Quantcast

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Skyway operators have overcharged drivers since 2019, class action says

Lawsuits
Webp law goldstein kenneth

Kenneth Goldstein | Krislov & Associates

The company that collects the tolls on the Chicago Skyway under a controversial 99-year lease deal with the city of Chicago has been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing it of pocketing too much in tolls from drivers using the bridge to enter or exit Chicago on the city's far South Side.

On June 18, attorneys with the firm of Krislov & Associates, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, seeking millions of dollars in potential damages on behalf of motorists who have paid tolls to use the Skyway toll bridge since at least 2019.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Rockwell Rowe Jr. and Michelle Rowe, identified as residents of Cook County who allegedly made multiple trips on the Skyway in the past two years, and paid for their trips electronically using their iPass toll transponder.


Chicago Skyway Toll Plaza | vxla, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The lawsuit names as defendants the Skyway Concession Company LLC; Calumet Concession Partners Inc.; Atlas Arteria; and Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, all of which have ownership interests in the Skyway and its operations.

The lawsuit centers on tolls charged by the Skyway operators in recent years.

The Skyway elevated toll bridge was built by the city of Chicago and operated by the city for decades since it opened in 1958, offering a faster way to drive from the city's south border to the Indiana state line.

The city, however, handed control of the Skyway over to the Skyway Concession Company in 2005, when then-Mayor Richard M. Daley sold off operational control for nearly the next century under a lease deal, in exchange for $1.83 billion dollars.

According to published reports, ownership interests in the Skyway have since been sold off again, turning profits worth billions for their investors. 

Throughout the private management, however, tolls have consistently risen, as the lease agreement has permitted Skyway operators to hike tolls under a formula tied to inflation.

While such annual increases were relatively low for many years, when annual inflation clocked around 3% or less, much higher increases in the Consumer Price Index would have allowed the Skyway tolls to continue to rise more quickly. In 2023, the CPI increased 10.6%, and by 8.8% in 2024.

In 2017, the lawsuit notes the Skyway charged passenger cars $5 to use the Skyway, while semi trucks would get charged $29.

Now, those same vehicles are charged $7.20 and as much as $59.20, respectively.

However, the lawsuit asserts that even with the more rapid allowable increases, the Skyway still allegedly hiked tolls more than they were allowed and have allegedly overcharged personal and commercial drivers for years.

They assert the Skyway has overcharged drivers of passenger vehicles with two axles by 10 cents per trip, and drivers of semi trucks and other vehicles with more axles by as much as $1.20 per trip.

In all, the lawsuit estimates the Skyway has collected over $3 million more than it should have from drivers since 2019.

The plaintiffs assert the alleged toll overcharges have violated Illinois' consumer fraud law and are a breach of the concession agreement that governs the lease with the city.

The plaintiffs are seeking to expand the action to include potentially millions of people who have used the Skyway in the past five years, as the lawsuit notes more than 20 million trips through the Skyway's toll plazas have been logged during that span.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the Skyway operators to allegedly properly calculate Skyway tolls and refund the overcharges, plus interest and attorney fees. 

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Kenneth T. Goldstein and Matthew G. Norgard, of the Krislov firm.

According to published reports, Skyway Concession did not comment on the lawsuit, saying they had not yet been served with the complaint.

More News