Google: We don't pay MTA for data

Government

Google: We don't pay MTA for data

by Michael Perkins • August 24, 2009 11:10 am

After last week's article about Google's contract Google with New York's and Chicago's transit agencies, Google got back to me by email. I'd contacted them before running the article, but their spokesperson was on vacation. After checking with their business development manager and MTA, Google's Elaine Filadelfo confirmed for the record that Google does not pay MTA any fees under their agreement.

Photo by yoz.

In addition to the specific denial about the MTA, Google Business Development Manager Tom Sly said, "I personally worked on many of our agreement with our transit partners over the last three years (including the MTA), and I am not aware of any instance of Google paying a transit agency for data."

When asked about whether Google would consider using data that was made freely available, as Arlington has proposed, Filadelfo stated that Google would prefer to work with transit agencies as partners under written agreements, but would not rule out using freely available data without an agreement.

This leaves Metro with essentially no hope of negotiating any sort of fee from Google. If the MTA wasn't able to obtain compensation for access to the largest transit ridership in the country (and it's clear that in other cases they wanted to get that compensation), then it's a really remote chance that Metro will be able to.

11 comments

Tags: data openness, Google, WMATA

Google paid for NYC data (or not); Chicago removed indemnification (Aug 20, 2009)
Google and WMATA signed Google Transit agreement in July (Jan 27, 2011)
Boston Google Transit agreement is more balanced (Dec 8, 2009)
Metro "punts": Will release transit schedule data for Google and others (Mar 11, 2009)
Arlington releases open transit data, on Google soon (Apr 13, 2010)

Michael Perkins blogs about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia.

Comments
Add a comment »

Didn't GGW report somewhere that Metro spent $500,000 to research if they could get paid for that data? Looks like you did that research for free.

by Erik on Aug 24, 2009 11:24 am • link • report

They're planning to bid out for a contract to do that this fall. I plan to try to persuade the Board not to waste the money.

by David Alpert on Aug 24, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

Better convince the GM.

Metro staff requested that the GM and Metro staff should have the power to enter contracts without board approval as long as they were listed in the schedule of contracts (this one was) and they were less than $1M. I haven't listened to the audio, but I think the Board might have approved this policy change.

by Michael Perkins on Aug 24, 2009 11:28 am • link • report

I just looked it up. At the June Board meeting, the Board approved a change to allow the GM to enter competitive contracts without board approval as long as the contract had been listed on a listing of contracts that was approved by the board. During the July meeting, the Board considered whether to allow the GM to enter non-competitive contracts less than $1M as long as they're on the approved list.

This contract was listed as part of the 2010 fiscal year budget, so it's out of the Board's hands. The GM can enter into a contract up to $500,000 to find out what, if anything, Metro's intellectual property is worth.

I suppose the board could step in and direct him not to do so. They should, or at least they should change the approved amount to something much smaller, like $50,000.

I'd like to see more Metro logo t-shirts, hats, Thomas the Tank Engine trainsets, "Wake me when I get to buttons, etc. -- all those would be legitimate licensing of Metro's trademarks. I have a license shirt from MTA extolling the virtues of the green #4 line. Why not one for the Orange?

by Michael Perkins on Aug 24, 2009 11:41 am • link • report

should be "wake me when I get to station name buttons".

by Michael Perkins on Aug 24, 2009 11:43 am • link • report

Yeah, I'd love to see Metro sell their brand for money - but not their schedule data.

There's got to be at least some of this going on already - I've seen a Metro Map umbrella in the gift shop at the National Building Museum...

You can also find it online:

http://www.dcgiftshop.com/items/Metro_Subway_Map_Umbrella.html

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 11:52 am • link • report

If not this, then what's in the redacted section of the MTA/Google contract?

by Gavin Baker on Aug 24, 2009 12:00 pm • link • report

Well I'll be - Metro does have merch on sale:

http://www.dcmetrostore.com/

Still, they're missing the most iconic image of all stations - the pylon! There, I'm a marketing genius. Give me the $500,000.

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 12:01 pm • link • report

I was recently in London and went to the Transport Museum. They had everything branded with underground stuff. This seems like a better venture than trying to sell the transit data!

www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/

by Erik on Aug 24, 2009 12:03 pm • link • report

As does New York's Transit Museum in Brooklyn. Went there a few months ago with my kids, and besides being a terrific museum, it had a great shop with tons of MTA branded material.

http://www.mta.info/mta/museum/

by TimK on Aug 24, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report

Gavin, given that the agreement covers trademarks as well as the actual data, my guess is the redacted portion says how much Google is paying to license the *trademarks*. Google's press statement specifically says they haven't paid any agencies for "data" but says nothing about what they've paid to use the MTA's symbols, etc.

The MTA has been pretty firm that they require licensing fees for the use of their trademarks. See this document that they sent me in response to my asking for a clarification of their current policies: http://bit.ly/mta-license-info (and see http://nytransitdata.org for the notes and other info from the meetup we had about this last night).

by Nicholas Bergson-Shilcock on Aug 26, 2009 2:04 pm • link • report