SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

the urban politician Dec 2, 2008 2:57 PM

Last Spring I was trying to find the location for the boathouse in Hyannis, Massachusetts to catch a ferry to Nantucket Island. The guy on the phone, in his New England accent, said "if you can't find us then you don't deserve to go to Nantucket!" :haha:

Weed out the weak. Chicago's time has come to stop catering to the Orlando crowd and just let things be, I say..

the urban politician Dec 2, 2008 3:12 PM

No mention yet of the 4 planned BRT routes that depend on this transaction being completed:

City reaches deal to lease parking meters
December 1, 2008 at 7:05 PM | Comments (4)
The city has reached a deal for the long-term lease of Chicago's parking meter system -- a key step in balancing the city's budget, City Hall sources said today.
Mayor Richard Daley has scheduled a 10 a.m. Tuesday news conference at his office, where he is expected to provide details of the deal. Aldermen are scheduled to consider the deal, which requires their approval, at a meeting of the City Council's Finance Committee on Wednesday.
Daley administration officials opened sealed bids today from private companies that want to operate the city's parking meters, the sources said. Officials declined to say who submitted the winning bid and how much that bidder offered.

But the city is counting on $150 million from the deal to help plug a $469 million budget deficit this year and in 2009, according to administration officials. And the administration expects further proceeds from the deal to help pay for city government for several years.

The parking meter deal follows the 2005 privatization of the Chicago Skyway and the recent long-term lease of Midway Airport to a private operator for $2.5 billion

arenn Dec 2, 2008 3:51 PM

It's one thing to lease facilities to pay for one time or capital upgrades, but I'm not convinced that selling the family silver to cover operating deficits is a wise long term move.

Mr Downtown Dec 2, 2008 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3947017)
Weed out the weak. Chicago's time has come to stop catering to the Orlando crowd and just let things be, I say..

Yes, making life difficult for prospective patrons has been a successful business strategy in so many industries . . .

lawfin Dec 3, 2008 12:47 AM

ALthough I am not oppossed to the increase in parking meter rates. One does have to wonder with all the new revenue streams: Midway, Skyway, Increased tourism from Millenium Park, Increased tax revenue from new high value property in the central area (residential and commercial), increased sales tax rate (perhpps offset by decrease in aggregate sales???), advertisement revenue on buses / trains etc....

Where is all this extra cash going and how come it does not seem to be helping stem the tide of an increased deficit?

Seriously, where is the dough going?

pip Dec 3, 2008 1:15 AM

^state law mandates that 90% go to infrasructure for the sale of properties or things, Midway

the increase in sales taxes is Cook County not the City ofChicago

inreased taxes from real estate in downtown? Real estate transfer taxes have ground to a halt partially offsetting.

Millenium Park and tourism. Recently tourim is doan and the tourists that do come spend less.

All revenue into the City is way down except the sales of assetts

revenue from adds on CTA busses and trains is a drop in the bucket to the Governors elderly ride free, loss of 30 million a year in the reduced fares intake, and sales for the extra sale's tax is down or nowhere near expected because of the economy that was appropiated for the cta.

the urban politician Dec 3, 2008 2:18 AM

I'm surprised that there has been very little discussion about metered parking rates increasing significantly in Chicago in the next few years (and for the first time in 70 yrs in some places, according to the Tribune).

There's a BLOODBATH going on in the Tribune commentary section, and everybody is after Daley. I can't begin to estimate how many commentators vowed to move out of the city and never visit again :haha:

Any thoughts? I dunno, I guess some more transparency with how this money (and the money from other windfall leases) is used would be nice, and for once I'd like to see Daley use some of this money for transit. But all in all, is increasing the cost of parking such a bad thing? Perhaps higher turnover in the meters will actually make parking more available for businesses.

denizen467 Dec 3, 2008 2:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3947017)
"if you can't find us then you don't deserve to go to Nantucket!" :haha:

Weed out the weak. Chicago's time has come to stop catering to the Orlando crowd and just let things be, I say..

There's a place for that kind of attitude - places whose selling points are tranquility or exclusivity, of which Nantucket is one. It's not quite compatible with Chicago's positioning though. I appreciate the thought that Chicago should aim for Manhattanness and not sacrifice naturally-evolved hard edged urban experience for visitors' creature comforts. However, (1) tourists seeking that will often just opt to go to Manhattan, and (2) tourists coming here are likely Midwesterners and may have different preferences than people from the Northeast. I think "user-friendliness" is essential in Chicago, is a valuable selling point as a "smarter" 21st century way to offer an urban experience, and can successfully be balanced with other essential aspects of an aggressive city experience.

the urban politician Dec 3, 2008 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 3948721)
I appreciate the thought that Chicago should aim for Manhattanness and not sacrifice naturally-evolved hard edged urban experience for visitors' creature comforts. However, (1) tourists seeking that will often just opt to go to Manhattan, and (2) tourists coming here are likely Midwesterners and may have different preferences than people from the Northeast. I think "user-friendliness" is essential in Chicago, is a valuable selling point as a "smarter" 21st century way to offer an urban experience, and can successfully be balanced with other essential aspects of an aggressive city experience.

^ Frankly, I never thought of it this way, in that "midwestern" context. After what feels like countless years living out east I may have lost some touch with the midwestern mentality, but certainly this is an excellent point you've made.

