Today’s Headlines for Thursday, August 6

  • How Transit Future Could Help Make the Ashland BRT Line a Reality (Active Trans)
  • Oak Park Approves an Anti-TOD Project With 428 Parking Spaces Next to the Green Line (Tribune)
  • Anti-TOD Tower a Block from Chicago Brown/Purple Stop Would Have 58 Units, 105 Spaces (Curbed)
  • Man Dies After Being Struck by Two Different Trucks in McHenry (Tribune)
  • Chicago Cop Charged With Felony DUI After Critically Injuring Pedestrian (Tribune)
  • Woman With History of Traffic Violations Gets Probation for Killing Pedestrian (Tribune)
  • No Injuries After Green Line Train Derails in Woodlawn (Tribune)
  • Pedestrian Safety Initiatives in Austin and Woodlawn (Active Trans)
  • Letter: While the North Shore Cracks Down on Cyclists, Drivers Are Causing the Injuries (Tribune)
  • After Threats to Traffic Court Judges, DuPage’s Chief Judge Calls for More Security (Herald)
  • Goodbye Punkin’ Donuts, Hello Transit-Oriented Development (DNA)
  • The 606? More Like The 666. Introducing Enemies of the Bloomingdale Trail

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • duppie

    Re: the anti-TOD tower. I think it is reasonable to expect a parking space (or two) when buying a condo in that price range. Without parking spaces that project would be a non-starter.

    Also, the revised TOD ordinance that Emanuel introduced lets the market decide on the number of parking spaces, does it not? Seems like the developer believes that this type of development requires nearly 2 space per apartment.

  • Kevin M

    Re: the Wells St. development

    This project has not yet been approved. It very well may see its height and parking spaces trimmed. The advocacy for that outcome begins here and now.

  • +1, with two caveats:
    1. If parking spaces are sold bundled to apartments, it encourages overpurchasing of parking.
    2. Developers aren’t paying an extra tax to offset the societal cost of more cars in the neighbourhood unless we specifically advocate for it.

  • Brian

    Regarding the Oak Park development, the site is currently a parking lot used by downtown Oak Park shoppers as well as commuters using the adjacent Green line and Metra station. Building this project on this site will not eliminate the need for commuter or shopper parking, and may in fact increase the need for parking if the retail portion of the development is as successful as the village hopes.

  • Eat it

    Existing cars in the neighborhood don’t pay special taxes.

  • I’ve been told that the reason a surface parking lot exists on this valuable land next to transit is because the developer purchased an old building and demolished it to make room for another development, and then the real estate market crashed. Just because the parking lot has been used as a placeholder during the interim does not indicate that massive amounts of parking are appropriate for a site next to CTA and Metra stations.

  • Brian

    Yeah, that’s basically true for a portion of the parking lot, but the rest of it has been village-owned parking for several decades I believe. The bigger issue is that over the past 10+ years or so, many surface lots in downtown Oak Park have been converted to housing leading to a large decrease in surface parking in downtown Oak Park. The village owned lot immediately south of this development (on the other side of the tracks) is also slated for TOD development soon too.

    The village has been quite good at promoting dense development in downtown Oak Park and while I absolutely agree that we should encourage car free living, for the foreseeable future downtown Oak Park will still need to be accessible to drivers. It would actually make for an interesting article (to me at least) to track the transition of downtown Oak Park over the years as surface lots were converted to dense residential housing.

  • Especially because for a swath of the west side (from Austin and Lawndale over), Oak Park is the nearest serious shopping district, and a lot of my neighbors when I lived at Cicero/Lake would drive into Oak Park every weekend to do the necessary.

    Drive, rather than take the Green Line, because of the need to take an entire trunk full of your week’s shopping back home, which is not doable for a couple poeple on the train in any comfortable way, especially with broken elevators all over the West Side.

  • Roland Solinski

    No, not a side effect. There is not and never was a maximum parking ratio. Developers have always been free to exceed the minimum ratio for their zoning classification if they believed it was economical to do so – the new ordinance won’t change that. All the new ordinance does is give developers the choice to build zero parking spots, if they so choose, in a small subset of the city adjacent to rail stations.

  • No vehicle requires its owner to pay a tax to the City of Chicago. The only taxes vehicles have are sales and transfers (gift, or bringing vehicle from another state). No one pays a tax to park. The City of Chicago is giving away private vehicle storage space on public streets.

  • Eat it

    With that logic public schools would be banned, since many dont have kids in public schools but still pay property taxes.

    Same with parks, the city is literally providing private recreation in a public space.

  • There is a tax on commercial pay parking lots in Chicago.

    Back home in Vancouver, there’s a tax on the sale of all parking rights. It’s not overly burdensome, but it does start to help reflect the cost of parking on the region.

  • Oh, stop it. Neither schools nor parks have negative externalities that burden the public. A smarter kid improves the quality of life for the community, while a dumb kid costs more.

    And a city without parks wouldn’t be a city people would live in. Parks and schools are also so expensive that it wouldn’t be possible to build and operate them individually.