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 November 5, 2025 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.

[Busjack]

Evanston RoundTable: "Much of Evanston is set to lose parking minimums for new developments next month, as city officials will let a new state ban on transit-served areas take effect without passing any immediate changes — but exactly how much of the city will be impacted is unclear while staff wait for guidance from regional transit officials." 

But basically the article says that the city doesn't have to change the zoning code because the state law will kick in automatically.

And since most of Evanston is near a CTA L or Metra station, or a trunk bus line, the article concludes  it will mostly not be exempt. Certainly, old requirements, such as "you can build an apartment tower downtown if you rent so many spaces in the Maple Ave. Garage" are out.

The article also discusses possible effects in Oak Park (similar situation) and Glencoe.

[Busjack]

Evanston RoundTable noted a follow-up bill to the NITA Act, which it says changes the People Over Parking Act, by limiting the bus restriction to intersections where two bus corridors intersect, instead of the whole bus corridor. It might include the intersection of Dempster (Pulse) and Dodge (93 and 206), but not all of Dempster.

[Busjack]

NITA report on corridors, train stations, and transit hubs subject to the Act.

[artthouwill]

16 hours ago, Busjack said:

NITA report on corridors, train stations, and transit hubs subject to the Act.

Looking at the overlap appendix, I found the 95th St one amusing as it listed only the 100 and the 353.  The routes share 95th between the Red Line and Stony Island  but the 100 only runs during peak hours and the 353 doesn't stop on 95th at all

  .

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

Looking at the overlap appendix, I found the 95th St one amusing as it listed only the 100 and the 353.  The routes share95th between the Red Line and Stony Island  but the 100 only runs during peak hours and the 353 doesn't stop on 95th at all.

The Act defines a corridor as "fixed bus routes with frequencies of 15 min or less in a fixed hour period in the AM and PM peak periods. AM peak is defined as 6am to 9am and PM peak is defined as 3pm to 6pm." So, one hour during each rush hour counts. 

Your "doesn't stop at 95th at all" isn't correct, as the posted stop list has 95th and King Drive, so that intersection is included (note that the Act now only includes intersections).  But since the list includes 3, 4, 34, 95, 115, and 119, this inclusion makes no difference.

[Busjack]

On 9/10/2026 at 7:15 PM, artthouwill said:

Looking at the overlap appendix, I found the 95th St one amusing...

Evanston Roundtable indicates how complicated the overlap becomes on something like Dodge Ave. While  most think about 93 between Howard and Emerson, there is also a combination of 93, 206, 208, and 213H.