In regards to the topic of the parking meters, I thought I'd post this rather breaking news to perhaps kickstart a discussion:


(Click link and scroll down to read all the angry commentary for a bit of fun):

Most city parking meters to cost $1 an hour

Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 10:30 a.m.; last updated at 3:50 p.m.

Rates for most city parking meters will increase to $1 an hour starting Jan. 1 as a result of Mayor Richard Daley's deal to lease the spots for $1.1 billion to a private firm.

Two-third of the city's meters now cost 25 cents an hour, but once the paperwork is finalized, any metered spot costing less than $1 per hour will increase to $1 next year, city officials said today. And by 2013, those same metered spots will cost $2 an hour, according to City Hall.

The most expensive meters, which are found in the Loop, cost $3 an hour now. They will increase to $3.50 an hour next year and $6.50 by 2013.

City Hall officials said that after the first five years of the 75-year parking meter lease, rate hikes will be subject to approval by alderman and are expected to be at the rate of inflation.

The $1.1 billion to city coffers will come from Chicago Parking Meter LLC, which is made up of two Morgan Stanley infrastructure funds.

The Daley administration said $400 million will go into a long-term reserve, $325 million will be spent in city budgets through 2012 and $100 million is earmarked for programs helping low-income people. An additional $324 million is headed toward a fund city officials said "may be used to help bridge the period until the nation's economy begins to grow again."

Daley said the meter money does not preclude further spending cuts, including layoffs, in the coming months and years. That depends on how bad the economy gets, he said.

Even with this new money, the city projects deficits of about $200 million a year for several years to come, Daley said.

"That could grow. That could get much bigger," he warned.

Paul Volpe, the city's chief financial officer, said revenues are down even worse than expected. Real estate tranfer tax revenue for November was $4.3 million --- the city's worst month in more than 10 years.

According to the city’s request for bidders to come forward, the lease would cover 36,161 parking spots.

The city has markedly expanded the parking meter system in recent years, and revenues from the meters have increased, too.

There were 30,559 metered spots in 2004, generating net income of $13.6 million. By 2007, net income had risen to $18.9 million, according to city documents.

the urban politician Dec 3, 2008 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3947201)
Yes, making life difficult for prospective patrons has been a successful business strategy in so many industries . . .

^ Yeah, and taking business from one industry (CTA, taxicabs) to help another (restaurants, shops, Navy Pier) is an even better business strategy...

arenn Dec 3, 2008 3:51 AM

There are big differences between the parking meter lease and the Skyway/Midway leases. In the former cases, the city leased assets that were non-revenue producing for the city. That is, both of them either broken even (Midway has not been the contributor to city coffers that O'Hare has) or lost money (the Skyway until Daley shrewdly wiped out the bondholders). But parking meters are a revenue generator. The city has capitalized the entire future revenues stream for 75 years to get money now. That puts a hole in future budgets and takes away a revenue stream more or less permanently.

It looks to me like $400 million more for the Olympics (the "long term reserve") and 750 million to plug budget holes in the short term.

Ch.G, Ch.G Dec 3, 2008 4:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3948837)
^ Yeah, and taking business from one industry (CTA, taxicabs) to help another (restaurants, shops, Navy Pier) is an even better business strategy...

Right? And the idea that Chicago's only selling point is free trolley service? Are you guys for real? Not only do I predict zero impact on Chicago's tourism industry, I also predict tourists will manage just fine.

About the privatization of the parking meter system: I find myself in favor of anything that punishes driving (or, rather, better assesses its costs) and pushes people towards mass transit. But that's just it: The revenue should go to modernizing the rail system and not frittered away on operating budgets. And a functioning CTA would probably do more for Chicago's low-income population than $100 million in program funding.

Also-- and maybe these are retarded questions the answers to which were provided earlier-- I wonder who will enforce the meters. The CPD? Or Chicago Parking Meter? And who gets the ticket revenue?

pip Dec 3, 2008 4:23 AM

the more services that are not run by the City the better. A city government is inherantly very expensive and inefficient to run. I look at it like a back to basics type thing for the city.

While I know the parking meters net 19.5 million last year it is still not another service run by the city. The less the better.

Also with the worldwide recession like no others what else was the city to do? Raise property taxes all the while personal income has stagnated and forclosures are rampant?

edit: good questio. Who gets the ticket revenue?

VivaLFuego Dec 3, 2008 4:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 3948501)
Increased tax revenue from new high value property in the central area (residential and commercial)

That is not quite how property tax works. The tax rate is calculated each year by taking the total levy divided by the sum total assessed value of all properties subject to the tax. It varies by the taxing district, and each property is subject to perhaps 5-10 districts depending on location. Us downtown residents still see an "Urban Mass Transit" taxing district created to build the downtown subway system in the 1960s that never happened. The Public Schools tax has been inching up in recent years, for example, while the county has stayed constant and some others like Forest Preserve I think have declined. My property taxes have actually declined about 1% in nominal terms of the past few years - go figure.

