Also in the contract between the City and the parking meter operator is the clause the that City must reimburse the operator for the maximum missed revenue during events when the parking spaces are unused (typically street festivals). This is an absolute shame on the City and the Council (for making such an agreement without any deliberation or public involvement) and makes it difficult to reallocate parking spaces for other uses (as you described). However, if the City wants to remove parking spaces in one area, this can happen without reimbursement if the equivalent price and quantity of parking spaces are created elsewhere.

Study sponsored by me.

After the City of Chicago sold its parking meter system to Chicago Parking Meters, LLC (Morgan Stanely, Macquarie, et. al.), the rates were raised (and will continue to rise on an almost annual basis). People still drive. The biggest complaints were actually with futzing the rollout and malfunctioning “muni meters.”

Does anyone think this would be effective in garnering support: Explaining that it costs the city X dollars to maintain parking spaces (with an explanation at how they arrived at the figure) and that, at current rates, the city is taking funds from other programs to pay for maintaining said parking spaces. Therefore, it needs to charge what it costs. (The same argument goes for supporting a rise in the gas tax, which pays for only a portion of projects, while the remainder comes from general funding.)