3 ms·
Not to mention that outside the dense downtown area, it's hard to get around Evanston efficiently without a car. I'll grant that it's way better than the outer
by bunderbunder 11y ago
Not to mention that outside the dense downtown area, it's hard to get around Evanston efficiently without a car.
I'll grant that it's way better than the outer suburbs, and even better than most independent cities. But it's not any better than other suburbs that are served by CTA. It's been a while since I've been to Oak Park, but as I recall it was even more bike and pedestrian friendly than Evanston is.
- tptacek 11y agoThe major streets in Oak Park all have bike lanes, the minor streets are narrow enough to make bicycling in the street safe for minors (possibly excepting the streets just off Harlem, North, and Austin, which get abused for traffic bypass), and it's hard to live in Oak Park and be more than a 10-15 minute walk from one or sometimes two CTA train lines. Evanston is about twice as big as Oak Park is. If you combine Oak Park and adjacent Forest Park, capturing the end of the CTA blue line, I think you get a more reasonable comparison, in which both suburbs fare about equally. But Oak Park is also very car friendly: residential lots mostly have garages, there are lots every few blocks downtown, and the streets all have convenient metered parking. And, Oak Park's downtown area is far less developed than Evanston's. It's really tough drawing conclusions about suburbs in Chicago from Oak Park; it's barely a suburb at all. Beverly, on the south side of Chicago, is far more suburban than Oak Park is.