Dear Editor,
The Chairman of the Private Sector Commission Mr Edward Boyer, makes a very valid point about the drawbacks of the current deal for the parking meter project: it is a heavy additional cost for those employers and employees who will need to park for 8 hours a day, and a major leakage of revenue from the city, with 80% of the gains going towards SmartCity and a penalty of 50% of investments and expenses per year for terminating a 20 year contract.
Considering also the risk of vandalism of the meters, the cost to replace damaged meters and the fact that side streets and narrower roadways may become more congested as persons seek to escape parking on the metered streets, it seems to be an undesirable means of controlling traffic congestion and generating revenue.
A friend of mine, a bus driver, suggested the use of smaller parking lots on abandoned or derelict properties throughout the city as an alternative to the parking meters.
These properties, which already belong to the city council, could be torn down, paved, painted and fenced, and a toll both placed at the entrance. Persons desirous of parking in the lots could be charged about $500 a day. This would work out to a monthly cost of $10,000 for the drivers.
Should a parking lot be able to hold a maximum of 10 cars, it would mean a gross revenue of $100, 000 per month per lot for the city council – a significant source of revenue.
Has the city council already considered such an alternative, and would they and the public at large consider this suggestion and give a more detailed cost-benefit analysis of it?
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
