![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-56626-100x100.png\")
Someone dropped the ball hard on that one.
Someone dropped the ball hard on that one.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Someone needs to pay for the city workers pensions.
Just uproot the meters, install parking boxes on every block that take dollar bills and dispense temporary passes, and THEN up the rates. They can't honestly think that people are going to put up with having to lug around so many quarters. It's absolutely ridiculous.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4102-100x100.png\")
@Gene Gemperline: Same here in Portland (OR). From the city's perspective, this is also a good plan because driver's leave and take the temporary pass with them, as opposed to the coin-fed meters that still have time on them when you leave. Under the new system, virtually everyone overpays for parking and leaves with time still available on their pass.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-390449-100x100.png\")
@Dave J.: Also you can pay with Credit Card, at least I think the ones in DC you can, and it prevents good Samaritans from feeding other peoples expired meters meaning more tickets and thus even more revenue.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6798-100x100.png\")
@Tmoney02: I've been to places in northern California that do the same. If I have to use a parking meter, I really prefer the CC option.
@Gene Gemperline: Exactly what they did in downtown Los Angeles when they spiked the rates up. I don't understand what is so hard about doing that.
Makes my $225 monthly parking rate look like the steal of the century. God, why do I still live in this city?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
Auction off public services to the private sector: what could go wrong?
Oh. Wait.
@Ninja007: Uhh, they control the meters and rates. What else - short of building their own roads or installing their own meters - is private about it?
Of course, they don't do that since the model - take public investments for free then leech out the profits into a well-connected crony's pocket - requires it. What, do you expect them to invest their own money before sucking a municipality dry? Are you insane?!
And the whole point of privitization is handing over taxpayer funds to well-connected contributors. Always.
So yeah: totally appropriate example of privitization.
Or is this like \"Conservatism never fails since we redefine what 'Conservatism' means every time it inevitably produces carnage, deficits and tears\"?
@Trai_Dep: the parking meters in Portland, Oregon have been privatised without these problems. Probably because the government isn't as corrupt here as it is in chicago. You can hardly call something privatized when its a product of government corruption.
@Ninja007: I love market-based solutions. They're usually the most optimal, innovative and consumer-leaning approach in most cases.
When public goods are concerned, though, they often fail.
Beyond the privitizing profits only made possible by public investment, their approaches create conflict.
For instance, parking. Value maximizing would say, raise the fee to what the market would bear, irrespective of externalities. If $20/hr fills the spaces (public-paid spaces, mind), that's the clearing price: good to go.
However, local stores, losing foot traffic, losing spur-of-the-moment shoppers, or shoppers for incidental (cheap) goods, would find their stores vacant: the buy-in cost of visiting their store exceeds the value of frequenting there. Even if these consumers might make the difference between profitability and loss, between thriving stores and closed ones.
One of the nicer things about having some of the spaces public is that they can take the big picture into account. A city may chose to earn less meter revenue since it results in a more robust retail zone, something a private firm can't do since it makes little economic sense.
Of course private parking on private property fills an important niche.
It's great to have both options. It's hard to see how removing an option by privatizing the public car spaces is better for local businesses and residents, though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-306389-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarianism...
Doesn't matter what language you speak, \"sphincter-boy\" means the same in all of them.
And isn't \"Chicago\" Spanish for \"sphincter-squeezings\" anyway?
@Segador: I've heard rumors that the Chicago Police are actually quite skilled at individual entrepreneurism. Does that count?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72607-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: They have gotten much worse at it over the last 15 years. I guess that is better for us, except it sucks to actually have moving violations on your record. Getting a driver's license has been largely cleaned-up too.
@Trai_Dep: But it'll regulate itself out better for consumers! Just like the Chicago Skyway!
Oh. Wait.
@Ubik2501: Yea the Chicago Skyway, that thing is just greeeaaaat. We sat for close to TWO HOURS trying to get over that thing, good thing we had plenty of gas. Not knowing an alternative route and not being keen on driving blind around Gary or the south side of Chicago we didn't really have another option. I can't remember how much it was, just that it was insanely expensive for crossing a bridge.
this is hardly privatizing. It is just government outsourcing to a company with ties to the Chicago good ole boys network.
