German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChinesePrivate Funding? How About The Ikea Train?
Yesterday, Mayor Villaraigosa gave his State of the City address, and although the majority of the speech was about gang crime, he did touch on transit. The Mayor plans on encouraging Metro to look for private funding sources to “build and operate an expanded transit system in Los Angeles.” I don’t know if all that is possible, but there are certainly avenues to get private money into our system, advertising being the most obvious.
In Japan, a monorail train in Kobe has been taken over by Ikea to promote the opening of a new retail store. And when I say taken over, I mean it. The exterior of the train is painted in bright patterns found on Ikea fabrics and the inside of the train has been converted into a mobile Ikea showroom. The seats have been reupholstered with Ikea fabrics and colorful Ikea curtains adorn the windows. It sends an unmissable message, both inside and out.
Could something as wild as this work in Los Angeles?
More Photos:
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Hell yeah, I would ride that train.
This would get me off the train. I know we need the money but that is to much. It probably okay in Japan since some of their cities are all billbords.
If it will help build the Pink Line, decorate it any way you like.
“This would get me off the train.”
Beggars can’t be choosers.
Some European metro stations include food and small retail outlets as part of the station. Although I have yet to see this anywhere in the US, I can’t help but wonder if such a thing could be a possible revenue source for the MTA. I imagine that there would be boatloads of red tape, but at the same time selling stuff in a crowded metro station could prove to be lucrative. Any thoughts?
Yeah, it’s the same in Japan. I saw a lot of convenient stores right on the station platforms. It was great.
The Militant supports transit of course, but would not want to ride a train made out of particle board.
On the other hand, they’ll be plastic-bag free though.
Interior & exterior decorating aside, it might behoove the mayor to examine Britain’s experience with privatization before jumping in with both feet. (h/t)
Good lord, “privatization”? When I hear law makers bring that old canard out of the bag this is all that comes to mind:
-Use bond money to build infrastructure and facilities
-”Lease” what is built to large conglomerate (for 100 years)
-Conglomerate give local politicians cash up front to fritter away
-Conglomerate milks public facility and infrastructure until it collapses
-Conglmerate gets the hell out of town
In Mexico a lot of “privatization” has taken place - and the result is a decrepit system of public infratructure that really only benefits the politicians getting it built and the rich companies that lease it.
All these big companies offer is a bucket of cash for law makers to spend up front. The public investment in infrastructure is much more valuable than that bucket o’ cash.
The MTA turnstiles are a great example of how f**cked the “privatization” scam really is for the public.
Villaraigosa - it would be a transit miracle if you could get your transit deputy out of his Hummer and onto a bus or train every now and again.
The MBTA located Dunkin’ Donuts under Filiene’s Basement has the best Boston Cremes. I don’t know why.
Hmmm…wouldn’t it be interesting if we had some example of privately owned and operated transit not working in Los Angeles…oh yeah, we do!
A little something about two systems called the Pacific Electric Railway and the Los Angeles Railway. They were built with 100% private funds.
Here’s the thing: they operated for over 40 years, but in the end THEY WERE NOT PROFITABLE. They went bankrupt, and the government had to buy them up to keep them running (The first MTA, 1958). True, ultimately the government shut them down, but that was due to the “free market” applying pressure to shut them down because, gosh, we have that huge freeway system that works so spectacularly well.
Mass transit DOES NOT MAKE A PROFIT. Even the most profitable one, the New York City subway, only makes back 66% (or approx.) of its operating expenses from farebox revenues. And that does NOT include money for any capital costs for expansions that need to be done.
Does that mean that mass transit is useless, because it doesn’t make a profit? NO! There are many things that don’t make a profit, like art museums and public libraries. But we still fund them (barely) and contribute to them. Like mass transit, they’re a community benefit and a public ammenity. They are part of the services and ammenities that are offered by most significant cities.
If we want to increase advertising on the trains or start selling Subway sandwiches in the subway stations (that would be a neat tie-in!), I’m all for it, but private funding cannot operate the whole show. It’s been proven. The model just doesn’t work.
Private companies cannot run public facilities!
You forgot to add auto-roads and auto-highways.
Mass Transit doesn’t make a profit, but it’s the direct and indirect economic and social benefit that makes it valuable. It’s the economic and environmental benefits to the society and economy as a whole that make it indispensable.
Conservatives don’t believe in a common good or social good, only individual good. Therefore they see this as a “subsidy”, ignoring that the economic tide that is lifting from the benefits mass transit provide lifts their economic boat too even if they don’t or won’t use it themselves.
Stop with the slander. That’s not at all the case.
Besides, I’m usually conservative (as in the less government the better policy) yet I see public transit as one of those things that the government needs to invest in.
And I don’t know much about private systems, but I thought that the Yellow and Red Cars were doing pretty well before the rise of the automobile.
Scott’s anti-”public transit” comment is indicative of his ignorance (either willful or unintentional) of how the freeway system and roadway network got built.
It was not “the market” nor “free enterprise” that built the automobile road network - it was the government. For some reason “public transit” refers only to the vehicles people use to get around in. Our roads are “public transit” facilities, at the least. If we subsidized cars any more, the government would be buying cars and handing them out.
We do fight government subsidized wars for the stuff that makes them go VROOOOOM.
I love it. I think it would be great to have something like this.
Privatization doesn’t have to end badly- the monorail line that has the train featured here is operated privately and like looks like they’ve done a bang-up job of it. Part of the equation is the people- this is essential transportation infrastructure; if the people running it are untrustworthy, private or not, it will fail. Japan’s railways and subways have pretty much been completely privatized because the original publicly-owned company screwed up on a rather epic scale. They look rather profitable, don’t they?