Rebranding Metro

[j_cuevas713]

Hey guys, so I wanted to pick the brains of HAIFers and ask if rebranding Metro would help ridership? Right now I personally feel Metro is behind about 25 years with it's branding. 

[august948]

6 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Hey guys, so I wanted to pick the brains of HAIFers and ask if rebranding Metro would help ridership? Right now I personally feel Metro is behind about 25 years with it's branding. 

You mean like a new paint scheme...

[j_cuevas713]

No not so much just that. I feel like their typeface and main color scheme is just plain ugly. It feels like a transit agency and not in a good way. Some aesthetic updates I feel would help tie everything together better and help promote ridership for the agency. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[dbigtex56]

4 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

No not so much just that. I feel like their typeface and main color scheme is just plain ugly. It feels like a transit agency and not in a good way. Some aesthetic updates I feel would help tie everything together better and help promote ridership for the agency. 

I agree that METRO could use a fresher look, and that rebranding might draw in a few new riders. 
The problem is that repainting (or rewrapping) its existing fleet would be expensive. Add in the cost of repainting or replacing every METRO bus stop sign, redesigning its website and printed materials, even updating the operators uniforms would make it very costly. New TV ads would need to be shot.
A snappy new image won't do a thing towards addressing the shortcomings that make people reluctant to ride METRO. A gift-wrapped turd is still a turd. 
I think a new image is a good idea, but until such a time that funding makes it feasible, the emphasis should be on reliability and ease of use. 

[j_cuevas713]

16 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

I agree that METRO could use a fresher look, and that rebranding might draw in a few new riders. 
The problem is that repainting (or rewrapping) its existing fleet would be expensive. Add in the cost of repainting or replacing every METRO bus stop sign, redesigning its website and printed materials, even updating the operators uniforms would make it very costly. New TV ads would need to be shot.
A snappy new image won't do a thing towards addressing the shortcomings that make people reluctant to ride METRO. A gift-wrapped turd is still a turd. 
I think a new image is a good idea, but until such a time that funding makes it feasible, the emphasis should be on reliability and ease of use. 

That's a fair argument. I'm curious what their yearly budget is for advertising. But they could decide to release an entire rebrand campaign or change things slowly based on funding. I've seen companies/agencies do it both ways. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[zaphod]

I actually like the typeface and color scheme. It's clean and minimalistic.

What I don't like is the light rail livery. Bring back the all silver trains

[j_cuevas713]

4 minutes ago, zaphod said:

I actually like the typeface and color scheme. It's clean and minimalistic.

What I don't like is the light rail livery. Bring back the all silver trains

I think the whole red, white, and blue scheme is very played out. I would like to see them focus on red as their primary color and white as secondary for type. Maybe bring back a more retro typeface that embraces that mid century space era when Houston was really starting to grow. A simple, san serif type font that also bodes well with today's design aesthetics. Can you image a really nice deep Christmas red with white Metro font? Not only would it be appealing but it would really make drivers aware. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[mattyt36]

3 minutes ago, zaphod said:

I actually like the typeface and color scheme. It's clean and minimalistic.

What I don't like is the light rail livery. Bring back the all silver trains

I also feel like it’s held up extraordinarily well and is rather timeless—understated and elegant. And the fleet seems to ve pretty well maintained. Has Metro even had another scheme since its inception? I’ve seen HouTrans buses and those were God awful.

[j_cuevas713]

[dbigtex56]

3 minutes ago, zaphod said:

What I don't like is the light rail livery. Bring back the all silver trains

I don't like when the trains' windows are wrapped, making it impossible to see whether that car is more or less crowded than the other. I like knowing what I'm walking into. 
Can't agree with you about the silver trains. They were a disaster, virtually disappearing against the concrete and asphalt of city streets, especially at dusk.
I've heard fewer reports of vehicle/train collisions and pedestrians since METRO began wrapping them in bright colors. People have a hard enough time grasping the idea that trains run on tracks and can't stop or swerve on a dime. The "urban camouflage" silver/gray color only served to make it worse.

[BEES?!]