@Ninja007: I think it's only good to contract out government duties to the private sector when the private sector can compete in real time (not during bidding for the contract). Competition is what keeps the margins slim and makes the private sector push to be efficient. In this case, they have an effective monopoly. Even though they have a rate cap, they have little incentive to keep their equipment running well or convenient so long as they get a good cash stream. The only competition they have now is parking garages, which are too inconvenient and pricey for a short trip.
What would happen if alternating spots were sold to two or more companies? What if the spots were sold individually like real estate?
Come to think of it, I like the idea of selling them off independantly. This could mean that a person who owns a roadside business could buy spaces next to his shop and price/time them as he sees appropriate. Granted, there is the issue of each spot having different rules and prices, which might be hard to convey to the road.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-291700-100x100.png\")
@Ninja007: You and I have a very different definition of privatizing, because in my mind that is what privatizing IS, and why it doesn't work.
See, e.g., Blackwater/Xe or Halliburton in Iraq.
I don't understand why people still believe the whole b.s. about private corporations being able to do things better than the government. Those private corporations are drawing from the same stupid, ignorant, lazy, incompetent work forces of the American People writ large. And the systemic failures in bureaucracies created to do the size of the organization, not due to whether there are shareholders at the end of the day waiting with their hands out to get paid.
If anything, private corporations are ALWAYS worse than the government since they have to make a profit. The government can break even every year and pass savings on to customers. But HMOs need to turn profits every year, and for every dollar they earn in profit, that's a dollar less spent you YOUR health care.
And you're going to come back and say to me I don't understand the incentive structure, and optimization that must occur in order to make a profit, etc.,. and I am going to say, STFU because of Maydoff, AIG, TycoWorldCom, Enron, Citi, GE, GM, HIJKLMNOP.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98237-100x100.png\")
@stevejust: We could take YOU seriously if it wasn't so manifestly the case that the City of Chicago never really let go of the parking meter concession... they just basically used the so-called \"private\" corporation as a front. So sorry, the city isn't quite off the hook, politician kisser.
@stevejust: HAVE to do... The systematic failures created HAVE TO DO with the size of the organization.
Gezzus. Consumerist, when Gawker no longer controls the message board, can we get an edit feature up in here?
I know you guys will take this suggestion VERY SERIOUSLY.
Exactly. Darrone and dancing_bear's cynicism would normally be exactly what the situation calls for, but they're uninformed here: This is privatization at work. And privatization never works.
@StutiCebriones: This is pretty funny looking privatization, considering the City of Chicago still owned it. They just leased the job to a front. They still maintained full ownership and legislative control.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-356584-100x100.png\")
Wouldn't this have just been obvious to them as they're deciding how much to charge? No one thought to ask how much coin storage space the meters themselves had?
The last time I was in Chicago it was a few years ago, but we were lucky enough to find an open metered spot a few blocks from Navy Pier. I think we got 2-3 hours on around $3 in quarters.
@pb5000: Maybe they did think to ask.
Step 1: raise rates on parking meters
Step 2: fail to collect quarters
Step 3: parking meter fills up with quarters and malfunctions
Step 4: drivers park at meters, but are unable to get the meters to work
Step 5: ticket drivers parked at broken meters. Profit.
@magic8ball: I imagine they probably did some math, realized that this price would pay well, and that repairs/upgrades would be most profitable at a slow, lazy rate. Since they're still making great money, they keep this up, and replace machines only as they become fubar'd, benefiting from newer and better designs of parking meter in the future to collect even more revenues.
@magic8ball: I hate to say it, but that would definitely be their MO. My neighborhood (Rogers Park) has been getting parking spaces whittled away bit by bit, for no good reason anybody can tell other than to increase ticket revenues. I wouldn't put this sort of thing past them either.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-349924-100x100.png\")
28 quarters for 2 hours? That is less than 5 minutes a quarter.
Oh Chicago, your leaders are so corrupt.
@mergatroy6: Come to think of it, a popular spot would be getting a quarter every 5 minutes. How many hours did it take for this things to get stuffed and fail?
I blame Obama...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-433752-100x100.png\")
Damn, the ads are back... as of now. I can't reply again.
Any, I think that... duh? Usually privatized means nothing but trouble if there aren't enough competitors to make it worthwhile.
I live near Dan's store, and I can say this is completely true. The damn parking meters around here almost all still have stickers with the old rates. Or have a note that says, IT WONT TAKE MY QUARTERS, DON'T TOWZE ME BRO!
