Opaque window ads: proceed carefully

Opaque ad at 11th & Liberty

Oh please let's not do this.
I do understand about the need for advertising ... it can be an important source of revenue for a transit company. And may be even more important if the state legislature decides to cut funding for mass transit.
And EMTA certainly has acres and acres of unused bus and shelter surface that can be used for revenue-generating ads.
But please let's not put it in places where riders need to see out.
People making decisions about where to put signage need to gain some understanding of what passengers do with their eyes. For instance, everyone waiting for a bus watches to see if it's coming. Even the guy who is too cool to look like a bus person sneaks a few peaks in that direction.
If you need me to explain why it's good that they do this, let me know.
Apparently though, somebody does not understand why it's a problem if you can't see in that direction.
I get that you want the ad to be close to traffic, so more people see it, but then you need to use see-through vinyl, not opaque. If the advertising customer insists on opaque, it should either be toward the back of or on top of the window.
And as for opaque ads on bus windows...A few years ago, the bus company tried opaque signage on some bus windows. That was a total disaster, and it didn't last long. It made the bus dark, people couldn't see where they were, and some were getting queasy. It was removed, and I am guessing that it ended up actually costing them money to have it removed and then re-done. Hope they don't try this.
Seriously, there are a couple reasons this opaque thing could end up costing money. First, if it bugs riders enough that the company ends up removing and/or redoing them. And second, one can easily imagine the ads blocking vision becoming targets of vandalism... which again, would cut into the revenue aspect of it.