I think METRO has a lot more than branding fighting it right now. Transit has to compete with the personal automobile, and right now driving in one’s own car is usually: 

1) faster (esp. for so-called last mile service)

2) cheaper (depending on distance driven obv.) when I say cheaper, too, I’m factoring in point 1 here too- if someone is trying to get to work and let’s say they make $X/hr. You have to factor in what their time is worth, because sometimes it isn’t worth it to deal with more time commuting via transit. (Cost issues might chance due to the gas price jumps, but I doubt those are a permanent issue. I wonder if ridership will increase, though, when gas really starts climbing and people have places they have to be?)

3) Safer- in that you aren’t accosted by randos in your car, assaulted, robbed, etc. I don’t think our metro is especially bad for this, but perception is really important. Some people are really uncomfortable with it. I myself have dealt with some weird things happening on the metro- nothing that rattled me to my core and convinced me to never ride it again, but I def. have had my own experiences that I’d like to not have to re-live lol. :P

Transit ridership across the US was devastated by COVID. People are still scared to ride, I think. Plus you have a lot of WFH, and that makes things a lot worse for transit ridership numbers. 
 

I think metro’s focusing on stuff like BOOST ( if I’m understanding the point of the boost stops, that is) and BRT is a smart direction to go. It will help solve issues 1 & 2. The more convenient you make riding the transit vs riding a car, the more you’ll see ridership climb. 
 

That’s just my thoughts re: ridership, though. As for rebranding, I kinda like the metro aesthetic as it is, but I definitely get where you’re coming from. It could be nice to refresh it and do something interesting

Edited March 10, 2022 by BEES?!

[Andrew Ewert]

There is one and only one reason I don't use Metro all the time, and it's this:

While a rebrand would be really nice (and I agree it needs one), they need to stop being 25 years behind the times in technology first. This is just abysmal compared to Chicago where I can tap my Apple Pay on any train or bus without even having a CTA card.

[august948]

12 minutes ago, Andrew Ewert said:

There is one and only one reason I don't use Metro all the time, and it's this:

While a rebrand would be really nice (and I agree it needs one), they need to stop being 25 years behind the times in technology first. This is just abysmal compared to Chicago where I can tap my Apple Pay on any train or bus without even having a CTA card.

I thought metro had an app where you could set up to pay online.

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, Andrew Ewert said:

There is one and only one reason I don't use Metro all the time, and it's this:

While a rebrand would be really nice (and I agree it needs one), they need to stop being 25 years behind the times in technology first. This is just abysmal compared to Chicago where I can tap my Apple Pay on any train or bus without even having a CTA card.

You can pay with your phone. You don't need a Q card lol 

The option for the Q Card is still available for those that want to use it but I use my phone. 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[MikeRichardson]

I have used METRO several times, mainly to get to/from auto repair shops when a friend couldn't take me.

I actually found it to be well air conditioned, safe, and not even full those several times.

In fact one time she (the bus driver) even let me on for free, due to the bill reader would not take my wrinkled bill (I do not have a Q card) and she wanted to move things along I guess. Maybe she thought I couldn't afford it but I wasn't going to argue with her either.

I think I also used METRO one time to get to jury duty, in that case you just show the summons and you can get to wherever you need to go.

I do not think rebranding would be worth the considerable expense (in terms of ROI - I don't think they'd gain that much new ridership).

[editor]

On 3/10/2022 at 1:35 AM, BEES?! said:

I think METRO has a lot more than branding fighting it right now. Transit has to compete with the personal automobile, and right now driving in one’s own car is usually: 

1) faster (esp. for so-called last mile service)

2) cheaper (depending on distance driven obv.) when I say cheaper, too, I’m factoring in point 1 here too- if someone is trying to get to work and let’s say they make $X/hr. You have to factor in what their time is worth, because sometimes it isn’t worth it to deal with more time commuting via transit. (Cost issues might chance due to the gas price jumps, but I doubt those are a permanent issue. I wonder if ridership will increase, though, when gas really starts climbing and people have places they have to be?)