@Trai_Dep: Stupid. Did the government open the meters to market competition? Did the government keep their dirty hands off the running of the meters? Of course not. They hand-picked a stooge company as a front to maintain their monopoly, and continue to run things behind the scenes with regulations. Nice try.
\"You could seriously ruin this for me by letting out the secret,\" Mark Sloan told a reporter after he parked his Nissan Sentra on Dayton and headed toward a tavern for happy hour. \"This is my beer money we're talking about.\"
Maybe drinking less isn't such a bad idea considering he's CLEARLY DRIVING HOME.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-237394-100x100.png\")
@clever epithet: Since it's CHicago, it costs 60 quarters for a beer. I doubt he could get wasted in that city even if he sold his car.
Simple solution here. Remember Cool Hand Luke? Just break open these meters; the private corporation will spend so much money fixing them that they'll go out of business.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-684050-100x100.png\")
@johnfrombrooklyn: Yes I do remember Cool Hand Luke. He wasn't breaking them open, he was just cutting the heads off of them.
@Gtmac:
Luke was cutting the pipe that the meter was bolted to. He was going to take them somewhere & sledgehammer them open, except he got to drunk to do that & got caught.
The writer of \"Luke\" just called the actual meter a \"head\".
Maybe they call them that in the south.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-706864-100x100.png\")
What I love are the meters that display the new rates but haven't been re-calibrated yet, so a quarter still gets you what it used to.
Seems these guys are failing all around on this one.
@Hank Scorpio:
Should have followed the rules and read the article first, since that point is already mentioned!
Oh, well.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-64740-100x100.png\")
This is just another reason why I refuse to step foot in that city.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
@ArntorFTL: I won't drive there. I hate even driving through it on I-94. I'll Metra in and then bus or walk around. I'm just an occasional tourist though, couldn't imagine living there.
@failurate: The problem is that even if you live in the city it can be two hours to get where you want if you need to take three buses or two buses and an El or two. It is more practical to drive from many places to others.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-446416-100x100.png\")
@mzs:
From what to what point in Chicago does it take two hours to get to? The problem with driving in Chicago is that everyone thinks it's so practical which leaves the roads clogged with people who are under the impression they're too important for public transportation.
@Hate_Brian_Club: Anywhere SW to NW or the reverse. From the SW this involved for me to take the 55 to either the Jeffery (number 6) or Metra electric line into the loop. Then to the El, then from the El to any number of buses depending on final destination. This would take 2 hours in traffic or when the buses and trains did not run often, so hence all the time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-119770-100x100.png\")
Chicago - you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-404607-100x100.png\")
this is another example of some things in society that belong in the pervue of government.
There will always be huge problems when you change govt operations to for profit in:
The military : Blackwater, Haliburton
Prisons; That flap in Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago.
Traffic enforcement: Stop light and speed cameras
Parking enforcement: as noted in the story
Some things are just the govenments responsibility to run at a break even. There should never be profit in these things as it leads to corruption.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54890-100x100.png\")
@Shaftoe: The thing is there shouldn't even be parking meters in a commercial district. The business owners pay taxes to do business in the city, I suspect they pay fees for street clean up/maintenance in front of their stores. The city charging their customers for a fee that they have already covered is despicable.
Like the store owner in the article says, people don't want to spend $5 just to window shop.
@Coyote:
Except in Chicago, store owners park at the meters in front of their businesses all the time & usually manage to have a handicap permit so they don't need to feed the meter!
@Coyote: If you don't put in parking meters, then the traffic doesn't turn over and people can't get spots, which hurts the businesses. A nominal fee* and short time limits keeps the cars moving.
_
*28 quarters is above and beyond the call of nominal.
@Shaftoe: Luckily, there is no corruption in government run prisons, traffic enforcement, and parking enforcement. What's the admission fee to get into your world?
@Yossarian:
Point taken but you are using the nirvana falicy to make your point. My reply was not the perfect solution so therefore it is invalid?
You may disagree with me but I do stand firm in my belief.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
\"It now costs 28 quarters to park for two hours in the Loop\"
HOLY. SHIT.
And to think yesterday I was a bit whiney about paying 50 cents for 90 minutes of metered parking. (You get half an hour free with the first quarter!)
