Today’s Headlines for Thursday, October 1

  • 150 Reps Take Action to Move Back PTC Deadline & Prevent Metra Shutdown (Crain’s)
  • IDOT: Plan to Widen, Deepen the Ike Would Reduce Noise in Oak Park (Tribune)
  • 11 Years Prison for Driver Who Was High on Several Drugs During Fatal Crash (Tribune)
  • Driver Who Injured a Women in West Chicago & Fled Gets Probation, $33K Fine (Herald)
  • 2 Injured When Driver of a Streets & San Truck Crashes Into a Building in Pilsen (Tribune)
  • Arena Makes a Pitch for Jeff Park Development With 95 Units, 265 Spaces (DNA)
  • Real Estate Agents Say They’d Be Happy to Pay for a Proposed All-Access Parking Pass (Crains)
  • Active Trans Looks at Chicago’s Growing Collection of Low-Stress Bike Routes
  • 800 Free Books Will Be Available at CTA Stations & Trains for Ideas Week (DNA)
  • Faster Than a Speeding Bullet? “Man of Steel” Star Takes the Brown Line to Work (RedEye)
  • Last Days of Big Marsh Funding Campaign — $500 Gets Your Name on the Wall of Chainrings

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Re: Active Trans low stress routes. One of their upcoming projects, “Glenwood Neighborhood Route” has been pushed back to Spring 2016 rather than the 2015 as originally proposed by the alderman (Osterman). They say budgetary issues and further community consultation, but those of us that live just north of there, and for whom a “legal” route south to Andersonville, that is very much safer, suspect NIMBYish nativist motives in Lakewood/Balmoral.

  • Oak Park has spent decades saying “If you want right-hand ramps, roof the whole damn highway over. Otherwise, don’t come talking to us.”

    The article is really confusing about what is actually being proposed, because the pictures don’t match the text and the text refers to a bunch of things that don’t appear to be in the pictures.

  • Kevin M

    Re: Jefferson Park development w/265 parking space

    “I’m confident there is a need for this parking,” Kozonis said.

    Has anyone explained TOD to this guy? Seriously, this developer is not paying attention to the market trend in Chicago housing, and for that mistake, this development will cost him and his tenants more and induce more automobile traffic to the neighborhood. I expect Arena to take this case to him.

  • Anything in that bill includes money for agencies to at least help pay for PTC? No? Welp see ya in 2018 when we’ll most likely do this dance again.

  • To be fair, Jeff Park has a pretty significant park-and-ride market, with people driving in and then leaving their car here while taking the Blue Line to their destination. They can probably lease on a monthly basis for this purpose.

    Likewise, if anywhere in the neighborhood HAS to have excess parking, this would be the lot. People wanting to use the business strip who are bringing a car can park here and walk to their destination, using it as a regional hub (if it’s priced right).

  • Anne A

    Disappointing news. I would not be at all surprised if there is Lakewood/Balmoral NIMBYism in the mix. I don’t know that for a fact. It’s just a gut feeling based on past history.

  • Make your own friendly, designer signs and make it a bike route now (unfortunately, without any infrastructure changes).

  • Does anyone want to create and sustain a neighborhood that’s really a parking lot for people who live in other neighborhoods?

  • duppie

    Actually, there isn’t. The NIMBYism is completely coming from Glenwood residents. Osterman mentioned as much in his weekly e-mail.

  • rohmen

    No, but the rub being do we want a city where people who live in neighborhoods without actual L access drive into the Loop each day, or do we allow buildings near trains to include excess parking so that people can park an ride? In a perfect world every neighborhood would have access to its own reliable public transportation options to the loop (and other places), but this isn’t a perfect world.

  • rohmen

    The pay wall (even when you navigate around it using google) pops up when you try to access the pics, but I live in Oak Park, and I think the “cap it” idea is pretty much dead due to the cost. The big issues now are whether IDOT will be able to widen the gulch (doing so would take out a bunch of homes, and OP folks aren’t keen on that), or whether they can buy out the railroad right of way and stay within the present configuration (the railroad services the ferrera pan factory, which make red hots and a bunch of other candy, though thats almost all it’s used for). Given OP politics, I doubt this is getting off the ground anytime soon, which is a shame as any blue line work is unfortunately tied to it as well.

