Harare’s parking rip-off
City roads are riddled with potholes and motorists are spending a lot of money fixing the suspensions of their vehicles that are damaged by bad roads. Most traffic lights in the central business district are not working and this is leading to traffic jams
THERE is need to look into the operations of City Parking to determine whether their charges are commensurate with the services they are offering to motorists whom they are charging $8 per day in parking fees. Most motorists, Mr Speaker Sir, are of the view that they are being ripped off as, in their view, there is little if anything to show for the high parking fees they pay.
Mr Speaker Sir, there does not appear to be transparency in terms of revenue generated from parking fees by way of how much is being raised and what has gone to the improvement of traffic infrastructure.
Motorists pay $1 per hour, which can translate to $8 per day for an individual and one wonders what is there to show for that mammoth figure given the volume of cars that use city parking bays.
Most motorists feel the parking fees are too much for them given that they are already saddled with other financial obligations coupled by the fact there do not appear to be any visible improvements in the road infrastructure.
For starters, there is need for residents, particularly motorists, to be told how much money has been raised and distributed.
It goes without saying, Mr Speaker Sir, that where public funds are involved, the concerned entity must be seen to be discharging its obligations with transparency and accountability to its stakeholders to avoid suspicion.
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Local Government, Public Works and National Housing ought to look into the operations of City Parking to ascertain if there is value for money on the joint venture between Harare City Council and South African-registered City Hold to form EasiPark.
It is also worth looking at the decision by Harare City Council to engage Park Rite Africa to replace EasiHold (Pvt) Ltd for another joint venture in the management of the parking business when it had not cleared matters with EasiHold.
The committee, Mr Speaker Sir, ought to establish whether motorists are deriving additional benefit apart from having their cars accommodated in the parking bays.
City roads are riddled with potholes and motorists are spending a lot of money fixing the suspensions of their vehicles that are damaged by bad roads.
Most traffic lights in the central business district are not working and this is leading to traffic jams and chaos on our roads.
What is also saddening, Mr Speaker Sir, is that City Parking is quick to clamp vehicles that fail to pay up on time or those deemed to be indebted from previous unpaid parking fees.
It appears, Mr Speaker Sir, the firm is investing heavily on clamping equipment, enforcement vehicles and software, among other related gadgets, than making the roads user friendly.
City Parking appears to have forgotten that the primary objective of introducing parking fees was to improve infrastructure and not to punish motorists through clamping.
Most of road improvements, if any, in the city are as a result of disbursements from the Zimbabwe National Roads Administration (ZINARA) to local authorities and rarely from parking fees.
Another worrying trend, Mr Speaker Sir, is the non-rationalisation of parking fees. A motorist who enters a parking bay at 14:58 intending to leave at 1600 hours is bound to pay $2. Five minutes into the parking bay attracts a parking fee of $1.
With all due respect, Mr Speaker Sir, if that is not rip-off, one does not know what it is.
It is submitted that it is possible to rationalise parking fees commensurate with how much time the motorist spends in a parking bay.
That should be possible, Mr Speaker Sir, if authorities at City Parking think outside the box. This was the case with mobile service tariffs until there was an outcry from subscribers and the Government was forced to intervene.
It used to cost a flat fee for calls lasting a minute and mobile service providers have since adjusted so that callers are levied according to the duration of their voice calls.
That should be possible in parking fees.
Their machines should be adjusted to accommodate a person who intends to use a parking bay for, say, 30 minutes. The person must be asked to pay, 50 cents at least
Of concern again, Mr Speaker Sir, is the billing system which most motorists have described as “shambolic”.
More often than not, there have been arguments between parking marshals and their bosses on one hand and on the other, with motorists, over clamping of cars arising from previous debts. Motorists often argue that they never parked on that street on the given date while the rank marshals argue that their records show that the vehicle was parked along that road.
There must be a way, Mr Speaker Sir, for a fool-proof mechanism which leaves little or no room for arguments of that nature.
In some cases, City Parking upon double checking often admits that indeed there could have been a mistake in their billing system.
The point being made here, Mr Speaker Sir, is that City Parking should devise ways that minimise arguments on whether or not a vehicle was parked along a particular street on any given day.
This can be achieved by improving the billing system.
But, more importantly, Mr Speaker Sir, City Parking should improve on its service delivery and consider charging fair and affordable parking fees.