Commuter rail isn't just a convenience in Chicago – it's a way of life. The region's Metra network, operated by the Regional Transportation Authority across 11 different rail lines, carries almost 70 million people a year. Most take the train in from the outlying suburbs, but an increasing number of riders (empty nesters and young professionals craving the urban lifestyle) live downtown and commute out to jobs in the burbs.
It's cheap (relatively so), reliable and offers service to and from all of Chicago's major suburbs into the city center; light rail is also 80 times safer than driving in a car. The major selling point, of course, is that it cuts down on traffic congestion – Metra's roadside billboard advertisements, for example, trumpet the fact that one commuter train can save dozens of automobile trips.
So commuter rail is a good thing – right?
Maybe not. An article in the Boston Globe Magazine (and blogged recently on Planetizen) describes an analysis that casts doubt on commuter rail's ability to shift urban development and traffic patterns. From Commuter Rail's False Promise by Tom Keane:
One would think, for instance, that new commuter-rail stations might encourage development nearby. It turns out they don't. Areas around train stations are only modestly more developed than anywhere else. One would also think that new stations might encourage more use of public transit. That is also untrue. The number of people using transit to get to work is largely unchanged by the addition of new stations.
The study was published by the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston and comes as that city prepares to welcome the new $550 million Greenbush Line. Parallels can be drawn with Chicago, but readers commenting on the Planetizen entry repeatedly placed the Windy City on the short list of metro areas that "got it right" with respect to planning and commuter rail.
I took Metra regularly for a few months for a short gig in the northwest suburbs. One problem I ran into was that once you arrived at your destination, you often needed a car to go those last couple of miles to your workplace. I found myself actually leaving my automobile out in the burbs, in a secured parking lot, so I could use it to drive a couple miles each morning when the Metra train dropped me off.
Surely there must be a better solution. And there is – but as with all things worldchanging, it requires foresight and planning on a scale greater than our current capabilities.
First and foremost, Chicago's Metra-served communities could stand more smart development. Some towns, like Arlington Heights to the west or Evanston to the north, sport populated "downtowns" with mixed-use condo towers, eateries and retail hotspots – all within walking distance of the local Metra station. Other stations, like my erstwhile destination in Schaumburg, are little more than parking lots in the middle of grassy fields. Some balance must be struck between requisite population density and convenience. Properly done, vibrant urban density is a boon for all involved.
The crucial factor in this equation is the involvement of the developers. Citizens can't have a sustainable urban lifestyle if they can't persuade commercial developers that they're willing to spend money on such amenities.
The urban design (or redesign, to be precise) of Lemont is one such unfolding story. The village is partnering with the Marquette Companies, a local development firm, to reshape the Chicago suburb into a thriving live-work-play environment, all in close proximity to a commuter rail line. Village planners, in an effort to retain the residents' collective $35 million in buying power, have essentially given Marquette carte blanche to transform the city.
"Our mission is to catalyze economic growth in suburban districts," Bruno Botarelli, a developer with Marquette, says in an article by Megan Brody in the Midwest Real Estate News' July 2006 issue. "Creating more sprawl is not part of our mission."
(Disclosure: I write for the Midwest Real Estate News. I did not, however, contribute to the article referenced above.)
Marquette's Lemont redevelopment, part of a 20-year effort that broke ground last year, calls for 5,000 residential units, most within walking distance of the downtown train station.
The developers have acknowledged that it will be years before their vision for Lemont is realized. It remains to be seen if and how Lemont will respond to this urban redesign. Will storefronts fill with independent restaurants and boutiques? Will Lemont's population (which doubled from 1994 to 2000) grow fast enough to absorb the new condo space? But regardless, the $150 million project represents a fundamental step forward for smart urban design. Once you've put a shovel in the ground, there's no turning back.
