Chicagoist: Parking Meter Hikes Finally Here

chicubs

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:44:55 -0600

I've thought a lot about this, and although I disagree with the reason we are doing it, I think it could actually be a good thing. First, there are some parts of the city where you can't get a metered spot to save your life, those have obviously been priced too low, so by raising rates in some parts of the city, hopefully it will decrease demand just enough to make it so people who want to park and pay can. There have been times I have not gone places simply because I know how hard it is to find a street spot, and don't want to pay for a garage. Second, this company is in the business of making money off these meters. A spot sitting empty is less money for them. If they find people aren't parking at the prices they set, they are going to have to make changes until they reach that point. I think many people hear that parking meter rates are going up and instantly over-react, without thinking it through. Aside from the sales-tax, which will hopefully be reduced in 2010, Chicago is actually affordable compared to other big cities. Do the research before you complain, find out what other cities charge for things and you will realize Chicago is really not as bad as you think.

Mucky Fingers

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:47:37 -0600

I'd love to see Daley lease off Navy Pier, only because it might potentially fulfill my Mad Chocolate fantasy of seeing Navy Pier morph into the hookers-and-gambling haven it was first intended to be instead of the tourist trap it is. One can dream...

Bill V

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:28:06 -0600

How much does it cost to lock my bicycle to a parking meter?

jackson93

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:25:35 -0600

I'll be interested to see if the city loses other types of revenue or if city businesses will suffer. Between the parking rate hikes and having the highest tax in the country, Daley has almost created an incentive for people with cars to do their shopping in the suburbs. Will this actually encourage those of us with cars to drive more and not less? If I need to buy a couch, why not drive 15 minutes to the suburbs, park in a free lot, and pay 2-3% less in tax? My mom lives on the south side, and she does almost all of her grocery shopping in a suburban grocery store just 5 minutes from her house - why pay more in taxes?

Von Erich

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:42:54 -0600

I think they'd have to add those machines. For the logistical reason of 168 quarters bending that thing to the curb for each operating day. For the economic reason, if you pay $3.50 and leave in 30 minutes as opposed to 1 hour, some other driver can't take over your minutes. Smart move on their part.

Chris F

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:27:19 -0600

Sorry to double post, but I was thinking about the rates. The dollar an hour rates are pretty straightforward- you get 15 minutes for each quarter you sink. The Loop rate is a little wierd, though: $3.50 is 14 quarters. 60/14=4.2857142857142857142857143? Unless they're just replacing every meter in the Loop with those credit card machines, in which case, never mind.

Chris F

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:22:19 -0600

I believe the city keeps the enforcement responsibility, but we also keep the ticket revenue. The only way this ends up being a good deal in the long term is if someone invents safe, affordable personal jetpacks, making cars obsolete. But the company probably has an out clause in their contract for such an eventuality.

Jerny

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:14:54 -0600

does anybody remember the opening scene in the Paul Newman movie classic "Cool Hand Luke"?? what we need is a few hundred parking meter bandits!!

fremo

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:20:15 -0600

Again, I am not certain, but I believe I read somewhere that the city will continue to monitor the meters - but that the company leasing the meters will provide upkeep, etc. Of course, it could be worse than that and the city will end up footing the bill for replacements, etc. Stealth, you're absolutely right that this is bullshit. The way this city is mismanaged, its deals like this that are the only thing keeping it afloat. Right now, I'd give even odds that the mayor starts leasing off things like Navy Pier and the like (which will start charging admission).

Stealth

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:43:51 -0600

I just want to know that there are no city workers involved in monitoring the parking meters. No cops writing parking tickets, no city workers walking the streets with those electronic things checking license plate and writing tickets. If we've sold it to the companies lock, stock and barrel, when they now receiving any future venue, let them supply their own people. Or does part of the contract stipulate that the city has to provide the foot patrol to maintain them. If so, this is bullshit,.

hascat

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:14:38 -0600

You're correct. The city sold off a revenue stream for a capital infusion. Whether they got a good deal or not remains to be seen. I seriously doubt that the funds from the sale will be held in reserve to cover future budget shortfalls. What I'm really curious about is how parking tickets will work now. Is enforcement still responsibility of the city?

fremo

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:58:47 -0600

The companies that lease the stuff have immediate funds on hand that the city can't generate with a rate increase. Remember this is all because the city suddenly realized they were 400 million short for the year. The mayor gets money to offset the budget shortfall (socking a large portion away for pet projects along the way) and the companies now running the meters can realize a huge return on investment over the 75 years they run the things. Somebody please chime in if I have this wrong - I am over simplifying it, I know.

rusting

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:50:02 -0600

What I still don't understand is how can all these private industries that are buying out the city lot by lot make money and the city can't manage? Rather than lock us into this insane 75 year deal, couldn't the city have raised the rates on it's own?