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-263779-100x100.png\")
AFAIK, the meters in the downtown area of Sacramento, CA have not been privatized, but the city did install these new kiosks on each block. You pay at the machine and then have to put the receipt on your dash. Not a bad system since you can now pay with cards or cash.
The crazy thing is that the rate varies block by block. In some areas, a quarter gets you 13 minutes. If you park in a thirty minute spot, you have to pay for 39 minutes to get the full time allowed. What's up with that?
@tripnman: That's to keep people from keeping really nice spots or spots outside of businesses that want fast turnaround. In Princeton, NJ, for example, the spots in the upscale Palmer Square area and the spots outside of a sandwich shop that is popular with the students at the university cost $1.50 per hour and limit the time to a maximum of one hour or so. Regular spots cost $1.00 per hour, if I recall correctly. It's a decent system, but I'm happy with it because it is clear from the street which ones are limited/more exclusive, because the \"premium\" meters are marked yellow.
The spots are public, but I think it helps that there are a couple private garages nearby, ensuring the metered spots are reasonable for a short stay.
@tripnman: Are they trying to approximate the meter system where you pay more to park in certain areas? Like in most of my city, a quarter gets you half an hour (maxes out at 2 hours), but in front of the courthouse, a quarter gets you 5 minutes and you max out at 15 minutes. In front of City Hall, I think a quarter gets you 10 minutes to a max of half an hour.
I agree with Gene Gemperline, Parking boxes are a far better solution. I like being able to use my debit card. They started popping up in DC recently
Everyone is so quick to blame privatization. As if a sweetheart deal in Chicago is akin to legitimate privatization.
Plenty of cities have private meters nowadays. Plenty of cities other than Chicago make this work just fine.
Also-- what happened to simply using meter printouts? There are printout meters all across the city of Chicago-- who stipulated that these needed to use quarters?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-466344-100x100.png\")
Chicago is screwed up! We received letters in the mail from the DMV telling us that rusty license plates now need to be replaced. Hmm I wonder if this has anything to do with them jacking up the prices of license plates?
I think *part* of the reason for the increased meter rates is to encourage people not to drive into the loop. Obviously there is a profit motive, but the two actually work pretty well together. High rates discourage people from driving into an area well-served by the CTA, and the meter owners reap high profits off those too lazy/impatient/\"good\" to ride public transit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-134603-100x100.png\")
@Pylon83: That's the best reason for privatizing.
The city government was unable to raise rates because certain influential citizens and aldermen wouldn't stand for it. Privatization makes more money for the city, loads more for the private company, and reduces congestion.
But it would be a lot better if they required the company to be competent in exchange for profiting.
@Pylon83: But they also jacked-up the rates outside of the loop as well. There are a lot of great hispanic and eastern european places that are hard to get to.
@mzs: Do you mean restaurants? or neighborhoods? Are you seriously trying to make this a racial discrimination issue?
@sasper: No I am not making this a racial discrimination thing. I mean my wife and I like to shop in those places. Groceries from the eastern european areas and clothes and furniture from the hispanic areas. The reasons being for the good selection and and prices. They raised the parking rates there too, hence discouraging traffic to the loop is not an honest reason.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159466-100x100.png\")
I had a car while I lived in Chicago. I used it a few times over a few years. It's really not too necessary, but when it is, oh man, what a pain! I remember parking in one neighborhood one time to go to a club, and when I got back, someone had parked in the red zone behind me, literally within a couple of inches of my bumper behind me. No space in front either. So, I had to do an Austin Powers for like half an hour before I finally got far enough to ram the back car a bit (yay rubber bumpers...) and slide out. Alarm from the back car going off over and over, yet the owner obviously didn't care too much...
Broken streets, broken gov't, broken schools, broken mayor, broken people, and now broken meters.
Just keep pumping money into all of the above...that's Chicago.
Can't legally ticket a car parked at an unpaid meter which displays a notice stating that you don't need to pay.
Then again, this *IS* Chicago, where the people were stupid enough to elect a CONVICTED FELON to office.
The rest of us regularly elect people who should probably be convicted of some crime, but at least we don't elect them *after* they've been arrested. Well, most of us.
gahhh there is just so much wrong with this city. hate, hate, hate!!! why are things just so counter-intuitive?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-320639-100x100.png\")
That people would refer to something like this as \"privatization\" is bastardizing the word and its definition.