Granted, of course, that lots of new development and booming property values give the taxing body much more political wiggle room to increase the levy - but generally speaking, the district sets its levy which implies the tax rate, not vice versa. This is why the property tax is such an amazing and reliable tax - and why it's so idiotic that all levels of government here in Chicago have sworn off of it as a revenue source, favoring instead stuff like sales taxes (somewhat unreliable) and real estate transfer taxes (incredibly unreliable).

The tax rate itself is incidental - in fact, Cook County's tax rate has fallen in half in less than 10 years...

Quote:

increased sales tax rate (perhpps offset by decrease in aggregate
sales???)
... hence the need for Cook County's sales tax hike, because it's property tax collection was actually decreasing in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, since the property tax levy has been held constant. The increase did not have to be an entire 1%, but something was necessary because the property tax levy is frozen and not growing - even with inflation.

Quote:

advertisement revenue on buses / trains etc....
This is a relatively negligible amount of money... somewhere on the order of $30 million a year. Blagojevich's free rides fiasco alone negates that. CTA alone has an operating budget of $1.1 billion and the city is what, around $5 billion I think.

Quote:

Where is all this extra cash going and how come it does not seem to be helping stem the tide of an increased deficit?

Seriously, where is the dough going?
Very generally speaking, I would say it is a combination of two things: (1) going to union wages and benefits (pension and retiree healthcare are very expensive propositions, the latter especially ballooning in recent years). There's more to it than that, but wages and benefits are a huge chunk of it. And of course, the city unions locked in their cushy contract a year ago to avoid any labor strife prior to 2016.... and it took exactly one budget year before things blew up requiring layoffs and the desperate rushed sell-off of the parking meters asset to use a portion to plug an operating budget hole. Meh.

also, (2) TIF districts, which now siphon off about $500 million annually in property tax collections. TIF districts are de facto tax increases or budget cuts, because they either (a) require new revenue (taxes) to account for the shortfall they cause in subsequent years, or (b) require reductions in real spending, because general fund tax revenue is decreasing at that much slower a rate as compared to operating expenses.

the urban politician Dec 3, 2008 4:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 3948922)
There are big differences between the parking meter lease and the Skyway/Midway leases. In the former cases, the city leased assets that were non-revenue producing for the city. That is, both of them either broken even (Midway has not been the contributor to city coffers that O'Hare has) or lost money (the Skyway until Daley shrewdly wiped out the bondholders). But parking meters are a revenue generator. The city has capitalized the entire future revenues stream for 75 years to get money now. That puts a hole in future budgets and takes away a revenue stream more or less permanently.

^ The city will put $400 million away for "future use" but the interest of $20 million per year that it collects from that will replace the lost parking meter revenue. So that issue is resolved. The beauty is, this gives Chicago the opportunity to jack up the cost of parking without as much of the political tug-of-war and fallout (ie we had to do it to save the budget, look we got 1.2 billion dollars out of it! and it's not us raising the revenues, it's that new company that runs the meters..etc)

Quote:

It looks to me like $400 million more for the Olympics (the "long term reserve") and 750 million to plug budget holes in the short term.
^ So if Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, perhaps some of that can be used to upgrade the transit system? Now that's always a possibility...

VivaLFuego Dec 3, 2008 4:47 AM

The parking meter discussion is very interesting. The concessionaire can not have any power to set rates - they can only be set by the city council. Meters only exist legally as an exercise of the police power, which government cannot delegate to a private authority. Meters are not, legally, a revenue-generating government power (the revenue generation is incidental in the effort to maintain peace by keeping parked cars circulating, or something to that effect). The contract for this deal will be an interesting read, since the city cannot contractually commit to the subservience of its police power to private interests. Furthermore, future changes in the number and location of meters impact how much money the concessionaire can make and ergo the value of the contract to them and the city, so there has to be some accommodation for that fact.

Even with these hikes in parking rates, in many locations at many times street parking will still be dramatically under-priced, but it's a step in the right direction from a transportation planning/economics standpoint. The next step should be at least quadrupling the annual fee for the residential zone permit stickers, and somehow figuring out a legal way to institute variable meter pricing to accommodate the peaking behavior of parking demand at neighborhood retail strips. On summer Saturday afternoons at Clark/Fullerton, Belmont/Broadway, North/Sheffield etc. the market rate is probably pushing $10/hr.

$100 million for "programs helping low-income people" sounds like money being flushed down a toilet of graft to me, but I guess that's the price of business in Chicago. Y'all should check out the millions of dollars in the city budget spent on services for the various neighborhood organizations/groups sometime by exploring the Contract Awards section of the city's procurement site.

Ch.G, Ch.G Dec 3, 2008 5:09 AM

Thanks for all the details, VivaLFuego. I think you're absolutely right that parking is dramatically underpriced; anything that helps to correct that is a good thing. Now that the city is replacing meters with kiosks and stickers, shouldn't "variable meter pricing" be easier to accomplish? I mean, were the city (or Chicago Parking Meter) to want to.

It all begs the question, to: Is the public entitled to parking-- that is, free parking or parking whose price is determined by the need for fair circulation and not the market? That idea seems like a relic of a bygone era when driving was considered a social good.

Anyway, I was especially interested by this point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3949043)
the city cannot contractually commit to the subservience of its police power to private interests.

