People Over Parking Act

[Busjack]

One of the early parts of the transit reform bill (SB2111), which tended to obscure that it was the transit reform bill, is the People Over Parking Act. Apparently a transit-oriented development or affordable housing measure, it prohibits municipalities from imposing minimum  parking requirements for most developments within 1/2 mile of a public transportation hub (defined as a rail station with combined bus service at least every 15 minutes) or 1/8 mile of a transit corridor (a street with combined bus service at least every 15 minutes)

Streetsblog  has a good analysis of the law. Evanston RoundTable says most of Evanston east of Ridge Ave. and some of it west of it (I suppose around the Central St. Metra station) would be subject to it. But I wonder if this affects two proposed high tises at Clark and Maple (rear of the theater) and 605 Davis, where the RoundTable indicated that the developer would need to rent spaces in city garages (assuming that approval is not secured by June 1). I also wonder if the sweep of the law is affected by Pace canceling feeders.

[MetroShadow]

[Abolishing] Parking minimums, in the spirit of the law, is intended to bring folks closer to transit (and either have those folks who live in high-dense areas live a car or car-lite atmosphere). That said, this would reduce the need for feeders since (1) parking is deprioritized in favor for housing; (2) more formal Transportation Demand Strategies can be levied, including city garage rentals as part of an un/bundling; and (3) it wouldn't preclude the park-and-ride model that the BNSF feeders would have, but a foci on more frequent service like Pulse or Jump be preferred.

The late, great Donald Shoup would be proud.

Edited Wednesday at 10:13 PM by MetroShadow
Verb.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, MetroShadow said:

Parking minimums, in the spirit of the law, is intended to bring folks closer to transit (and either have those folks who live in high-dense areas live a car or car-lite atmosphere). That said, this would reduce the need for feeders since (1) parking is deprioritized in favor for housing; (2) more formal Transportation Demand Strategies can be levied, including city garage rentals as part of an un/bundling; and (3) it wouldn't preclude the park-and-ride model that the BNSF feeders would have, but a foci on more frequent service like Pulse or Jump be preferred.

The late, great Donald Shoup would be proud.

Not being a planning professional, I didn't completely follow this, but I don't think it has as much to do with how  people get to the L or Metra station but how to get denser, more affordable housing near transit. It becomes cheaper if a city doesn't require one parking space per unit. 

From the description, clearly anything new along the Milwaukee and Dempster Pulse lines would be subject to the law, and maybe that is what the law was modelled on. We'll have to see whether some really-depressed area, like Harvey, gets development, as it is clearly a transit hub.