians. My principles changed, but, I believe, for the better.

The same thing about advertising. I used to think advertising was inherently evil. I've now had time to think that one over, and I realize that it's more complicated than that. So, while the idea of posting ads on buses seemed immoral to me then, I have a different view now.

You can interpret that as being unprincipled, selling out, whatever. I see it as growing up and evolving. And, unlike you, I admit that I do not have sole possession of the truth. I know this because I have been wrong before, so chances are I could be wrong now -- and if not now, than at some other time.

But I try to live my life according to my values and morals, doing my best to fine tune them as I learn more about myself, other people and the world.

It is funny to accuse me of snark, when your first response to me was nothing but.

Stop, I'll blush.

The only reptillian one here is you, attacking people for no reason other than to assert your own moral superiority, accusing strangers of being immoral or unprincipled.

Actually, reptiles don't act save in their own biological self-interest. It's we wise apes who have morals and such. Being called morally superior by you is a compliment I suppose.

You assert that by choosing to evolve my principles over time based on new experiences and knowledge, I have become unprincipled. But the truth is, I know when it is time to change and, hopefully, improve.

Does your skin feel tight, or just dry and itchy? I imagine it's like a sunburn gone really bad.

For example. I used to believe that homosexuality was wrong, mostly becuase of what I heard from people around me. But I grew up, learned a thing or two, and now fully support all civil rights for gays and lesbians.

How beneficent.

The same thing about advertising. I used to think advertising was inherently evil.

Something I never argued. Advertising can be beneficial, it can be excessive. Seems you were quite the extremist as a youth.

I've now had time to think that one over, and I realize that it's more complicated than that. So, while the idea of posting ads on buses seemed immoral to me then, I have a different view now.

So the choice is between advertising as an inherent evil or accepting advertising anywhere/anytime? That's not only unprincipled, it's simply false choice.

You can interpret that as being unprincipled, selling out, whatever.

No, just your willingness to accept any revenue as acceptable. A revenue deficiet can be overcome without resorting to simple whoring.

I see it as growing up and evolving.

And I see it as moving from naive to cynical, bypassing idealism and progressivism enitrely.

And, unlike you, I admit that I do not have sole possession of the truth.

I don't have THE TRUTH. But I know FALSE when I see it.

But I try to live my life according to my values and morals, doing my best to fine tune them as I learn more about myself, other people and the world.

A child's primer. Thank you for summarizing.

Oh please, don't try to play Dad with me. Sitting me down, talking it through, the hugging, the crying, the sharing and, of course, the caring. No need for it.

It all leads to post-ejaculation remorse anyway. I prefer the blue balls of Matilda.

Ah, after a long weekend away and a Monday spent catching up, its refreshing to stop back by this little place on the web and still see Albanyparkour lashing out at everyone who dares to admit they don't see it exactly his way. Poor soul.

I think we can all agree we'd like to see the CTA suck in its gut a little. Nobody wants their fares to go up. Even the most cynical among us can not debate this... i hope.

That being said, are we willing to have our stops naming rights sold off in order to up revenue? I, personally, don't see the harm in having to use the "Chicago Brown Line Hershey Stop" in lieu of the "Chicago Brown Line Stop" if it means trackers on all buses, more money to invest in hybrid tech, more regular and clean service...

We don't know enough of the details to rule it out yet. We don't know the scope, or the implications. The same could be said for accepting it as a good idea. Most of us will wait to make our final judgment until all facts have been released. I hope those who have already made up their minds will let the rest of us decide as details emerge.