Coins jammed into Sewickley pay stations
Squares pegs don't fit into round holes, and quarters don't go into credit-card slots.
But that's exactly what has happened on at least two different occasions this month at the borough's Division Street parking pay station, Sewickley manager Kevin Flannery said.
“Someone jammed five dollars in quarters into the credit card reader,” Sewickley public works foreman Howard Miller said in an email Feb. 7 — the first day coins were found in the credit card slot.
“We removed the coins and put a new credit card reader in this pay station.”
About 50 parking spaces are served by the meter in the Division Street lot. Borough officials in 2009 installed the meter and a second one at the Green Street lot, which also serves about 50 spaces.
Borough workers replaced broken equipment after the first incident, but four quarters were found inside the credit card slot a few days later, Flannery said.
The machine was down at least four days this month.
The borough lost at least $100 in revenue on Feb. 11, Flannery said. He did not estimate how much money the borough has lost over the entire span.
“We're not real happy about it,” Flannery said.
Borough officials planned to monitor the meter to determine who might be inserting coins into the wrong slot, he said.
Parking in Sewickley is metered weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Borough officials have had on-again, off-again issues — mostly weather related — with the two metered pay stations since installing the machines.
Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.