The MetroCard: Disillusion and Design

A MetroCard is a quintessential belonging for any New Yorker. Found in the purses, wallets, and pockets of many, a MetroCard with a balance grants access to the five boroughs through the New York City subway system, one of the largest mass transit systems in the world. Despite this initial appeal, however, the MetroCard is not all it seems. Its introduction in 1993 brought about a multitude of problems that still affect both the system and its passengers to this day. With its unchanging design, the MetroCard mirrors the lack of growth within the system itself, reflecting the dated nature of the transit system. The MetroCard, its functionality, and its design are representative of the reluctance to change a declining system and the crumbling infrastructure that impacts a variety of populations within the city.

 In 1993, the MetroCard was first introduced to the New York City subway system by the Metropolitan Transport Authority, more commonly referred to as the MTA. The first subway rides were accessed by using paper tickets, which was changed in 1953 with the introduction of a token system (Estes). The token system, typically reliable, was abandoned in 1993 and phased out completely in 2003 in favor of the new MetroCard system. Although the token system was functional, the MetroCard allows for a greater acquisition of passenger data. For example, MetroCards provide the MTA with information about what stations and trains are the most popular, and at what times the most passengers ride the subway (Estes). This information is used to understand what train lines and stations to prioritize when considering potential changes and repairs.

What was supposed to be a revolutionary change for the subway opened the system to an overflow of problems, including but not limited to faulty machinery, frustrated riders, and the exploitation of technical flaws within the MetroCards themselves, which would be deemed illegal and lead to numerous arrests (Estes). To this day, MetroCards are still accompanied by an overflow of problems. Upon inspection, many of the subway’s issues can be solved with improvements to the form of payment, yet there are more issues that cannot be ignored. Budget mismanagement, failed repairs, and unpredictable arrivals are just a few examples of major problems that cause decreased satisfaction from MTA passengers as the years progress (“M.T.A. Delays”).

Since its introduction in 2003, the design of the MetroCard has remained relatively the same. The card features the word “MetroCard” that slants across the card in blue, and recedes into the yellow background. The strong colors of the card bring a vibrancy and emotion to the subway experience that the system itself does not provide, the yellow suggesting happiness and the blue suggesting tranquility. The upper left corner of the card features the MTA’s logo in gold. The slant of the words emulates the image and motion of a train entering a tunnel to suggest speed and efficiency to passengers (Chan). Additionally, the upper right corner of the MetroCard is slanted, compared to the rest of the card’s rounded corners, to help orient visually impaired passengers, making the subway accessible to yet another group of passengers. The backs of more recent iterations of a typical MetroCard also have emergency instructions, yet in 1995, the MTA announced that they would begin to sell the space on the back of MetroCards for advertisements. Eventually, the MTA offered the entire front and back of the card to advertisers, leaving no room for safety information on cards occupied by advertisements on both sides (Estes). The addition of advertisements is the only change the visual design of the card has seen since its creation.

The design of the card has been critiqued by many. Paola Antonelli, design curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, criticizes the card, saying “It tries to suggest speed. Forget about it. It has its own charm because it’s so hapless. The M.T.A. has the power and the resources to do much better” (Chan). Other critics of the card’s design call it “boring,” “dated,” and elementary” (Chan). Conversely, some call the design of the card “iconic” and claim that it contributes to the success and branding of the system (Chan). Regardless of the public’s opinion, the yellow and blue design has inarguably made an imprint in the mind of New Yorkers because of its consistency. Ultimately, when taking an abstract look at the design of the card over the past twenty-five years since its implementation, the static design of the MetroCard is very reflective of the stagnation and decline that the NYC subway system has experienced over the past several years.

Design changes, especially on a marketable product like the MetroCard, are typical and to be expected to keep the design consistent with trends and to appeal to customers as time progresses. The MetroCard challenges the status quo in this regard, its design staying stagnant over time. The only changes to the card’s design, as aforementioned, were minor color changes and the addition of advertisements in 1995. Advertisements on both sides of the card left no room for the MetroCard logo or safety information—a change representative of the MTA’s recurrent prioritization of economic gain over safe and quality service to passengers. For example, the subway was slated to receive a new signaling system, which would help with trains’ on-time accuracy, around two decades ago. In this time, the system has only upgraded signals on one line (“M.T.A. Delays”).However, the system is planning a total upgrade of the payment system to be completed in 2023, which will allow riders to pay the fare faster and will likely increase the number of fares paid for. The subway has changed very little over the past several decades except for in ways that help it to generate more revenue, much like the MetroCard design that only changes for the sake of making money through advertisements.