The fact that there is no information available regarding the selection process for the company to whom the meters were \"leased,\" one can only assume it went the same way any other form of \"privatization\" goes - to the company with the most political connections. It's been mentioned here already: The market's artificially controlled and there is no competition. How on earth can anyone insinuate that the free market is screwing this up?
I own a car and deal with it. Chicago is the best city on earth. Enough with the hate!
They need to fire all of the \"crossing guards\" that are hired to stand in the middle of intersection and direct traffic, but end up standing on the corner talking to pedestrians and return the rates to what they used to be. That would save the city millions.
With the astronomical rise in meter prices, people are thinking twice about coming out from the burbs to patronize Chicago stores, venues, bars, etc (if the 10% sales tax didn't do that already). That is just one of the ways in which Daley's trick will backfire.
I frequently come to University Park to do business and usually stop at the local independent coffee shop for a break. But now I don't anymore since I have to figure in $4 for parking on top of a $2 coffee.
See, this is why I never drive into the city unless I have to. Chicago has some of the worst parking in the world. Thankfully, I live in a suburb just north of the city. I can park, and take the yellow or red line when need be.
What a joke.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71483-100x100.png\")
Obviously they don't have the ability to pay by phone like in grown-up cities.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-352646-100x100.png\")
Here in NYC we have those kiosks/boxes (they're called Muni-Meters). If you're in a parking lot controlled by them, then usually each space is numbered and you pay at the machine for your space. Makes it easier for everyone (you and the traffic agent) since you don't have to go back to your car to put the receipt on your dashboard. But on sidewalks and in larger muni-meter lots, you have to return to your car and put the receipt on your dashboard (be sure to avoid having the inspection and registration stickers block the receipt). I always feel like after I park and walk to the muni-meter that an agent might come by and ticket my car, especially on our wonderfully long cross-town blocks, where inevitably there's only one machine. But the really dangerous spots (in terms of risk of getting a ticket) are the areas where spots are reserved for the pre-paid parking permit folks. Even if you put your receipt on the dash, you will get a ticket (I speak from experience). I didn't see the sign telling me about the restriction so imagine my surprise when I got back and saw the nice orange envelope and the nice police officer walking away. When she heard me wondering why I got a ticket, she pointed to the sign above. As it was written in the same red color as the 3-hour limit sign, I didn't realize the difference. If you're always going to be parking at a muni-lot, then get one of the pre-paid parking permits.
Just so everyone knows, it is now 8am to 9pm every day even if the old sticker saids 9am to 6pm weekdays only.
Thank god for Metra...I refuse to drive downtown for just about any reason.
The busted meters are bad, but the pricing is a Good Thing. You're paying $1.75 for half an hour of parking. Metered parking is used for revenue collection, but it is also used to increase turnover of on-street parking in congested areas and encourage the use of alternative transportation or off-street parking. Leave the SUV at home and take the damn train.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2688-100x100.png\")
A can of black spraypaint and some quick feet would fix those meters right up.
what? unmitigated greed had an undesired outcome? Privatization actually hurts business? What a revelation!
Obv, I know, but stating it feels good.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-793925-100x100.png\")
Given it is Chicago, it was probably successful in that it made the selected contractor and their political cronies some money, while screwing everyone else. That is The Chicago Way and sadly now The Washington Way since a corrupt Chicago politician got elected president.
I think the only real solution is to outsource the actual Chicago administration. Ok, it won't be a complete solution, because it will still be run by politicians, but at least they won't be Chicago politicians.
Everyone is missing the bigger problem. Why am I supposed to pay to park on the street? Isn't that what the gas taxes and local taxes are supposed to pay for. Do what everyone else is doing with sports stadiums. Adopt a block and have little ad signs where the meters used to be.
Or, in Chicago, you could put in boxes on the curb that hands out campaign contributions if you sell your soul to the box. Better yet, follow the White House lead and hand out AIG bonuses that you don't pay back once you take the oath of office.
@jstonemo: Then there would be no place to park when shopping. The residents a block from and above the businesses would simply park in front of the shops then.
I swear, sometimes governments engage in these completely phony \"privatizations\" for the sole purpose of making anything \"private\" look terrible so they can more easily ram their communist agenda down our throats.
This could really hurt Chicago's reputation. In the Detroit area we used to look longingly at Chicago. The government there was every bit as corrupt as the government in Detroit, but they were corrupt in ways that got things done, instead of corrupt in ways that blocked progress.
