Today’s Headlines for Friday, May 8

  • In 6 Years, CPM Recouped More Than Half the Money It Paid for 75-Year Parking Contract (Reader)
  • Tribune: Police DUI Stings Overlook White Neighborhoods With High Drunk Driving Crash Rates
  • DUI Stings This Weekend in Old Town and Bridgeport (DNA)
  • Bus Driver Sued for Crashing Into Animal Shelter’s Front Wall (Sun-Times)
  • The Folly of Motorists Who “Race to the Red” (Active Trans)
  • Glitch Leads to Erroneous Tickets for Drivers Who Used ParkChicago App (NBC)
  • Logan’s Crossing Will Have 1:1 Bike Parking Ratio; Neighbors Ask for Elimination of Curb Cut (DNA)
  • Galley: An Update on the Navy Pier Flyover Construction (CAB)
  • The Tribune Goes on a Slow Roll Chicago Ride
  • Town Hall Police District Launches Bike Registration Drive (DNA)
  • If You Ride North Side Trains, Show Up for Red Line Rehab Meeting on May 14 (Active Trans)
  • Send a Thank-You Note for the Lakeview Placemaking Project (Active Trans)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • cjlane

    “That means taxpayers still have to compensate CPM every time the city needs to shut down a meter for … any other reason.”

    Like the Loop BRT. Hidden cost of that project.

    Also always enjoy the dubious math used by *everyone* when discussing the meter deal. It is clearly an awful, awful deal for the city, but it is not nearly so awful as portrayed by most who write about it–looking at gross revenue to CPM is not the correct calculation. Neither is looking at the net operating income.

    The better (but still not perfect) number to look at is “Net cash provided by operating activities”, which was $72m in 2014–or about 6.25% of the purchase price–which is a pretty huge mark up from the interest ‘price’ on the City’s general obligation bonds, and with a dedicated revenue stream *with a City guarantee*. Really, between the dedicated revenue and the City backup guarantee, the yield should be much less than the bonds–perhaps something more like 4 to 4.5%, which would imply that the original price should have been about half a billion more.

    I’ve always thought that the problem with the deal was basically two things–too low an initial price, and the total absence of some sort of ‘earn out’ to the city, if the meters generated a higher return–so, say the defined rate of return (after operating expenses) was set at 5%, then any gain about the 5% was split bt CPM and the city, probably with a tiered split, so that over 6%, the city gets a bigger piece, etc, and that provides an incentive for CPM to not overpursue revenue maximization.

    Also would be interested to know the aggregate ticket revenue from the LAZ enforcement folks.