I guess my questions weren't out there after all? The CPD is publicly funded. If it continued to patrol meters then that's a hidden cost which eats into the $1.1 billion. However, that would be moot if what you say is true, VivaLFuego, which case Chicago Parking Meter would have to incorporate some kind of a security staff or towing agency into its business, yeah?

VivaLFuego Dec 3, 2008 5:27 AM

I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work from a legal standpoint - I wish I did, and hopefully will eventually. But I'm just pointing that this one in particular (in contrast to say, the downtown parking garages) is an interesting legal case because of the connection to the police power. I know San Francisco is launching some sort of pilot program with variable meter pricing, but I'm not sure if they're in a different legal environment vis-a-vis state laws regarding parking meters than we are in Chicago and Illinois.

As I understand it now, parking violations can be written by contract employees, not only uniformed officers. Maybe someone else can confirm. The "police power" is more of a legal concept than a reference to actual cops on the beat. I have to imagine that, even if it's ultimately city employees or city contractors enforcing the meters, that enforcement cost would still be paid by the concessionaire. But again, the demand for enforcement is also proportionate to the number of meters, their hours of operation, etc. all of which can change in the future, and surely will at some point during the life of the concession.

I think a determination of whether the city got a good deal will be in the sum total of how all these little details were handled in the contract.

arenn Dec 3, 2008 2:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip (Post 3949001)
the more services that are not run by the City the better. A city government is inherantly very expensive and inefficient to run. I look at it like a back to basics type thing for the city.

While I know the parking meters net 19.5 million last year it is still not another service run by the city. The less the better.

This is not about outsourcing for efficiency, it's about outsourcing to raise revenue. No matter how efficient the private operator is at running parking meters, the rates to consumers are going up 4x.

pip Dec 3, 2008 2:51 PM

to a whopping dollar

my point is the less the city has to do the better. The city is inefficient, beaurcratic, and expensive to run, no matter what it does. They should focus on their core stuff, like running the city.

the urban politician Dec 3, 2008 3:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3949043)
The next step should be at least quadrupling the annual fee for the residential zone permit stickers, and somehow figuring out a legal way to institute variable meter pricing to accommodate the peaking behavior of parking demand at neighborhood retail strips. On summer Saturday afternoons at Clark/Fullerton, Belmont/Broadway, North/Sheffield etc. the market rate is probably pushing $10/hr.

^ My understanding from somewhere (I think it may have been Greg Hinz's blog at Crains yesterday) is that this deal will lead to the use of better technology allowing for variable pricing.


In bicycling news:

A budding bike-tropolis
Chicago’s Bike 2015 plan keeps biking in city safe, efficient with big plans for next year
by John Lendman
With plans to transform Chicago into an all-encompassing bikeway network, the city of Chicago is ambitious-to say the least.

The city’s Bike 2015 plan seeks to increase bicycle use by making it safer and more accessible to cyclists so that all trips less than 5 miles are eventually by bike, according to the 150-point strategy plan.

In 2008, Chicago’s Department of Transportation’s Bicycling Ambassador program took on 75 of those benchmarked strategies. The installation of hundreds of new bike racks and bike lanes, the educating of thousands of Chicagoans through outreach programs and the opening of the new state-of-the-art Sauganash bike trail, at West Bryn Mawr and North Kostner Avenues, are just a few examples, said Charlie Short, the Bicycling Ambassador program coordinator.

While the city is far from finished, he said, it’s much closer to making Chicago a “world class city for bicycling” than ever before.
Plans are underway for Chicagoans to see 11 more miles of bike lanes, 7 more miles of shared bike lanes, five new transit shelters, a “share the road” training program for taxi cab drivers and CTA operators and an “individualized marketing campaign” to encourage commuters to replace their automobile trips with biking and mass transit, project officials said.

The new plans will be officially revealed at the quarterly Bicycle Advisory Council Meeting on Dec. 10 at 30 N. LaSalle St.

The need for safer bike lanes and bike racks is one of the main priorities, Short said, whose program was able to reach all 50 wards in the city this year with the 2015 plan.

“It’s one thing to be able to put a bike lane down and another thing for people to have some place to [lock] their bike,” Short said. “There’s always work to be done; we make

that our intent every year.”

The Active Transportation Alliance, formerly the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, was hired as a consultant to help actualize many of the encompassing goals of the program.

Margo O’Hara, communications director of the biking advocacy group, said by comparison to other bike-friendly cities, Chicago manages to accomplish the goals set by the 2015 plan rather impressively.

She said she can’t emphasize enough the importance of training CTA operators on sharing the road with bikers, a task her group has worked to address for years.

“We actually wrote up a curriculum for CTA bus drivers a number of years ago, which has fallen by the wayside,” she said. “It’s nice to see the city pick that up again.”

But not all advocacy groups believe the 2015 plan goes far enough in defense of bikers.

Todd Gee, president of Chicago bike-activist group Break The Gridlock, said he would like to see the city spearhead initiatives to reduce automobile usage in its entirety.

Gee said the 2015 plan is on the right track, but the city can increase bike safety by making driving downtown more expensive with increases in the cost of parking stickers or implementing direct impediments to driving.

“Actual reduction is the most important thing,” Gee said. “It seems people don’t have a holistic view in mind when using their car.”

