ShareThis Page

Meters get mixed reviews in Sewickley lots

Bobby Cherry
| Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Sewickley Manager Kevin Flannery said the transition to traditional parking meters has gone relatively smoothly since borough workers replaced them in two lots over the summer.

“Some have told us they like the idea of using credit cards and debit cards, and that they'd prefer that,” Flannery said. “They also liked the idea of getting four hours (to park).

“The downside to the meters is that you only get two hours.”

Other than complaints about the pay stations being removed in two public parking lots, Flannery said his office has received no calls about the traditional meters.

But some meters appeared to have been shortchanging drivers who dumped coins into machines, Herald staffers found on two occasions — at a meter in the Division Street lot and one meter on Beaver Street.

In one instance, Flannery said the meter was found to be in working condition upon a borough check.

“All of our meters follow the county weights and measurements standards,” he said. “They are pulled once a year and checked.”

Flannery said problems can occur when drivers hit a parking machine if it appears to have not fully accepted the person's coins.

“It's sort of like when you put the money in a candy machine — it's the same principle,” he said.

Coin-operated meters returned to Green Street and Division Street lots earlier this year, prompting drivers to pull out coins instead of cards to pay for parking.

Parking revenue for the first six months of the year was down nearly $15,000 compared to the same period in 2012, according to borough records.

Flannery said he expects parking revenue to be on par from year-to-year figures.

Bobby Cherry is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.