The Long, Ugly Road to a Federal Transportation Plan
Come September 30, Congress has to have a plan in hand to fund the nation's trains, buses, bikes, bridges and roads -- or pass an extension of the 2005 federal bill, locking in the same spending patterns that have nurtured Americans' addiction to the automobile. But the odds are that you haven't heard much about how the process works. What has to happen in order for Congress to meet that September deadline? Let's break it down a bit.
Continue reading »
MAA
@ Ian, Joan didn't say the J/M/Z was crowded in Manhattan, she said on the Brooklyn side, and as someone who is on one of those three lines every weekday morning (I board the M in Queens and often transfer to the J/Z), I would say that during the morning rush hour those who are boarding a J or Z at Marcy Ave(which is where people riding the Nostrand Ave BRT would be boarding) are getting on a very crowded train. It might not be as bad as the L at Bedford or the E at 23rd St Ely, but it's pretty darn tight and I've on more than one occassion seen people not even try and decide to wait for the next train. M trains are usually less crowded because a lot of people get off at Flushing for Woodhull Hospital, so I might agree with you there, but the J/Z on Brooklyn, as Joan wrote, are overcrowded. To furhter support her proposal for bringing that bus over the bridge, many of the people who crammed on at Marcy get off at the first stop Essex or Canal two stops later.
in response to High Hopes -- And Higher Standards -- for Bloomberg 3.0
Ian Turner
John is correct, the greatest risk to Morgan Stanley is that the deal will be changed unilaterally sometime in the future, a la AIG bonus scandal. And indeed I'd say this risk is very likely to materialize, once the institutional collapse that Larry is talking about takes place. It's a question of how soon that happens.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Larry Littlefield
You can see how they hook people in. They hook in groups like the Manhattan Institute with the privitization angle. They hook in environmentalists with the making drivers pay for their impact angle. But it's all misdirection, and not worth arguing about.
What matters most of all is that this is yet another example of a generation that inherited the United States from those who came before selling it out from under those coming after. That was the real motivation, and the real decision. End of story.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
BicyclesOnly
Andy, As you may know, TA's "Biking Rules" campaign has drawn criticism from some who not unreasonably question why a cyclist and pedestrian advocate. should divert any resources from the urgent task of controlling the routine unlawful and life-threatening conduct of motorists, and toward instructing cyclists on the law (see Peter's comment #1 above). These critics can rightly point to the culture of traffic lawlessness in NYC (motorists who routinely speed, fail to signal, or fail to yield or pass at a safe distance; pedestrians who routinely cross outside of crosswalks and/or against the light), and ask why cyclists should be held to a higher standard, particularly when those seeking to impose that standard rely on demonstrably false generalizations about dangers caused by urban cyclists. At the same time, we have large numbers of novice cyclists entering traffic over the last few years many of which don't know the traffic laws (and an even larger number of anticipated cyclists who will enter the road if a well-designed, robust public bike share program can be implemented). So there is a need to educate cyclists about traffic safety, but given the overall lax NYC traffic mores and the and the discriminatory double-standard asserted against cyclists, you come off as unrealistic and preachy, and alienate more cyclists than you educate, if you demand 100% compliance wih all laws. There's plenty of room for reasonable argument on where to strike the balance, but in my opinion, automatically excluding the "Lights Turn Heads" PSA because the bikes were not fully equipped with the lights required by law goes too far in the direction of unrealistic and counterproductive insistence on 100% law-abidingness for cyclists. And if you want a better understanding of the difficult context for cycling law and safety education in NYC, go visit a ride leaving from Union Square next Friday night, and see how far you get quoting from your VTL to the cyclists.
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
John Kaehny
Just to be clear, the "conservative" estimate that Chicago could have earned $670m more by keeping the meters, is the present value calculation. So, investment risk is priced into that. Accordingly, the net annual meter revenue Morgan will keep in future years is much more than $8m. I'd guess the main investment risk here to the Morgan consortium is that Chicago will seek to renege on the deal at some point, and it could turn into a big political and legal headache for investors. I've heard from Wall St sources that this is why at least one major firm did not bid on this deal. Also, this piece does not claim the bidding was rigged. Only that it was secret and opaque to the public and the city council. The public finance assumptions and considerations now being aired were never made explicit. Lastly, if oil and gas prices sky rocket, I'd wager the last place to be effected will be urban curb space. In Chicago, NYC, and San Francisco, the vast bulk of curb parking demand comes from commercial vehicles and local motorists, not commuters. Inner cities become more competitive and attractive as energy prices rise. Even with expensive energy there will still be plenty of people driving for transportation and to provide services in the urban cores.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Mark Walker
Mike C, thanks for your thoughtful response. My chief hope is that every American have access to some form of transit that works -- whatever form it takes.
