• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You can read the caveat in the article:

      That means apartment developers no longer have to provide parking for tenants if their project comes within a half mile of a Chicago Transit Authority and Metra rail line or a quarter mile away from a bus line.

      This is inherently predicated on existing public transit lines. And eliminating more personal vehicle traffic means better bus transit and micromobility.

      • 🔰Hurling⚜️Durling🔱@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah I saw that. My issue was due to what happened in Charlotte, NC where they had a very similar wording for their downtown area only to later remove the caveat where the builders had to check what public transportation is already available.

      • rainwall@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Seattle, and Washington state to a lesser degree, have done something similar along its huge light rail expansion. Any site within 1/2 mile of its stations has no parking requirements, and I think can be 4 stories tall. Anything within a quarter mile can be 6 stories.

    • InfiniteHench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That is one tricky part. Chicago’s transit system has an unfortunately large funding deficit that the city and state are struggling to rectify. As I understand it, general ridership took a 1-2 punch from both COVID and the WFH movement (which, yes, was supercharged by COVID). Last article I saw said that some business buildings downtown have lost up to 50% of their tenants.

      One thing that might help is the state is working on unifying Chicago’s three (yes, three) transit systems: CTA (the one most people are familiar with), Metra (longer distance trains for suburban commuters), and PACE (near suburb buses). Might streamline some things and save some money, but I don’t think that will fully close the gap. As a transit fan and advocate, I really hope we can find a way out of this mess.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’d be fine with this sort of thing if the people living in the new developments weren’t allowed to register cars. Otherwise they’re using a public resource without contributing their share.

    • ApollosArrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Some places thankfully do that. They limit how many cars people can own per 4 block radius (at least where I live). This limits how many cars people can own. I think limiting car ownership is a better approach than building in car parking.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Basically appartment developers used to be required to supply parking for residents near transit lines, but now aren’t. Personally, I would make it hard to charge people for parking: people who drive win and also eliminates profit incentive to build parking.