Break The Gridlock attributes America’s automobile dependence as a contributing factor to global warming, global terrorism and heart disease, according to BreakTheGridlock.org, a grassroots organization that works with biking advocates all over the city “addressing the impact of cars on Chicagoans.”

Steven Lane, a West Town resident and volunteer at biking advocacy group Critical Mass, who has been biking to and from work for 10 years said, the city’s biking community carries a general sense of pride in Chicago for spearheading so many bike-friendly initiatives, but the plan still has a few kinks to work out.

From considering bikerider density when formulating safe routes to accommodating U-Locks for the new CTA bike racks, Lane said, some of the 2015 plan’s projects aren’t being orchestrated logically.

“It’s sometimes ironic that we would come to this new system being unveiled and everyone’s like, ‘Wait a minute, I can’t use this [with my lock],’” Lane said about the new double-stacked bike racks at various CTA stations.

“We still have a ways to go in order to catch up with Portland, Ore., or even further to become an international bike city like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, [Denmark],” he said. “But I’m feeling better and better and the city is way safer than it was 10 years ago.”

Chicago3rd Dec 3, 2008 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 3949087)
However, that would be moot if what you say is true, VivaLFuego, which case Chicago Parking Meter would have to incorporate some kind of a security staff or towing agency into its business, yeah?

Doesn't the city make money policing the meters with its tickets? Seems like a win win situation. Will the city still have meter maids and still ticket and boot? If yes...then there is some money to be made here for people breaking the law.

I am happy for anything that means less cars on the roads.

nomarandlee Dec 3, 2008 3:14 PM

I do think that a raise in metered parking is in order as 25 cents is a pittance. However I think unintended consequences should be considered. Even if two dollars isn't going to break the bank for most people it will be construed by some as just another needless type tax and encourage people to go to stores with lot parking. Would I rather have people who feel it is there God given right to drive and have cheap street parking or do we want people who make a point to avoid a tax and go where the parking is free and retail and landowners which blight the landscape with their lots?

I anticipate for sure a big fat no but is there any legal way to institute mandatory metered parking on for all retail parking lots so that strip malls don't have an advantage over street oriented retail?

ChicagoChicago Dec 3, 2008 3:28 PM

Personally, I’d like to curb Blago’s face for letting old people ride free. I suppose I just hate old people, but as a daily bus rider, they slow everything to a crawl. They stand up front and talk to the driver. They take 3 minutes to sit down. If you’re that damn old and fragile, you shouldn’t be out of the nursing home.

Mr Downtown Dec 3, 2008 3:33 PM

CPD doesn't write parking tickets. Those are issued by employees of the Dept. of Revenue.

Chicago3rd Dec 3, 2008 3:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3949791)
CPD doesn't write parking tickets. Those are issued by employees of the Dept. of Revenue.

So the city still makes money...cool. Which is my point.

The police will just issue tickets for City Stickers and we are all in the money.

VivaLFuego Dec 3, 2008 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 3949761)

I anticipate for sure a big fat no but is there any legal way to institute mandatory metered parking on for all retail parking lots so that strip malls don't have an advantage over street oriented retail?

One could tax off-street parking spaces, but that would also require having an inventory of all off-street parking spaces.

lawfin Dec 3, 2008 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3949791)
CPD doesn't write parking tickets. Those are issued by employees of the Dept. of Revenue.

They sure as hell do, I have received my share and the officers name and if I recall star # were on there additionally there are no parking signs in front of my house and I have witnessed police cars writing parking tickets. Also in the nieghborhoods you sometimes see the beat cops writing up tickets.

arenn Dec 3, 2008 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3949028)
^ The city will put $400 million away for "future use" but the interest of $20 million per year that it collects from that will replace the lost parking meter revenue. So that issue is resolved. The beauty is, this gives Chicago the opportunity to jack up the cost of parking without as much of the political tug-of-war and fallout (ie we had to do it to save the budget, look we got 1.2 billion dollars out of it! and it's not us raising the revenues, it's that new company that runs the meters..etc)

Clearly, the ability to outsource the political will to raise charges is a big part of recent lease deals, in Chicago and elsewhere.

If the $400 million is treated as an endowment, it will generate replacement funds in the short term. But I think the fund will eventually be spent, probably on the Olympics if the city wins, and inflation will erode the value of the revenue stream over time. And it seems likely, for example, that parking meter rates would have gone up significantly in the next 75 years even without this deal.

Chicago3rd Dec 3, 2008 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 3950076)
They sure as hell do, I have received my share and the officers name and if I recall star # were on there additionally there are no parking signs in front of my house and I have witnessed police cars writing parking tickets. Also in the nieghborhoods you sometimes see the beat cops writing up tickets.

Yes you are right about 1/4 of the parking tickets are written by the police.

I would like to add that I think the moneys should all be directed towards Transportation...be it Public Transportation or Alternative Transportation or the refinement of Vehicular Transportation. The money should be staying in the area it is being taken from.

Nowhereman1280 Dec 3, 2008 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 3950087)
Clearly, the ability to outsource the political will to raise charges is a big part of recent lease deals, in Chicago and elsewhere.

If the $400 million is treated as an endowment, it will generate replacement funds in the short term. But I think the fund will eventually be spent, probably on the Olympics if the city wins, and inflation will erode the value of the revenue stream over time. And it seems likely, for example, that parking meter rates would have gone up significantly in the next 75 years even without this deal.