3) Safer- in that you aren’t accosted by randos in your car, assaulted, robbed, etc. I don’t think our metro is especially bad for this, but perception is really important. Some people are really uncomfortable with it. I myself have dealt with some weird things happening on the metro- nothing that rattled me to my core and convinced me to never ride it again, but I def. have had my own experiences that I’d like to not have to re-live lol. :P

Transit ridership across the US was devastated by COVID. People are still scared to ride, I think. Plus you have a lot of WFH, and that makes things a lot worse for transit ridership numbers. 
 

I think metro’s focusing on stuff like BOOST ( if I’m understanding the point of the boost stops, that is) and BRT is a smart direction to go. It will help solve issues 1 & 2. The more convenient you make riding the transit vs riding a car, the more you’ll see ridership climb. 
 

That’s just my thoughts re: ridership, though. As for rebranding, I kinda like the metro aesthetic as it is, but I definitely get where you’re coming from. It could be nice to refresh it and do something interesting

 

Quote

Transit has to compete with the personal automobile,

Does it?  Why can't transit compliment the personal automobile?  Some trips are better with transit, and some are better with a car. 

Quote

faster (esp. for so-called last mile service)

It depends on the trip.  Multiple times I have left my house, hopped on a train, and gotten to my doctor's office in under 15 minutes.  If I drove, I'd spend 15 minutes just looking for parking.

Quote

2) cheaper

Depends on your situation, and the trip.  For me, the train is almost always cheaper, both in time and in money.  The current average new car payment is $644/month.  Add $150 for insurance.  And, let's say you fill up twice a month, that's another $120.  That's $914, and not counting parking (which can be free or hundreds of dollars, depending on your situation), and maintenance (for some reason, oil changes have gotten really expensive lately).  For $914, you can take 731 trips on Metro.

But again, this just illustrates that there are no absolutes.  For some people, cars are better.  For some people transit is better.  There was a cartoon in the newspaper today that read something like, "I never realized how few places I really needed to go, until I got rid of my car."

Quote

3) Safer- in that you aren’t accosted by randos in your car, assaulted, robbed, etc.

That sounds like silly suburban pearl-clutching hysteria.  On transit, you aren't accosted by randos at stop lights trying to sell you things, or clean your windshield.  You aren't side-swiped by careless drivers.  You aren't rear-ended by insurance scammers.  You aren't shot at by people on the freeway.  You don't have to deal with speeders, road rage, people flipping you off, and the thousand other pieces of violence, major and minor, that driving subjects you to. 

How often do we see vehicular-related mayhem on the TV news?  Every. Single. Day.  Sometimes several times a day.  How often do we see transit-related mayhem on TV?  Almost never.

Transit doesn't breed violence.  People do.  And there's way more crazy people on the roads than in the buses.

As for re-branding, I don't think a name change is in order, but it could use a unified design language, and much better signage.  The light rail signs are inconsistent, confusing, and sometimes contradictory.

(Many cities call their transit agencies "Metro."  Except Las Vegas, where "Metro" is what they call the police force, so every time someone says "Metro" to me, I have to remember it's buses, not handcuffs.  But that's my problem to sort out.)

[mkultra25]

19 hours ago, editor said:

(Many cities call their transit agencies "Metro."  Except Las Vegas, where "Metro" is what they call the police force, so every time someone says "Metro" to me, I have to remember it's buses, not handcuffs.  But that's my problem to sort out.)

I've seen Rice students refer to the light rail as "the Metro". It makes perfect sense if you consider that this usage is not uncommon in other locales with rail transit, that the people calling it "the Metro" are most likely not from Houston, and that the railcars all bear prominent "Metro" signage, but to native Houstonian ears it still sounds a bit quaint. But what do I know, I still cringe when I hear "the Montrose".

[august948]

2 hours ago, mkultra25 said:

I've seen Rice students refer to the light rail as "the Metro". It makes perfect sense if you consider that this usage is not uncommon in other locales with rail transit, that the people calling it "the Metro" are most likely not from Houston, and that the railcars all bear prominent "Metro" signage, but to native Houstonian ears it still sounds a bit quaint. But what do I know, I still cringe when I hear "the Montrose".

Every time I hear "the Metro" I think of this...

 

[editor]

14 hours ago, august948 said:

Every time I hear "the Metro" I think of this...