in response to High Hopes -- And Higher Standards -- for Bloomberg 3.0
BicyclesOnly
Andy,
I may be wrong on this, but I think many so-called traffic "circles" in NYC are partly or fully signalized like this one. Columbus "Circle" comes to mind--every entry and egress point from the circle-form roadway has a signal, as far as I can remember. I think NYC drivers are too aggressive, uncooperative and unskilled to use a true Euro-style non-signalized rotary without lots of crashes.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Wizard
According to the Chicago Tribune, there were a dozen financial firms expressing interest in the Chicago meters. At the end of the bidding process there were two high bidders for the parking meters whose bids were less than 10% apart. This triggered the City's "best and final offer" process between the two companies. Both re-submitted higher bids and the Morgan Stanley bid beat out their competitor by over 100 Million dollars. This doesn't remotely sound like a "rigged" process.
In addition to paying the nearly 1.2 Billion, Morgan Stanley then invested another 40 Million in new technology which was implemented in less than a year. While everyone is harping about the unprecedented rate hikes, one needs to remember that parking rates at nearly 23,000 of the City's 36,000 metered parking spaces had not been raised in decades and were an astonishing low twenty-five cents per hour. When was the last time you parked at a meter in any of the top ten major US metropolitan cities and paid fifty cents for two hours parking?
What everyone is also overlooking is a very important factor called risk. The City divested itself of all risk and cost associated with operating the parking meter system. For example, if gas prices shoot upward of $5, a very likely scenario given the 75 year term of the concession, driving will undoubtedly decrease. What impact will that have on the meter system? What will happen with $10 or $15 a gallon gas prices? Add risk mitigation to the savings in future escalating operating costs for equipment, maintenance, labor agreements, pensions, etc. and the City in my opinion made a very wise trade off.
Let’s assume that the City could have done exactly the same thing as the private operator. They could have netted an additional 600 Million over and above the 1.2 Billion it received up front. Over 75 years that's a theoretical 8 Million dollars per year that the City “gave up”. How does that stack up when one considers the risk? What is the value placed on betting that there will always be passenger cars in sufficient quantities to generate that kind of return for the next 75 years?
Chicagoans love to moan about corruption, fraud and their crooked elected officials. It's tradition and if they didn’t it wouldn’t be Chicago. Let’s face it; the local Chicago media bashes Daley at every opportunity. Just look at the last few months of headlines regarding the Olympics, the parking meters, Oprah and even the poor performance of their sports teams. When was the last positive news article about the Daley administration to come out from any of the Chicago media outlets? I’m hard pressed to recall even one.
Let’s not throw out the P3 model with the Chicago bathwater.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Larry Littlefield
Looks like they took my advice and shank the circle from the outside in, rather than from the inside out. Hopefully my child and her friends will be less likely to be run over crossing that circle.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Larry Littlefield
Look, this is a three part deal:
1) Raise parking fees to market rate. Fine, but the city could have done it itself.
2) Transfer part of the value of future parking revenues to a Wall Street firm in a secret, no-bid deal. Standard practice.
3) But here is the key. Take future revenues and spend them right now, cashing in an asset created by past generations who built this country up and selling it out from under future generations.
Will the city of Chicago still have to maintain the streets in the future? If so, it will have an ongoing cost but no ongoing revenues -- just like the MTA which will have to maintain the transit system (or more likely not) as future revenues go to the past maintenance of the transit system.
The whole purpose of the deal was to allow today's politicians to cash in the future. The rest is details and misdirection.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Mike C
Mark:
I support PRT development but I would never suggest "stop[ping] the subways and buses". That would be absurd and counter-productive.
In fact, I'm a big supporter of heavy rail systems like the NYC subways, because the population density and transit culture creates enough demand to make it feasible to operate 24 hours a day at high frequency.
But I don't support ill-conceived rail projects in low-density car-centric cities, where investment in big vehicle transit is a waste of energy and capital.
Did you know, for example, that the average energy usage of US light rail is over 7000 BTU/passenger-mile, and that Galveston's light rail consumes more than 30,000 BTU/pax-mi? For reference, a Hummer with a single passenger is less than 7000. (source: Dept of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book - Fig. 2.2)
The best initial application for PRT is a city like Galveston, not New York. And there are many more Galvestons than New Yorks in this car-dominated country.