Assuming the city has $400 million and doesn't spend it and manages it properly, inflation will not erode the value of the revenue stream because they will be making significantly more than the rate of interest on the money.
If they do spend the money on something, then inflation is irrelevant because their investment has been changed from a financial asset to a real asset and no longer is affected by inflation. Ideally whatever they spend it on will lead to even more tax revenue for the city and therefore preserve the revenues.

arenn Dec 3, 2008 6:30 PM

Nowhereman, I'm curious to know what you think the rate of return will be on the money? If we assume 3% inflation and a $20 million draw, it should be easy to run the numbers.

Now is probably not a bad time to be putting $400 million to work given that the markets are down substantially this year.

ChicagoChicago Dec 3, 2008 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arenn (Post 3950189)
Nowhereman, I'm curious to know what you think the rate of return will be on the money? If we assume 3% inflation and a $20 million draw, it should be easy to run the numbers.

Now is probably not a bad time to be putting $400 million to work given that the markets are down substantially this year.

I seriously doubt that $400mm will be invested into anything other than US government securities. That puts the yield just above inflation. The real problem is that the city is likely to siphon the interest, so the investment principle will stay $400mm and thus shrink with time value of money.

lawfin Dec 3, 2008 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 3950150)
Assuming the city has $400 million and doesn't spend it and manages it properly, inflation will not erode the value of the revenue stream because they will be making significantly more than the rate of interest on the money.
If they do spend the money on something, then inflation is irrelevant because their investment has been changed from a financial asset to a real asset and no longer is affected by inflation. Ideally whatever they spend it on will lead to even more tax revenue for the city and therefore preserve the revenues.

Since when does inflation not effect the valuation of real assets??

Taft Dec 3, 2008 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 3950293)
Since when does inflation not effect the valuation of real assets??

Sure, it does. But real assets (outside of commodities) generally are worth less as time goes on. Machines (cars, computers, meters, etc.) all wear out over time and are subsequently worth less as they are used. The depreciation of the asset over time will vary highly from type to type.

Taft

arenn Dec 3, 2008 9:11 PM

Governments do not typically depreciate assets in their operating budget. Also, capital assets often have an operational cost associated with them. Thus when a government purchases a new capital asset, it actually inherits a big future liability for maintenance and capital refresh.

That's one reason leasing out capital assets like the tollway can be a good idea. It offloads the assets, but also the liabilities as well, which are now the concessionaires problem. It effectively hedges the future uncertainty associated with these assets.

Nowhereman1280 Dec 3, 2008 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin (Post 3950293)
Since when does inflation not effect the valuation of real assets??

I never said it doesn't affect the valuation I said it doesn't affect the value. Once you convert a dollar into something material (and I don't mean that as a term of art), then you have a real benefit. After that point the monetary value of the asset no longer determine's its worth to you but its real value, or "output" does. For example, say you buy a bus for $1000 and also have a bond for $1000. Right after you do this, inflation goes from 3% to 1000% and a year later the real value of the bond is only $1 compared to what you paid for it. However, regardless of that rate of inflation, the bus is still capable of carrying 50 passengers around. This is the same things as the old hyperinflation basket full of money. In hyperinflationary scenarios people get paid with a basket full of money and as they are running to go spend it, someone robs them, dumps the money out, and runs off with the basket. The basket is not affected by inflation, but the liquid asset is. Thus you see what I am saying when I say the real value of a non-monetary asset is not affected by inflation. However, when you buy an asset like a bus, you then have to worry about depreciation as the bus gradually breaks and eventually wears out and is no longer able to carry the passengers you intended to carry with it.

Dr. Taco Dec 3, 2008 10:00 PM

received this in an email. I'm SO happy we're getting car-pool lanes. With this radical 400 million dollar plan, we are destined to do our part to save mother earth from it's most ferocious, vile enemy: man.

Board Approves $1.8 Billion Capital Improvement Plan
Congestion-Relief Program Phase Two Planning Begins
http://www.up0.net/content/666809/De...2_eNews_op.jpg

In an effort to maintain congestion relief, reduce emissions and invest in Illinois jobs, the Illinois Tollway has approved a $1.8 billion capital improvement plan – Tomorrow´s Transportation Today endorsed by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich. This plan represents Phase Two of the Congestion-Relief Program, and includes a $1.4 billion Interchange Improvement Program and $400 million to develop a Green Lane Plan.

"These Green Lanes and new interchanges will not only help commuters, but will also pay real dividends to Illinois' communities and businesses through massive new business development," said Governor Blagojevich.

The plan includes the creation of dedicated Green Lanes offering access to ride-sharing commuters at regular I-PASS rates and critical Interstate-to-Interstate interchange improvements to the Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (I-90)/I-290-IL Route 53 interchange, the Tri-State Tollway (I-294)/I-57 Interchange along with systemwide local interchange projects.

More information regarding Tollway congestion efforts and other Illinois programs can be found by clicking here to read the most recent version of the Governor´s Gazette.
Learn more about the Congestion-Relief Program Phase Two–Tomorrow´s Transportation Today

ardecila Dec 3, 2008 10:14 PM

The reason I support the raising of rates is because street parking should be available. The traffic caused by people circling and looking for street parking only contributes to the city's traffic congestion. If I really need a space quickly near a store or near somebody's apartment, then I can find one easily if I'm willing to pay the price.

