A Renovated CTA Station for Chicago is the Latest in the Privatization of Infrastructure

[marmar]

from the Next American City blog:





At the intersection of Clybourn and North Avenues in Chicago, just a few blocks from the former site of one of the country’s most infamous public housing projects, is a completely renovated subway station. Though much of the city’s transit system has been substantially remade in recent years, this improved stop has the unique honor of having been paid for by Apple Computer. It’s the latest reflection of the most recent trend in America’s urban centers: Encouraging private corporations to contribute to the costs of improving public infrastructure.

Before visiting the station, which serves the city’s Red Line rapid transit corridor, I have to admit I was skeptical of its implementation. Suffice it to say I came away impressed when I stopped by last week. Outside, the stop’s headhouse has been entirely renovated, with a new glass and brick facade. Below, what was apparently once a dank and decrepit place is a shining monument to minimalism, with bright and white (Apple) advertisements, whitewashed walls, and general cleanliness. It’s not particularly crass or overly commercial. Rather than the depression one frequently experiences when entering a subway station, this stop—first built in 1943—feels entirely up-to-date and comfortable.

Even better is the outdoor experience, where Apple has created an austere but welcoming plaza between the main station entrance and its new retail store. The public space, replete with a fountain in its center and tables and chairs scattered around its edges, is a nice place to sit whether using the station, Apple Store, or simply walking around the neighborhood. All that it’s missing is a Starbucks serving coffee on one side and a department store on the other.

That, indeed, is the problem: While Apple’s contribution to the station renovation is commendable (when was the last time another company made a similar commitment to any city’s transit system?), the truth is that its motivations are clearly concerned primarily with profit rather than the public interest. The end result is an urban version of the contemporary “lifestyle” outdoor mall found ubiquitously in the suburbs. Apple wanted a nicer transit station for its new computer store, just as it would have insisted on a parking lot in an automobile-oriented area. So it paid for it when it set up shop, and made sure that the entrance to the store—with the giant white logo—stands directly across the lovely fountains from the station. Make no mistake: The beauty of the new station is about little more than aiding Apple’s bottom line.

.....(snip).....

If it is in itself far from a blight on the urban landscape, the renovations of the North/Clybourn station suggest that the old assumptions about what is public and what is private infrastructure are coming crashing down. This means that things that had once been considered and invested in as public goods—for the sake of all, rich or poor—are being auctioned off to the highest bidder. This likely will result in difficulties paying for improvements in places where only the impoverished lived and corporate sponsorships in the land of the wealthy, like Chicago’s Near North Side. Decision-making, once in the hands of the public through democratic structures, will be slowly but surely transferred to the companies willing to chip in the most. Is this the future we want for our cities? ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2722/

[txlibdem]

1. Rather than the depression one feels when entering a subway station?

:wtf: Sounds like a bias against public transportation from the start.

That being said, PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) is a far more logical and accessible answer to private vehicles and all the problems they cause. Despite all the money that is spent (100s of Billions annually) on Public Transportation, average ridership is less than 5% except in very dense cities like New York City, of course, but that's not where the majority of Americans live. PRT is a far better solution:

• PRT uses small cars more like a taxi cab than anything else
  
• PRT comes to where you are -- you don't have to drive somewhere to link up with it
  
• PRT takes you straight to your destination with NO stops in between
  
• PRT lets YOU decide who you ride with -- or ride alone if you choose
  
• PRT costs far less than subways, light rail or even highways -- both during construction and in maintenance during its lifetime
  
• PRT is profitable once the system is completed, subways, light rail and bus systems are dependent on subsidies, never profitable
  
• PRT can replace cars and delivery vehicles. Try that with a train.
  
• Having a PRT stop at your business will bring in spending customers, a bus stop will bring in... who knows?
  
• PRT cars are very light because the track contains the LIM motors that move the vehicles
  
• ... so they use far less material resources to build and take less energy during operation
  
• PRT can use the existing rights of way as the roads and existing rail, elevated track never impedes existing modes of traffic
  
• PRT cars are fully automated, over 2 decades of experience with the software to control all vehicles
  
• Every year over 40,000 people die in auto accidents. PRT will eliminate all of those deaths and the loss to our economy because of it
  
• PRT will save the economy between $90bn (per the CDC) and $163bn (per AAA) annually, the loss caused by auto accidents

Here, AAA says that auto accidents cost us $164 Billion and the cost of traffic congestion totals nearly $70 Billion each year:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Auto accidents cost each American more than $1,000 a year, 2-1/2 times the cost of the traffic jams that frustrate the nation's drivers, according to a report issued Wednesday.

The motorist advocacy group AAA said accidents cost $164.2 billion each year, which based on the methodology used in the report comes to an annual per person cost of $1,051.

AAA said the study that quantified the cost of traffic accidents was conducted by Cambridge Systematics and considered costs from medical care, emergency and police services, property damage, lost productivity and quality of life.

The group said traffic congestion costs the nation $67.6 billion each year, or $430 per person, according to the annual traffic congestion report issued by the Texas Transportation Institute that takes into account 85 urban areas throughout the United States.

...

"Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation's roadways each year," said AAA President and CEO Robert L. Darbelnet in a report. "Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities barely registers as a blip in most people's minds."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/economy/AAA_study/

Posted On: September 4, 2010 by Theodoros & Rooth

CDC: Accidents Cost the US Economy More Than $99 Billion Annually

The economic costs from motor vehicle accidents in the US, including those from hospitalization expenses and lost income, exceed more than $99 billion a year. That information comes from a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention. The data that was used for the study came from the year 2005, the last year for which the data was available.

It's a staggering estimate, and more than $70 billion of that huge amount, went towards meeting hospitalization and medical-related expenses of accident victims. What's more, according to the agency, the study only took costs from hospitalization and lost wages into account, and did not include additional expenses, like the increase in auto insurance premiums after an accident.

As we expected, motor vehicle accidents account for the lion’s share of economic costs every year. In 2005, these accounted for approximately 71% of all costs, or $70 billion. Motor vehicle accidents here include accidents involving passenger cars, light pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles.

Motorcycle accidents costs touched $12 billion, pedestrian accident costs equaled $10 million and bicycle accident costs equaled $5 billion in 2005. Some groups like pedestrians and bicyclists had a lower share of the total number of fatal and nonfatal accidents in 2005, but accounted for a substantially larger percentage of costs. That's because motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians have a much higher risk of suffering extreme or severe injuries that can add to their medical expenses.

http://www.indianainjurylawblog.com/2010/09/cdc_accidents_cost_the_us_econ.html

[marmar]

2. Self delete