 

🎶 I was on a Montrose train... I emerged in Uptown rain... 🎶

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

On 4/21/2022 at 1:45 PM, mkultra25 said:

I've seen Rice students refer to the light rail as "the Metro". It makes perfect sense if you consider that this usage is not uncommon in other locales with rail transit, that the people calling it "the Metro" are most likely not from Houston, and that the railcars all bear prominent "Metro" signage, but to native Houstonian ears it still sounds a bit quaint. But what do I know, I still cringe when I hear "the Montrose".

::cough cough:: californians::cough cough::

[editor]

On 4/22/2022 at 5:43 PM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

::cough cough:: californians::cough cough::

That makes sense.

In case you, and others, don't know, the reason that people from California say "the" before the names of freeways is due to history.

California had freeways before the federal interstate highway system was established, do they didn't have numbers, just names.  For example, The Seaside Freeway.  When the numbers came along, "The Seaside Freeway" became "The 710." 

It sounds weird to me, too.  And as more Californians spread around the country, I've heard "The" in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona now.  Ick.

[Some one]

2 hours ago, editor said:

That makes sense.

In case you, and others, don't know, the reason that people from California say "the" before the names of freeways is due to history.

California had freeways before the federal interstate highway system was established, do they didn't have numbers, just names.  For example, The Seaside Freeway.  When the numbers came along, "The Seaside Freeway" became "The 710." 

It sounds weird to me, too.  And as more Californians spread around the country, I've heard "The" in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona now.  Ick.

Before you know it we're gonna hear transplants refer to 59 as "The 69".

[august948]

2 hours ago, Some one said:

Before you know it we're gonna hear transplants refer to 59 as "The 69".

Cause if you're on it during rush hour you're screwed?

5 hours ago, editor said:

That makes sense.

In case you, and others, don't know, the reason that people from California say "the" before the names of freeways is due to history.

California had freeways before the federal interstate highway system was established, do they didn't have numbers, just names.  For example, The Seaside Freeway.  When the numbers came along, "The Seaside Freeway" became "The 710." 

It sounds weird to me, too.  And as more Californians spread around the country, I've heard "The" in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona now.  Ick.

Turns out we might have been building the wall on the wrong border.

[j_cuevas713]

On 4/20/2022 at 5:43 PM, editor said:

 

Does it?  Why can't transit compliment the personal automobile?  Some trips are better with transit, and some are better with a car. 

It depends on the trip.  Multiple times I have left my house, hopped on a train, and gotten to my doctor's office in under 15 minutes.  If I drove, I'd spend 15 minutes just looking for parking.

Depends on your situation, and the trip.  For me, the train is almost always cheaper, both in time and in money.  The current average new car payment is $644/month.  Add $150 for insurance.  And, let's say you fill up twice a month, that's another $120.  That's $914, and not counting parking (which can be free or hundreds of dollars, depending on your situation), and maintenance (for some reason, oil changes have gotten really expensive lately).  For $914, you can take 731 trips on Metro.

But again, this just illustrates that there are no absolutes.  For some people, cars are better.  For some people transit is better.  There was a cartoon in the newspaper today that read something like, "I never realized how few places I really needed to go, until I got rid of my car."

That sounds like silly suburban pearl-clutching hysteria.  On transit, you aren't accosted by randos at stop lights trying to sell you things, or clean your windshield.  You aren't side-swiped by careless drivers.  You aren't rear-ended by insurance scammers.  You aren't shot at by people on the freeway.  You don't have to deal with speeders, road rage, people flipping you off, and the thousand other pieces of violence, major and minor, that driving subjects you to. 

How often do we see vehicular-related mayhem on the TV news?  Every. Single. Day.  Sometimes several times a day.  How often do we see transit-related mayhem on TV?  Almost never.

Transit doesn't breed violence.  People do.  And there's way more crazy people on the roads than in the buses.

As for re-branding, I don't think a name change is in order, but it could use a unified design language, and much better signage.  The light rail signs are inconsistent, confusing, and sometimes contradictory.

(Many cities call their transit agencies "Metro."  Except Las Vegas, where "Metro" is what they call the police force, so every time someone says "Metro" to me, I have to remember it's buses, not handcuffs.  But that's my problem to sort out.)

Great take! 🔥