It's simple economics - you adjust the price of a commodity until demand equals supply. On-street parking is a limited commodity, of course, and the city can't simply build new roads to create more curbside parking.

This could have an alternative effect, as well. Since on-street parking is often more convenient to destinations that parking garages, people with money will choose to park on-street. The parking garages, faced with less people willing to pay their absurd rates, will have to lower their rates in order to fill all the spaces. (Of course, this neglects other benefits of parking garages like security and shelter form rain....)

Re: the carpool lanes - I'm disappointed that the routes into the city won't be included. HOV lanes on the Kennedy, the Ike, the Stevenson, or the Ryan would go a long way toward making the highways better, since transit isn't cost-effective for large groups.

VivaLFuego Dec 3, 2008 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstush04 (Post 3950763)
With this radical 400 million dollar plan, we are destined to do our part to save mother earth from it's most ferocious, vile enemy: man.

... seriously?

Dr. Taco Dec 3, 2008 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3950874)
... seriously?

I'm seriously being sarcastic and cynical ;)

spyguy Dec 4, 2008 5:17 AM

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...554&TM=544.452

A Green Line station at Morgan
Would serve new residents and longtime businesses

By MICAH MAIDENBERG


A new el station will be built on the Green Line at Morgan Street in order to serve an increased population in the northern part of the West Loop. The station, expected to cost between $35 million and $40 million in tax increment financing dollars, will be built despite a feasibility study that found more potential riders for a Western Avenue stop on the Green Line.

Steele said construction on the station will begin in 2009, with an opening expected in late 2010 or in the early part of 2011.
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3003/6554aux8.jpg

ardecila Dec 4, 2008 7:56 AM

It's not bad. I was hoping that CTA would buy the little auto shop with the large parking lot and build a permanent station house there, but they decided to build completely within the envelope of the street.

Ch.G, Ch.G Dec 4, 2008 8:15 AM

^ It's also only a "conceptual" rendering.

the urban politician Dec 4, 2008 2:47 PM

How badly is an L stop really needed there?

If I recall, there really isn't much immediately around that station.

What I don't get is how the CTA/City missed the opportunity to negotiate an upzoning of land around the proposed site in return for granting the community this multi-million dollar station.

One more blown opportunity to make better use of transit infrastructure (pulls out thick notepad, flips several pages, and adds another checkmark..)

Chicago3rd Dec 4, 2008 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3952033)
How badly is an L stop really needed there?

If I recall, there really isn't much immediately around that station.

Tons of restaurants (even have their own taste) tons of new Condos....just people...and people who like to go there and use public transportation only. It will be so nice coming down from the northside and switching to the greenline. Will also make it easier for people going to and from Oak Park to meet there....it is on the way.

aaron38 Dec 4, 2008 3:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3948694)
I'm surprised that there has been very little discussion about metered parking rates increasing significantly in Chicago in the next few years (and for the first time in 70 yrs in some places, according to the Tribune).

There's a BLOODBATH going on in the Tribune commentary section, and everybody is after Daley. I can't begin to estimate how many commentators vowed to move out of the city and never visit again :haha:

I just heard about this yesterday when my wife saw it on the news. I have to say, I'm torn. $6 an hour, 24 hours a day for a parking meter is insane. There are times when we go clubbing from 10pm to 3am. So now I'm out 30 bucks for parking in a low denisty neighborhood? Screw that.

I just see those prices as being completely out of whack. I understand a $30 rate for the loop where there is very high density and congestion and easy transit options. The loop has transit access from all EL and Metra lines, so I don't have to drive.

But let's take this past weekend as an example. We went down to the Musicbox for a show and hit a bar beforehand. That helps the Chicago economy. And the harder the city makes it to get to places like that, the less people like me are going to go.

I live in Palatine, so what are my options to get from A to B? I can't take Metra cause the last train out is 12:30am. No help if I'm seeing a midnight show. So I have to drive most of the way anyway. I can park at Kimball and take the Brown, but that's so damn silly to drive 90% of the way, then park and take the EL for 4 stops because street parking has been made insanely expensive. It's going to keep people away. What we're going to have is empty parking spaces and empty businesses.

Or look at an evening like this. We come in from Palatine and meet some friends in Bucktown for a drink. Then we go to a club on Halstead and finally end up at a house in Lincoln Square. Mass transit sucks for an evening like that.


If all this new money collected was going to go to improving and expanding mass transit, such that I could do that evening without a car, then I would be much more supportive. But we all know that's not going to happen. This money is going to be pissed away in a general fund and transit options are going to remain just as crappy as they are today.

Like I said, I'm torn. I would love to be able to get around Chicago as quickly and cheaply as I can with a car, without the car. But this isn't Manhattan with a subway station every 4 blocks.

the urban politician Dec 4, 2008 3:15 PM

^ Your numbers are off. Parking will only be 1$/hr in most neighborhoods. Those high prices are only downtown.

Anyhow, punishing driving should be coupled with improving transit--my only issue with this parking lease.