For New York, PRT might have a role in less dense outer boroughs, where it could provide circulation support for the existing subway lines, extending the reach of the transit network to areas that are not dense enough for heavy rail lines. This strategy is not about "shutting down" the rail lines, but rather, extending their reach.
in response to High Hopes -- And Higher Standards -- for Bloomberg 3.0
Andy B from Jersey
Mike, your right I haven't been to it since it has been redone and with your explanation and reviewing the PP I now understand.
It is very unusual to have to go through a traffic light to leave a circle or roundabout. In fact I have NEVER seen that done anywhere (domestically or abroad) but doing so is an utterly brilliant solution and just about eliminates any conflicts bicyclist could have with cars.
I humbly rescind all my concerns about conflicts at intersections!
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Andy B from Jersey
At 0:18 to 0:20 when the bikes are pictured from above, biking passed the sharrows, it is clear to me that they do not have front lights which is therefore demonstrating the illegal operation of a bicycle at night.
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
Andy B from Jersey
Clarence,
I have the utmost respect for you and your work but I respectfully and firmly disagree.
The devil is most definately in the details!
Details are VERY important for a PSA about the legal operation of a bicycle, particularly at night. The PSA should have made a point to show a white light at the front of the bike or showed it being turned on like it shows the rear light being turned on. It could have easily been slipped in for 0.5 secs during editing. As is, the message is that ONLY a red rear light is necessary.
I also would have expected TA to catch this and not let it slide.
Like I said, "it's a matter of credibility."
Otherwise I think it is a brilliant little piece of animation.
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
Cap'n Transit
Well, he certainly wasn't the first. Did that man ever have an original thought?
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
da
I think it was Ronald Reagan who said, "What's the future ever done for me?"
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Mike Epstein
Andy, it doesn't sound like you've ever been to this circle. The intersections are fully signalized in both directions (traffic entering and leaving the circle), so there are no turning conflicts whatsoever, with pedestrians or bikes. That is, at every intersection, cars and peds/bikes are moving perpendicular to each other, and one or the other has the signal, never both.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Clarence Eckerson Jr.
Andy,
I think you really need to chill out. It's a very nice PSA, obviously the message is to ride with lights at night. I have no idea if there is a front light actually turned on in any of the shots, but I can say that this entire video is just a series of photos (if you look carefully those black "things" under the pedals are props to hold up the feet so it actually looks like they are riding.
The filmmakers obviously wanted to concentrate on the red lights coming out of the back and to highlight that, because you can't create shapes out of a front white light going forward.
Since you never see a shot of the bike head on, you can't even validly make your claim anyway. You got 30 seconds to pack a punch, sometimes you can't show every single little thing.
You are being extremely nit picky. If it was a 3 minute video on how you should ride a bike with proper lights at night, then of course you have a case if they never showed a light being turned on. Here it is a creative decision, turn the light on - cut to the artistic coolness - end promo. That's all.
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
Gross
Lets not throw the Baby out with the bathwater.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Andy B from Jersey
Mike & Stacy, yes, I'm glad to hear that they are signalized but are they given their own signal phase like on 9th ave in Manhattan? Bicycle traffic can arrive to an intersection very quickly from far away, unlike pedestrians. Once a crosswalk is clear of peds, it is usually clear. If a pedestrian unexpectedly enters the crosswalk when the driver is already committed to making the turn, a pedestrian can stop rather easily. If a bicyclist enters the intersection at high speed (15mph or higher) from a direction a driver might not expect, once the driver is committed the results are usually not so benign.
Like I said (admittedly) without having seen the redesigned circle I still have my concerns about this one aspect of the project.
And Stacy, if you and I are both right about salmoning being the reason behind DoT designing it this way (I know, calls for lots of speculation), it is sure a sad statement about how cyclists behave in NYC and what is expected of them.
God! I sound like John Forester more and more! Ugghh!
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Cap'n Transit
Waterfront boulevard, anyone? If it's good enough for San Francisco and Seattle it should be good enough for the South Bronx.
in response to $266 Million to Widen the Deegan. Crumbs for a More Livable Bronx River.
Andy B from Jersey
Alright, before I say anything else, I think all the other winners were absolutely superb!
HOWEVER, I can't understand how TA could have chosen the featured video as a winner?!?! The cyclist in the PSA "Lights turn heads," is still breaking the law! I watched it several times and the rider never turns on a front headlight. At best (and I'm being VERY generous), it is unclear.
I know of no state that allows cyclists to ride at night without a front headlight.
