Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Chicagoland / Politics / Clout City I Give Up
Posted by Whet Moser on 02.17.10 at 12:50 PM
You are probably aware that the sale of the parking meters was a political disaster with growing repercussions for privatization vis a vis broke cities. But did you know it causes other crippling problems?
Here is where the larger state of the City’s economy comes in to question. While driving around Chicago yesterday I decided it would be nice to have a hot latte from Starbucks. I pulled up outside, and luckily, I found a spot right in front of the store. I then realized the parking meter pay kiosk was halfway down the block. I sat in my car for a second and thought, “if this were the old days, I could throw a quarter in a meter run in and I would have my wonderful hot latte in my hands.” The walk to the meter in the cold weather led me to pull away without my hot latte.I then began wondering how Starbucks would feel knowing they missed out on a sale due to the fact that the parking meter station was too far away from their establishment. And, I wondered how many sales they miss on a daily basis due to this setup. To take it further, I started asking friends and colleagues if they make shopping decisions based on the meter situation. I found a resounding “yes.” One person stated that she will go out of her way to avoid the Walgreen’s with no parking lot and find a store that has free parking. I also repeatedly heard people say they avoid carry-out restaurants without a drive-through or a loading zone. I used to park at a meter right outside my office. I was happy to run out and feed my meter every couple of hours. It only cost me $1.00 for one hour of parking. Now, because the pay kiosk is almost half way down the block, I will drive around to find free parking within the neighborhood. Again, the parking revenue is lost.
Yes, that was a long excerpt from this post (via @swanksalot), but as I started to stop cutting and pasting, the author just kept doubling down. And in my horror I couldn't stop. Let's requote one passage just for emphasis.
I was happy to run out and feed my meter every couple of hours. It only cost me $1.00 for one hour of parking. Now, because the pay kiosk is almost half way down the block, I will drive around to find free parking within the neighborhood. Again, the parking revenue is lost.
In other words:
1. The author and her friends would rather drive around rather than walk half a block.
2. The author and her friends are not bothered by the considerably greater expense, but by the marginally greater distance from the car to the parking meter.
3. The author hasn't considered one of the actual benefits of the new parking meter system: by having only one meter kiosk per block instead of parking spaces defined by individual parking meters, there's more parking space per block (broadly speaking).
4. The author thinks that this is going to have a considerable effect on the city's economy.
5. Oh, fuck, what if she's right?
Things like this make me feel like I should go into a less hopeless-seeming field, like being a professional gas huffer or void-starer.
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
like
dislike
It certainly attaches another burden to the car-based lifestyle that most middle-class white people like. The question is whether they will tend to do more to support the car-based lifestyle, or move away from cars as the burdens get higher.
With a shortage of parking and increased fees for parking and tickets, there will be some number of people who could barely afford a car before, and now cannot afford one at all. Those people will increase foot traffic and public transportation usage. That group is good for cities and local businesses. There will be others who could afford to continue to use a car but choose not to because it's more than they want to pay. Again, this is good for cities and local businesses. On the other hand, some people will just allocate more resources to keeping their car.
Not sure how to figure out who will fit themselves where.
After reading the article a second time, it's a bit nutty, by which I mean myopic. The car-based lifestyle exists because of colossal subsidies, most obviously the road system the city pays to maintain, when you can get people from place-to-place for a tenth of the cost on public transportation. So if people drive cars less, there is a huge benefit for the cost-efficiency of the city. Cars also make it possible to shop easily in the suburbs, so a drop in car usage will mean an increase in shopping locally, which for most of us means in the city. And no matter what she says, if Starbuck's is a small, local business, then I'm a Galapagos turtle.
"It certainly attaches another burden to the car-based lifestyle that most middle-class white people like."
First of all, I have no idea why this would be a race issue or a class issue. Second, I don't understand how on earth you could use this example to support your argument that the new parking meter system discourages people from using cars instead of public transportation. Maybe it does. But the quote from the poster certainly does not illustrate this. The public transit alternative to quickly parking the car to purchase the drink would be to get off a bus or train, purchase the drink, and then wait for the next bus or train. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would do that, certainly not someone who is in a hurry like this poster. So your argument that this illustrates that public transit is now more attractive is not convincing. If the new system does discourage people from parking, it is unfortunate for all the businesses. People are discouraged from shopping in areas other than where they live or work or that have sufficiant parking lots. So someone like you who would presumembly like there to be a more urban lifestyle with walkable neighborhoods and thriving businesses in those neighborhoods should not be hoping that people are discouraged from driving and parking.
I actually don't really think that the new parking meter system and the higher prices discourage driving. I think they actually probably encourage it. Spaces are more freely available. My guess would be this increases the amount of total cars that park in neighborhoods. More people park for shorter periods of time. Far more people are likely to decide to use transit vs. driving based on hassle rather than a slight cost advantage. Certainly, if there is a prospect for easily finding a parking space it is unlikely that a group of four people going to a restuarant, for example, would choose to use transit when the commute times are pretty much the same. It would be cheaper for them to park, even under the highest new rates. I think that the new system encourages anybody who commutes to work (or who otherwise is staying parked for a long period of time) to use public transit but it encourages people going to a neighborhood for shopping, eating, or entertainment to drive. This, in my opinion, is good for neighborhoods because it provides for better access to it. It encourages people to frequent the business and will, in turn, create better dense, walkable neighborhoods. This apperantly is what Thomas wants. But paradoxically, it involves encouraging people to drive. So it really isn't as simple as his apparent belief that his goal is best accomplished by always discouraging driving.
The civic leaders of the city of Chicago are short sighted , greedy , and think that everyone else in the city is either too stupid to care , or just feels powerless to do anything to do about it. The parking meter scam is just the latest in a string of plots to rip off the money that is supposed to be used for the schools , city streets , mass transit , and other things besides lining the pockets of greedy alderman. Before that , the city spent countless millions of dollars for the pipe dream of having the Olympics in 2016, a fantasy that had as much chance of happening as not having a snow storm in the winter. Then , we hear that the city spent some $250 million studying a plan for high speed rail lines to both Midway and O' hare airports, which might be a good idea , if it actually produced anything. We hear that this is the most corrupt city in America , if not the most corrupt , than right up there, but , I have to live here , and I'm sick of hearing about how the schools are constantly broke , the CTA is publishing it's latest "doomsday budget" , while the mayor and his cronies continue to fleece the people they are supposed to be serving.