7 bucks to park for 2 hours... insane. Its the most backwards city I've ever been too.
@smartmuffin: I think it's more that they pick the wrong things to privatize. Markets that are natural monopolies don't work well when privatized because you can't have any competition. Privatizing parking enforcement is a bad idea for exactly the same reasons that privatizing electric utilities is a bad idea.
@David Brodbeck: I'd love to believe it's mere incompetence rather than a sinister alterior motive. But I have to believe that in Chicago, they knew that this is exactly what was going to happen...
Gold Coast resident here. The primary reason I got rid of my car and now live without one is the parking situation in my neighborhood. I would pay for city and neighborhood parking stickers, and still have to drive around for TWO HOURS sometimes to find an effing spot. (Mostly during the summer when people decide to drive to the neighborhood to go to the beach/bars and park illegally without getting ticketed 9 times out of 10).
That said, I do have friends who are not city residents. When they come to visit me, metered parking is often the only option they have. Unless they can somehow manage to find a neighborhood spot (which gets harder and harder during the warmer months)...The Clark Street meters have been practically EMPTY since this handover took place. And the city (who, though they don't own the meters still have to police them and write tickets) is writing RIDICULOUS tickets these days. I have a friend who has been given 2 tickets in the last month where he has been cited for two violations he didn't even commit. And each ticket was written to the tune of $150.
I'm tellin' ya - it is getting harder and harder to be a resident of this city these days. Going back East is looking better and better....I would just love to know how the HELL Daley keeps getting elected.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-176883-100x100.png\")
Upside on meter boxes: Most take credit and debit cards so that you don't have to carry around a sock full of quarters all the time. All those quarters can be a theft risk themselves.
Downside: Sky's the limit on what they charge. Which Chicago already seems to be working on.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
Well, for the ticketed folks, I hope they're getting pictures of what's happening...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-352008-100x100.png\")
*sigh*
The problem is not privatization, even if that were truly what happened in Chicago. The problem is inexperience. The newcomers screwed the pooch with poor planning; planning probably done by public officials anyway. Had the meters been run by a private business for ages, then the city decided to appropriate the meters and do the job themselves, you'd see the exact same thing. And everyone would be whining \"when does the government ever get anything right?\" Take your prejudices elsewhere and focus on the issue. Some people, supported by both public and private interests, fucked up and it's costing money.
For those wondering why you have to pay to park, think about why it's called metered parking. I'd rather pay $10 for at least a chance I'll find a spot when I need to head into downtown, than get to park for free and being guaranteed to never find a place to park.
You people who say \"OMG privatization sucks LMAO\" and use this as your backup are completely misinformed. This is not \"privatization.\" The government is facilitating a monopoly in this case. There is no competition. Market forces are not at work. Privatization does a world of good and is far more efficient then government in MOST cases AND when it's done right. Unfortunately, especially in a city like Chicago, it almost never is done correctly.
If you want the government to do everything, move to Cuba and see how you like it.
All they are doing is driving business out of town, who would patronize down town shops if they have to pay that much to park? It's cheaper to pay for the gas to go somewhere else where it's free to park. Even then, who has that many quarters on them? The kiosks that take cash and CC's, and print out something small you can stick on your windshield is much more efficient, more likely to be used, and won't drive people away (assuming the rates are not insane).
I live in the Chi and Im a big fan of the privatization... The incredibly high rates and only taking quarters is making people rethink all the driving they do. Personally, I don't want the city to make it cheaper (lower rates) and easier (pay boxes) for people to drive/park.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-233963-100x100.png\")
There is a lot more money to be made ticketing cars than collecting quarters.
If you could sit in on the original business plan for this operation I am sure that you will find that issuing more TICKETS was the whole point of this venture.
The City can just brush off complaints because a Private Company is now responsible.
@acklenheights: If it \"never is done correctly\" than it doesn't work in practice.
It's like communism. Communism works in theory but not in practice. Same with privatizing government services. In theory it leads to better efficiencies but in practice it almost never does, mostly because most government services are natural monopolies. (That's usually why they're government services to begin with.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-924657-100x100.png\")
Unless I have been in a semi-comatose state while perusing the Chicago media, I have yet to hear exactly who owns this so-called private enterprise. We may have our suppositions, but if the Chicago journalists know anything, they are keeping the issue mum for as long as they can. This apparently seems to include the anti-patronage poster-child John Kass.