  • Dave

    96 of those spaces are for residents (1 parking space per unit). The rest are for office tenants of the 10-story Veterans Square office tower as well as for transient parkers both during the day and at night.

  • Kevin M

    In a perfect world, there would be no false dichotomies.

  • rohmen

    Preaching to the choir. I’d prefer we built TOD, and built proper transportation infrastructure, both of which are certainly possible. Considering you and I both know the neighborhoods not walking distance to a train line aren’t getting a line built by them anytime soon, however, it’s not a false dichotomy to suggest there is a choice between providing more parking around established train lines, or more people are going to drive if the demand for a spot us higher than supply.

  • “[A high ranking aldermanic official] told me when they had the meeting about the bike lane a few months ago, the residents were worried that their property value would go down if there was a bike lane and they came up with all kinds bullshit reasons why they didn’t want it.”

    The above I received in an email. fwiw.

  • Anne A

    Jeff and Duppie – Thank you for clarifying.

  • I still don’t get the logic of “bike lanes lower property values.”

    It’s like when CPS changed start times and I heard parents HOWLING that their high school kids weren’t going to start class at 7:30AM anymore, when most high-scoring private schools are moving to later start times because it improves performance.

  • neroden

    What bugs me the most is that killer drivers get their licenses back automatically after a suspension. The law should be changed to revert their license to a learners permit and require retaking the test. who could object to such a change?

  • neroden

    The class 1 freights have finally grudgingly admittedd that they have to pay for it themselves. Amtrak, Septa, Metrolink’s will be done. There will only be a few laggards in 2018 like the MBTA.

  • neroden

    Those parents wanted their kids out of their hair… Did not care about education

  • The two biggest complaints people voiced (probably not representative of all parental reactions everywhere) were “But SPOOOORTS!” and “If we don’t make them get up early for school starting before puberty they will grow up lazy and never be employable.”

    A bit behind them in third was “But if they have an extracurricular they will be CTA commuting in rush hour.”

  • Deni

    I think this is also one of those instances where the transit planners in this city are not good at thinking broader picture. Wouldn’t connections to farther out L stops be a great use for BRT? Could you capture some of that P & R market if you could get them to Jeff Park fairly quickly?

  • Legislators who believe the drivers need the cars to access their jobs.

    Funny story: My license was suspended for three months in 2003 after having three “pled no contest” speeding tickets. There was a provision in my suspension letter that said I could apply for a reprieve because I may have needed my car to get to work or school. I was attending community college in the western suburbs that was over 12 miles from my house.

    I was denied the time-based suspension (essentially I could have been allowed to drive, but only during the time before and after classes).

    I didn’t miss a single class, though, and got rides 3 days a week. Sometimes I had to wait hours until my friends’ classes ended before I could get home so I got a lot of studying done.

  • “or more people are going to drive if the demand for a spot is higher than supply.”

    We seem to have a better idea on what demand is than on supply because we actually attempt, and succeed somewhat, to count demand, but NO ONE COUNTS the supply of parking.

    This is a problem, because, once again, residents are beholden to the data and “market expertise” of the incoming developer.

  • rohmen

    It’s not unquantifiable information, however.

    Assuming some sort of demand has been evidenced justifying even considering additional parking, I’d be perfectly fine with the Alderman saying: “If you want to build excess parking for transit riders, perform an audit regarding the daily supply levels for transit riders within x blocks.” That’s no worse than other market research these guys are forced to do at times. My question, though, is would you then support the additional parking if the audit came back reflecting an actual, verified supply shortage for transit riders??? It’s fine if yo wouldn’t based on a desire to see TOD grow in these areas, but personally I would since it furthers a goal I like (less ultimate miles driven total by car users).

  • “if it can be done so in balanced way that helps improve rapid transit access and reduce long car trips”

    The reason I suggested having a parking space supply count/study done is I believe we can’t know if the new parking supply (provided by this proposal, or any future one) would actually do that. If it can be said to be “balanced”.

    The results of the parking count/study would be considered against the goals of having a transit-friendly neighborhood.