Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
The City of Chicago has no jurisdiction over other municipalities, so it wouldn't matter if the L stretched to California.
|
Actually, it does.
Quote:
And zoning doesn't really play a major role in long-term macro population patterns. The supposition that more people would have moved to transit oriented development back in the 50's if the zoning were somehow different is kind of laughable.
|
No, TOD probably can't move the dial on transit regionally. A handful of townhouses next to a suburban Metra stop won't stop people from driving to work, even if you did this at all 241 Metra stops. It's more about encouraging development that allows people to use cars less, but this needs to go hand in hand with cultural changes - letting kids walk to school unattended, or making small trips to the corner store instead of weekly expeditions to the Costco. All planners can do is encourage the physical changes to make these things feasible.
Honestly, I think TOD is really a huge misnomer when it comes to Chicago suburbs. We already have scores of traditional, walkable downtowns around most Metra stops that don't really need to change other than gradual infill. The big problem is in all the areas that AREN'T near transit, where planners should still encourage a walkable format with smaller home lots, mixed housing formats, and occasional mixed use. Suburban Chicago's long commercial corridors could definitely be retrofitted for "TOD" if the zoning allowed for it.
In the city, the focus is different. The goal of TOD is to create enough critical mass around transit stations to attract retailers and services, so that a car-free lifestyle is truly possible. Right now in many neighborhoods, even the guy who rides the L to work still has a car parked somewhere so he can drive to North/Clybourn or Roosevelt/Canal for shopping. This would, of course, eventually need to be bolstered with effective crosstown transit lines, either rail or BRT.