While a technical and artistic triumph, any PSA promoting proper legal behavior no matter what the activity, must show everything done within the letter of the law otherwise it is a total failure. Heck! The rider is even wearing a helmet which is not required and I wouldn't have cared if he didn't. To me this oversight is totally unacceptable and would have eliminated the entry from a prize immediately if I were a judge. It is just as bad as if the creators of "Lights turn heads" then showed the rider riding the "Wrong Way" as was the theme of the other $2,000 winner.
I sorry but I'm would have expected TA to be just as critical of the oversight. It's a matter of credibility!
I quote from the NY State Vehicle and Traffic Law - Article 34:
Section 1236. Lamps and other equipment on bicycles.
(a) Every bicycle when in use during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible during hours of darkness from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and with a red or amber light visible to the rear for three hundred feet. Effective July first, nineteen hundred seventy-six, at least one of these lights shall be visible for two hundred feet from each side.
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
Gross
The redesign is great (I love it in fact) and MUCH safer to walk thru. Drivers will have to get used slowing down.
There is a well connected and very vocal minority that have somehow scheduled a DOT Walk Through. I hope the motivation of the group comes from a place that allows for equal and safe use of pubic space regardless of your mode of transport.
Here is the info on the Walk Through:
"Park Circle Walk-Through
Review the Results & Provide Feedback
The NYCDOT is still making adjustments to Park Circle and would love to hear what you think works and what still needs improvement. Come walk around the area with DOT staff and share your thoughts. All are welcome!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
5:00PM – 6:30PM
Meet at the Park Circle entrance of Prospect Park
(between Prospect Park Southwest and Parkside Ave. )
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Claudette Workman"
Please attend.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
BB
What was that thing by his pedals?
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
Peter Smith
i don't like the idea of that entire campaign -- PSA's to keep cyclists from killing people when cars are the real culprits -- BUT -- wow, that's a pretty amazing video.
in response to PSAs Rock! Watch the Winners of TA's "Biking Rules" Video Contest
Jeri
This massive ripoff is nothing new to Chicagoans. Mayor Daley and his friends have been conducting these types of ripoffs for years in order to feed a cash hungry machine run on waste and corruption.
Its the perfect kind of deal for a man who doesn't care at all about future generations.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Mike Epstein
Andy, all the intersections of the 2-way path with car traffic are signalized.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Stacy
Andy B from Jersey: The lane does look a bit narrow for two-way but, truth is, most bike lanes wind up being two-way (unofficially) Maybe it's safer to recognize the salmon and accommodate them with a wider than one-way lane. Cars are supposed to look for pedestrians crossing these intersections so they should be able to look for bicycle traffic too.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Ian Turner
Indeed, the business models of businesses such as Rent-a-Center are predicated on taking advantage of households' unreasonably high discount rate.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
BicyclesOnly
Trips out to Coney Island have always been one of our family's favorites, but the connection to Ocean Parkway from Prospect Park was incredibly harrowing. One time my son got confused and rode part way up the ramp to the Prospect Expressway before I could stop him. I am really looking forward to trying this out on our next trip to Coney.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Jim
Larry -- you are right, politicians have an immeasurably high discount rate which is why this deal is a no brainer under any circumstances. However, that makes them no dumber than your average American household!
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Eric McClure
Hey, we're already selling Bruce Ratner a valuable railyard for a fraction of its value. Why not securitize our parking meter fees to build his basketball arena -- something we really need?!!
in response to Today's Headlines
Andy B from Jersey
Wait. Am I catching this right? The bike path/lane around the circle is bi-directional? (I looked at the PP and it wasn't clear) I don't know how I feel about that.
There are quite a few high-volume intersections this path would cross. Will MV drivers expect bicycle traffic coming in the opposite direction? I'm sure DoT with address this with new traffic signals but why the need? Is DoT just designing it this way knowing that cyclist would simply salmon around the circle if they didn't? The circle is NOT so big that it is unreasonable to expect bicyclists to ride 3/4 of the way around it.
Plus that path seems almost too narrow for two-way bike traffic even without the puddles and other debris as pictured above. If traffic was one-way there would be plenty of room to navigate around these hazards. As is, to avoid these hazards one would need to navigate into oncoming bicycle traffic.
I do hope there is a clearly reasonable reason for this designing the bicycle facility this way. Besides this one concern, it looks like an excellent project.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
ddartley
Thank you for bringing back this feature.
I hope you email all or part of it each week to our new DA Elect, whether you think he already reads it or not.
in response to The Weekly Carnage
Clarence Eckerson Jr.
