Today’s Headlines for Monday, February 19

  • IDOT Is in Talks With Musk About Building His (Fantasy) Hyperloop Route to Chicago (Crain’s)
  • Emanuel: Chicago’s Ride-Share Fee Is a “Backdoor Approach” to Fighting Congestion (NYT)
  • Distraction, Drinking Are Among the Causes of Chicago’s Spike in Traffic Deaths (Tribune)
  • 2 Dozen CTA, Metra Workers Disciplined Over Speeding Trains in Past 5 Years (Sun-Times)
  • Man Who Carjacked a Taxi and Fatally Struck Woman, 69, Faces Murder Charges (WTTW)
  • Police Warn of a String of Robberies in Loop CTA Pedways (NBC)
  • Chicago Park District Moves Forward With Pedestrianizing Jackson Park Roads (Curbed)
  • Letter: Pedestrian Scramble Phases Could Reduce Mag Mile Congestion (Tribune)
  • Kamin: Suburban TOD Is Good, but Design of This Wilmette Development Is Lousy (Tribune)
  • States Work to Secure Route 66 as a National Bike Route From Chicago to LA (Woodward News)
  • Former Anti-Bike Columnist Mark Konkol Fired From New Job as Chicago Reader Editor (Feder)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

wide banner copy

  • Tooscrapps

    Re: Residences of Willmette

    Does anyone have idea the number of parking stalls in this development? Kamin mentions how the 2 floors of above ground parking really changed the concept. It gives me the impression that its at least 1:1 and which in my mind isn’t really the spirit of TOD. We should just refer to these these types as TADs: Transit Adjacent Development.

  • rohmen

    I don’t know. In a way I still feel getting back to designs based on a 1:1 ratio, especially in a place like Willmette, is still a win; especially where I imagine they’re marketing to couples, and many of those people are probably going car light rather than car free (i.e., they take the train every day and rarely use the car, but want a car around for odd trips like a Costco run, and/or to drive to places on the weekends, etc.).

  • Tooscrapps

    Yah. I definitely like denser infill around suburban stations, but it’s not TOD in my book. Developments like this cheapen the term. The fact that Kamin didn’t even touch on the number of parking spots is problematic to me.

  • Free car-sharing with 10 to x number of cars available. You check your app to see if a car is down there available and if not free taxi/hailing is ordered and pretty much ready when you get down. Come on this is Wilmette, they can all afford it. Especially since it’s cheaper than owning. You already have to take transit to get to the garage anyway (elevator).

  • rohmen

    “Come on this is Wilmette, they can all afford it.”

    I think you hit the nail on the head. They can also easily afford a single car that they minimally use simply to keep open the luxury of say driving to Wisconsin on a summer weekend without dealing with a weekend rental, or doing a last minute run to a grocery store.

    Sure, good car-share could replace that, and you’ll get some to jump at that option I think, but I personally know a lot of people that live very car light in Chicago, but won’t go the extra step of going completely car free (though the City has had access to car-share for a long time).

    As long as that chunk remains sizeable, I think you’ll see suburban developments do a lot of car-light plans.

  • rohmen

    I get the point, but to me the goal is getting people to live around mass transit and use it as their primary mode. Even with this development, you’re getting people to live next to the train and not drive there everyday. You also have enough around that they likely barely (if at all) use a car to get around during the week. That’s a huge gain that still falls within a TOD-goal IMHO, though I’d imagine going completely car free at this place would feel a little like confining yourself to a small island.

    I just don’t view TOD as having to be synonymous with car free. I think we win if we get to an 80/20 or 70/30 usage ratio with these projects.

  • Tooscrapps

    Never said it had to be a car-free development, but 1:1 is not TOD. For instance, that is the parking minimum for residential in Chicago.

  • Yeah you’re right. But Wilmette is close enough to Chicago and with good transit access that a few buildings that didn’t cater to cars are imaginable.