While the MetroCard has been criticized for its outdated visual design, it is also an outdated payment method in comparison to other cities, both inside and outside the United States. The London Underground and other transit systems within the city have been utilizing the Oyster Card, a contactless, pay-as-you-go card, since 2003. The Oyster Card is credited with modernizing and improving the London Underground experience (Marcellin). Contactless payment cards have grown beyond simply paying for transportation in cities such as Hong Kong, where the Octopus Card allows travelers to use their card’s balance at supermarkets, vending machines and more, as well as for public transport (“Octopus Card”). While the Oyster Card, Octopus Card, and other contactless payments have received their own criticisms, they are praised for being effective and modernized systems of payment for public transport, especially compared to the MetroCard swipe system. Contactless and tap-to-pay payment systems make travel quicker and easier compared to the often malfunctioning swipe-to-pay subway turnstiles.

One disadvantage of the Oyster Card is the ability to pay for trips based on their duration, requiring passengers to tap in and out on their journey. Paris, on the other hand, regulates the cost of trip journeys. All trips within city limits cost the same amount, regardless of transfers, even across modes of transportation, such as from train to bus. This ensures “that people traveling from […] suburbs that are disproportionately low-income and minority aren’t faced with punitive double fares when they switch from suburban buses or rail onto the city system” (English). The MetroCard simply does not have the functionality to support transfers like this and commuters often suffer the consequences, having to pay for the encumbrance of a transfer. Commuters from all over the city are often inconvenienced by these problems, but they may have a particularly notable impact on low-income populations, as these transfers are not only frustrating but costly as well.

Despite the MetroCard being the cause of numerous problems, the MTA did not announce any plans to change their payment system until 2017, more than twenty years after the MetroCard’s introduction. Many are curious if the MTA will successfully implement this upgrade, given that the MTA is predicted to have $433 million of debt by 2023 (Fitzsimmons). The entire NYC subway is planned to accommodate digital tap-to-pay methods like Apple Pay or debit cards with tap-to-pay capabilities by 2023 (Estes). The implementation of the new payment system will hopefully improve the problems within the subway caused by the use of MetroCards.

However, it is possible that this system will make the subway even less accessible to riders that cannot use systems such as Apple Pay or tap-to-pay debit and credit cards. This change of payment system will perpetuate ideas of class-based exclusivity within the subway system that were previously not as apparent or impactful. It is possible that an entire population of New Yorkers who do not have access to debit or credit cards will no longer be able to use the subway. It is unclear if the new system will include an improved version of MetroCards similar to London’s tap-to-pay Oyster Card; however, this will still make the subway more difficult to access for those that cannot access debit cards or online payment methods, further propelling a harmful culture of insiders versus outsiders within the subway system and New York City as a whole (Estes).

The history of the MetroCard is reflective of the MTA’s prioritization of making money over providing quality service. Much like the appearance of the MetroCard, not much has changed about the subway itself unless such a change would allow the subway to generate more revenue. Despite fare rises and increased advertising in stations, the functionality of the system itself seems to decline, especially in less wealthy areas. The MetroCard is on its way out, set to be replaced by 2023, yet the problems it has caused are far from gone. The new subway payment system is expected to perpetuate socioeconomic hierarchy and potentially decrease passenger access to the system.  The subway system is in need of extreme reform, yet large budget deficits will make this difficult to fund. The MetroCard and subway access in general are representative of the growing disparity between social classes in New York City and how these classes are changing over time. The subway is supposed to be a uniting force within the city, providing access to transportation to all despite status, yet its poor service and continuous controversy expose the divide between city residences.

Works Cited

Chan, Sewell. “Does the MetroCard Need a Makeover?” The New York Times, 7 Jan. 2008, https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/does-the-metrocard-need-a-makeover.

Cools, Mario, et al. “Identification of the Determinants of Fare Evasion.” Case Studies on Transport Policy 6, no. 3 (2018): 348–352. https://doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2017.10.007.

English, Johnathan. “Why Public Transportation Works Better Outside the U.S.” CityLab, 22 Oct. 2018, https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/10/while-america-suffocated-transit-other-countries-embraced-it/572167.

Estes, Adam C. “The Cursed History of NYC MetroCards.” Gizmodo, 23 Oct. 2017, https://gizmodo.com/the-cursed-history-of-nyc-metrocards-1819774428.

Fitzsimmons, Emma G. “The Subway Is in Financial Crisis. Are 500 More Police Officers Needed?” The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/nyregion/mta-police-officers-subway-plan.html.

Marcellin, Frances. “Cracking Open The Story and Future of London’s Oyster Card.” Railway Technology, 12 Dec. 2019, https://www.railway-technology.com/features/oyster-card-future.

“M.T.A. Delays: How Did the Subway Get So Bad?” The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/nyregion/mta-train-delays.html.

“Octopus Card.” Hong Kong Tourism Board, https://www.discoverhongkong.com/us/plan-your-trip/traveller-info/transport/getting-around/octopus-card.jsp.