Seriously, what the hell happened with that BRT plan? That was Federal money! Daley seems to have just swept that one under the rug.

Chicago3rd Dec 4, 2008 3:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3952072)
^ Your numbers are off. Parking will only be 1$/hr in most neighborhoods. Those high prices are only downtown.

Anyhow, punishing driving should be coupled with improving transit--my only issue with this parking lease.

Seriously, what the hell happened with that BRT plan? That was Federal money! Daley seems to have just swept that one under the rug.

We finally have something we agree on. This money...should be going to transporation issues. Making driving more efficiant and publictransporation alternatives. Am so tired of us making money off of one thing and not using that money to make what is being taxed even better.

the urban politician Dec 4, 2008 3:29 PM

^ Well, phase II of the deal was supposed to be getting implemented soon but.....SILENCE!! It's not enough to get 1.1 billion bucks in this deal on top of 153 million bucks from the Feds, Daley still can't find enough will in his soul to do something, anything, even the slightest morsel for transit in his city. :shrug:

Have I been deluded all along? Maybe Daley truly is the crony those commentators at the Tribune have been grumbling about this whole time. Perhaps it's a good thing that Uptown residents are suing the city for abusing tax money for subsidizing the Wilson Yards project, because the way I see it Daley is really beginning to run amuck with himself.

Seriously, like after the BRT plan was announced it's been utter silence. What ever happened to this:

04/29/08

City’s plan includes Bus Rapid Transit Service and “Peak Period Pricing” for Downtown Parking
Mayor Richard M. Daley and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today announced the city will receive $153.1 million in federal grant funds to be used for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion.

The city will use the money for an innovative program that combines building the first 10 miles of a proposed dedicated Bus Rapid Transit system of more than 100 miles with a parking pricing strategy aimed at encouraging motorists to come to the Central Business District outside the normal peak hours.

“As we all know, a modern public transportation system is essential to the future of our state, our region and our city. It is vital to our economic security and to our ability to recruit new businesses and create new jobs. It provides an alternative to cars and to the traffic congestion and air pollution they bring with them,” Daley said at a news conference with Secretary Peters. Senator Durbin participated in the event by teleconference from Washington, D.C.

“We believe this program represents a unique approach to reducing traffic congestion that combines Bus Rapid Transit with a parking pricing strategy. We believe it will be a model for other cities, “he said.

The money for the project comes from federal funds available for congestion reduction demonstration programs. The city expects to complete the project by 2010. It must be approved by the City Council and the CTA Board.

With the grant, the city will implement these projects:

10.2 miles of dedicated Bus Rapid Transit Service in key corridors
“Peak Period Pricing”, which would apply parking surcharges to peak period users of on-street metered parking and loading zones, and also off-street parking facilities in the Central Business District.
Establishing a fee system to help manage on-street loading zones downtown.
The on-street peak period pricing will be implemented through a long-term concession agreement with an experienced private sector parking manager, Daley said.

“As I have said several times in the past few weeks, the CTA needs to continue its commitment to focusing on improving the quality of service it provides to riders day by day,” Daley said.

The mayor said the two components are complementary.

“The parking pricing encourages drivers to come downtown outside the peak hours or take public transit. The Bus Rapid Transit service will give commuters a more modern and faster alternative to driving as well as better connections with rail lines. The result is less congestion and less pollution.

“We’ve always tried to lead by example. Our willingness to implement a new concept such as peak period pricing is what convinced Secretary Peters to make this grant,” Daley said.

“It’s a way to provide the speed and reliability closer to rail service without the costly infrastructure. Both Los Angeles and Vancouver have seen bus ridership increase after they introduced BRT,” he said.

And, the Bus Rapid Transit service will use the new articulated hybrid buses the CTA is buying, reducing air pollution, he said.

“Secretary Peters and I have met many times in Washington during the past two years to discuss ways we can help expand and strengthen the CTA,” Senator Durbin said.

“With Chicagoans spending nearly an hour and half commuting to and from work, we talked about the need for federal funding to lay the groundwork for modernizing and improving public transportation in Chicago. “Today’s announcement will do just that, with newer buses, more connections to rail, quicker travel times and less congestion on Chicago’s roads,” Durbin said.

“We have the second largest transit system in the country. A million people a day ride the CTA buses, and too many of them are stuck in traffic,” Mayor Daley said.

The first 10.2 miles of the Bus Rapid Transit will be established in key corridors to be determined.

In addition to fewer stops, features of BRT include dedicated lanes, next-bus arrival information and rear door and prepaid boarding.

Traffic Signal Prioritization will extend a green traffic light or shorten a red traffic light by several seconds when it senses a bus approaching an intersection. This will help improve BRT speed of service.

Ultimately, a BRT network of more than 100 miles will connect with key destination points such as employment centers, shopping destinations, rail stations, and significant CTA transfer points.

Clearly, there is much to do to improve the transportation quality of life for our residents, and this grant gives us the opportunity to put in place a very creative plan, Daley said.

“The problem of traffic congestion in metropolitan areas is severe and worsening, but we don’t believe we have to live in gridlock forever. “The project we’re announcing today will make our city more sustainable, strengthen our public transportation system and reduce traffic congestions.

“It’s a major step forward in creating a transportation system that works for our people,” Daley said.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.