And if they truly do not know the chain of command of ownership, they are not showing any interest in doing a little digging or delving.
One would assume that such a huge contract for such an extended period of time would require an in-depth journalistic investigation of a who's who of sorts of the company that we are going to have to pay. I know that I myself would like to know who is going to legally pick my pocket.
Oh, well, I am looking forward to the next privatization of the city... Streets and San?
I live in Chicago and I applaud this regardless of the \"political ramifications\". I work in the Loop and there are so many idiots who run people over, crash into buildings, etc.
I don't feel ANYONE needs to drive in the Loop. The public transportation system is more than capable of handling the transportation services.
I personally don't care whose making the money off this scheme as long as it cuts down on people needlessly driving their cars...
I also just wanted to point out that 925 W. Armitage is not in the Loop.
I thought I had it bad in Philly...thanks Chicago for brightening up my day!
What's with all the hatred of Chicago with so many of you? I live here, I'm getting pissed off at a lot of crap (like the insane sales tax, the meters, the stupid a-hole tollway authority, etc) but it's an awesome city. AWESOME, I tell you. Thank god all you pure-as-snow self-righteous douchebags stay in the burbvs where you have enough room to destroy the environment on the cheap. Sheesh.
another reason for every single person in chicago to ride a bicycle.
@Russ Savage: NO DEAR GOD NO!!! I rode a bike out of necessity for four years in Chicago and I am very lucky to be alive. Also it is cold AND windy much of the time that it is not humid and hot. Here is a hint, even if you got rid of all the cars, the cabbies and bus drivers want you dead too.
It sucks. Completely. How can City Council not see the bigger picture of no money coming in after 5+ years of privatizing everything?
But maybe now, people will vote against Daley when he is up for re-election. Maybe this will be the last straw. I know I will NOT be voting for him in the next mayoral election.
This would really only make sense if they had competing and equivalent spots from other private companies nearby. In this case, the private company just gets to skim off a lot of money for itself.
Also, I find it surprising a private company that pitched itself as more qualified than the city to run and maintain parking meters wouldn't even realize that if you continue to use coin meters, you'll need to keep the rate low enough to not fill out the coin tray. When I heard about this story, I was assuming they'd install new meters that use credit cards and/or paper money to save time and be more convenient for everyone involved.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
MATH IS HARD.
Here's the problem I see:
\"The City of Chicago has gone ahead with a deal to lease the city's parking meters to ***a company*** that raised the rates.\"
Of course this company's going to raise rates and all that. There's no competition when the government chooses to lease it out to one company. I believe privatization in this case could work, if there were competition among different companies providing these services.
The high cost of parking downtown is one of the reasons I moved out of the Chicago area entirely. I loved the downtown and Michigan Ave, but living in the Chicago suburbs is just blah. I realized I was only going downtown a handful of times a year and it was costing a small fortune everytime I went.
Well this nonsense just sealed the deal. We travel to Chicago frequently. Next time we are leaving the car and taking the train in instead.
around here a quarter will get you about an hour.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-371536-100x100.png\")
Who the hell carries 28 quarters on them??
I think that Mr. Daily should privitize the office of the mayor and slink out of the city before the voters come to get him.
And this is the city that is now leading our country? Thanks lefties and college dudes.
In downtown LA some meters are $3 an hour and some are $4. So for 2 hours its up to 32 quarters. Who is carrying 32 quarters? And that's publicly owned meters. I think it must drum up additional business for local businesses who might insist you make a purchase before they sell you a roll of quarters.... $8 for 2 hours, a roll is $10...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Cool. Hopefully this will give people an incentive to use public transit, ride bicycles, etc.
I still don't get why we don't want to discourage cars from the city. The city should be about public transit and walking, not cars.
Can someone please tell me how this does not violate national anti-trust laws? This seems like a perfect example.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-470278-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-64687-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104666-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-838201-100x100.png\")
Why all the complaining? I'm sure the politicians in Chicago can fix this for a nominal fee combined with a campaign donation and a cut of future proceeds. Lighten up!
@Darrone: And maybe they'll validate my parking when I drive there to write them a check! (but probably not)
@Darrone: But I'm dead. Can I still vote?