I'd like to thank Chicago for so massively screwing this up they will be a role model - hopefully - for the rest of the U.S. who are considering doing anything like it here forward.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Nicole Gelinas
I have a new report (linked below) on how to do PPPs and how not to do PPPs. The Chicago deal would fall under the second category.
To name just two reasons, the term is way too long (meaning mistakes made in favor of the concessionare are compounded over decades), and, any operational efficiencies are so small that they'll likely be overwhelmed by the private sector's higher debt and equity costs (including the equity requirement to make a profit).
PPPs are just a government tool; they are not a panacea. And as John says above, PPPs do not eliminate, or even much reduce, governments' need to prioritize infrastructure spending.
In fact, the worst PPPs are often those that seem to save the government the most money; look at the London tube deal.
http://www.citiesonahill.org/infrastructure/
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
John Kaehny
Moser raises a very important point that was discussed in the previous two posts. Chicago could have cut out the Morgan middle man and "bribed itself" with a much larger upfront payment, then used a portion of the $650 million to $1 billion above what it pocketed to pay for visible community improvements like streetscapes, bus service, library hours --- stuff the average person would notice. Motorists would still be irate about higher meter rates, but at least they and their neighbors would see more immediate benefit. Cities know how to monetize future revenue streams via bonding. If a massive one shot of 75 years of meter money is the goal, Chicago could have done it without Wall St collecting half of the new revenue.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
jass
How much have the rates gone up?
If rates had remained the same (probably if the city were in charge), how much money would we be talking about?
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Stacy
Wonderful! So many new bike lanes are cropping up faster than I can ride them,
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Larry Littlefield
"This post shows a lack of understanding of basic finance."
I understand basic finance perfectly well. The current generation of leaders has the highest discount rate in history. What's yours?
Mine is zero.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Jim
This post shows a lack of understanding of basic finance. PPPs don't mean a city is "losing revenue to Wall Street," it's receiving a larger upfront payment from the bank in return for giving up future revenue streams. This is in essence a loan secured by a specific infrastructure asset. If the asset is auctioned off competitively the city should come out ahead since banks now have an incredibly low cost of capital because they can borrow from the Fed discount window at zero. Additionally, they benefit if the asset is being mismanaged. The problem is not with PPPs -- the problem is the asset was sold under a less than competitive auction.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Geck
that should read counter-flow/clockwise
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Geck
I particularly like the incorporation of bi-directional bike lanes around the circle. I assumed we would be expected to have to go 3/4 around the circle, crossing some major interchanges to get from Prospect Park to the Parade Grounds when my son pointed out last weekend we could legitimately go counter-clockwise in the bike lane crossing only one signaled intersection. Bravo to DOT.
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
Moser
I think some of you guys are missing the point here that the gathering ex-post-facto backlash against the deal is worse than what city government would have seen if it had just jacked up rates a few times over a number of years. It's a lesson in picking your poison to other municipal governments.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Larry Littlefield
This reminds me of the asset stripping by the Russian oligarchs after the Soviet Union fell.
After New York goes under, perhaps they'll sell the schools and future New Yorkers will have to rent them, in addition to paying debt service and pensions, before a dime of their taxes goes to their children's education.
Eliminate the up front payments, and just have ongoing revenue sharing, and the pols lose interest in the deals.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Larry Littlefield
"Larry, I missed the "greenwashing" angle. Do you mean "green" as in enviro or dollar bills?"
Greenwashing in that it was sold to some as a progressive policy, because it properly priced parking.
Kind of like selling the Brooklyn Bridge as a way to get tolls implemented without the political objection of providing a revenue stream for the MTA -- we can spend it all right now!
Give the future a nickel, take a dollar away.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Clarence Eckerson Jr.
Hoo-freaking-ray!
in response to In Progress: A More Walkable, Bikeable, Trottable Park Circle
John Kaehny
Larry, I missed the "greenwashing" angle. Do you mean "green" as in enviro or dollar bills?
There is a lot to say about PPP's and another piece is forthcoming on how to avoid the mistakes of the Chicago deal when pursuing one. Perhaps this piece suggests too strongly that PPPs must rely on upfront or "one shot" payments. Of course they could have structured the deal to have a much smaller upfront payment and on-going profit sharing. But the political foundation of the deal was getting the max possible upfront, in the shortest possible time frame.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Adam Wride
Actually, after reading that nytimes article, the citizens of Chicago need to file a lawsuit against the company or their city management. That deal is crooked.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off
Adam Wride
Only problem I see here is that Chicago doesn't share in profits.
in response to It's Official: Chicago Parking Privatization a Massive Rip-Off