Let's talk about the Bloomingdale Trail

The last existing thread on the Bloomingdale Trail was about how the city contract was not going forward, and I believe it is now, so I’m starting this thread. Rahm Emanuel promised in his Transition Plan to complete the Bloomingdale Trail in his first term, and it looks like they are in fact getting started on the design. Below is info posted on the cityofchicago.org website this week. So far only $2.7 million of an estimated $70 million needed is in hand, though.

 

It would be great to be able to cycle from the lakefront via Armitage/Cortland and the BT all the way to Humboldt Park on a safe and scenic route.

 

Meetings will be held to get public input. I'm trying to think of why people may oppose the project, besides the obvious argument that $70 million should go toward fighting crime or funding schools instead. A Reader article reported about nearby homeowners complaining of squatters, vandalism, rock throwing by illegal trespassers currently. But once it’s a legal thoroughfare, I would hope that would be less likely. What will the “con” arguments be?

__________________________________

 

 

June 8, 2011

Bloomingdale Trail design work gets under way

Preliminary design for the Bloomingdale Trail project is under way. 

Work has begun to develop concepts to convert a 2.65-mile unused, elevated railway line to a multi-use linear park for recreational users and commuters.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel has identified the Bloomingdale Trail as a priority to reach his goals of creating a world-class bike network, improving the pedestrian environment and creating new open space.

Public input will be a key component in creating plans to redevelop the Bloomingdale Line, which runs along Bloomingdale Avenue (approximately 1800 North) from Ashland to Ridgeway.  CDOT is leading the design, engineering and construction of the project in close cooperation with the Chicago Park District.

Under CDOT’s direction, ARUP North America—which was selected through a competitive RFP process and comprises a consortium of local and national firms—will tackle several tasks in the coming months:

• Schedule public meetings, the first of which will occur this summer

• Inventory the condition of 37 viaducts along the line

• Lead a design charette in the fall

• Perform geotechnical and environmental studies

• Create design guidelines and a phasing plan

The schedule for all public meetings, once determined, will be posted on the CDOT web site.

Among ARUP’s past projects are the “Water Cube” aquatics center for the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.  Its team of subcontractors includes many notable architectural and engineering firms.

Many important community partners are integral to the design process, including the Trust for Public Land (www.tpl.org) , Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail (www.bloomingdaletrail.org/) and Chicago Park District.  The Trust, working with the city’s Department of Housing and Economic Development, has acquired parcels of land to serve as access parks and will facilitate public/private partnership activities.  The non-profit Friends advocates for the project and is helping build community support.  The Chicago Park District will own and maintain the Trail when it’s completed.

ARUP’s work is expected to be complete in late 2012.  No construction schedule has been determined yet.

The City continues to pursue funding for the project, while the Trust and Friends are working to raise private funds.  The full buildout is expected to cost between $50 million and $70 million, and the project may be phased as funding is made available.  About $2.7 million has been secured thus far for phase I design.

Views: 1073

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on June 11, 2011 at 1:46am
I understand what you're saying. I'm hoping we get that critical mass of cyclists on every street as well. But if we're going to convert this unique urban artifact into useable parkland, I'm glad it'll be a multi-use trail that includes bicyclists, instead of banning them completely in favor of pedestrians, like the NYC High Line, which forbids all wheeled modes of transportation.
Permalink Reply by Carly on June 11, 2011 at 2:53am

If the path can inspire people who have never cycled before to start cycling, then I say its a good thing.  And besides, if people are using the path then accessing the neighborhoods with an on ramp/off ramp will see a spike in cyclists in those neighborhoods.  bad thing? I think not.  More cyclists=better visibility for cyclists=slower cars.     

 And from what I've experienced is that there isn't really a good west-east route through chicago on the northside.  Lawrence has a painted bike lane, wilson is good, but every other major west-east street is not all that good.  Montrose, Irving park, Addison, Belmont, Diversey, Fullerton, Armitage and North are all somewhat precarious.  Also, since Humboldt park has some of the last remaining dirt-cheap rentals in the city, i wouldnt be surprised if numerous loop-employed subordinates commute by bicycle.  I used to be one of those.   

Separated bike paths can procure hazards similar to what one would run into on the LFP; dogs, kids, joggers, etc...however, it at least provides a venue where the skiddish, and elderly, and the young can rightfully enjoy their two wheels away from highly intimidating autos.    

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 12, 2011 at 2:53am
I assume you are using the royal we because I think the b-dale trail would be a pretty awesome thing.

clp said:

We're generally opposed to separate Bike Trails; bikes belong on STREETS, vying for space with cars and trucks.  What is Critical Mass all about, if not to remind drivers that bikes belong on streets too?  Our goal should be to generate a "critical mass" of bicycles on the streets of Chicago 24/7...not to siphon off bikes onto expensive urban bike paths.

 

The $70million could be much better spent upgrading bicycle facilities on streets, than trying to rescue this rusted-out infrastructure from it's rightful demolition.  Tear it down, get rid of it, sell the land!  Are there that many people that wish to get from Ashland Avenue to Humboldt Park anyway?

Permalink Reply by Digital Dario on June 12, 2011 at 6:32am
I'd have direct access to the LFP by way of cortland/armitage this way and while it does not connect the Boulevard system as intended, it does provide a central bike route east/west connecting Sacramento to the LFP better than Diversey ever could. A pretty awesome thing indeed.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 12, 2011 at 11:17am

Clark,

 

It sounds like you need to start a letter-writing campaign to stop development of the Bloomingdale Trail. 


clp said:

We're generally opposed to separate Bike Trails; bikes belong on STREETS, vying for space with cars and trucks.  What is Critical Mass all about, if not to remind drivers that bikes belong on streets too?  Our goal should be to generate a "critical mass" of bicycles on the streets of Chicago 24/7...not to siphon off bikes onto expensive urban bike paths.

 

The $70million could be much better spent upgrading bicycle facilities on streets, than trying to rescue this rusted-out infrastructure from it's rightful demolition.  Tear it down, get rid of it, sell the land!  Are there that many people that wish to get from Ashland Avenue to Humboldt Park anyway?

Permalink Reply by Jeff Markus on June 12, 2011 at 12:58pm

As a vehement Vehicular Cyclist I can mourn the loss of funds for good street surfaces, education of drivers, riders and pedestrians and quality traffic planning to assure effective flow of people, bikes and cars.

HOWEVER as a recreational cyclist and urban outdoor enthusiast the need for the citizens to find calm safe riding in the concrete jungle is as deep seated as the desire for breathable air and greenscapes.

Torn as I may be with this new administrations apparent philosiphy of separating bikes from cars (see the article on dedicated bikeways) I humbly (OK not so humbly but at least I'm not belligerant...you jerk) submit that ANY developement is a step forward if we use the learning and vision of the experiance to further the reduction of polluting transportational means in our midst.

So from the roof tops I will proclaim "More Bikes, more Bikers, more Green Space" and I hope to be nimble enuf tio dodge the bottles and bricks that are tossed in my direction.

Jeff

The Chicagoan

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on June 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

A trail, a path, a dedicated lane will get more people to ride (hopefully) and children can ride this as they DON'T belong in the street.

 

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on June 12, 2011 at 4:41pm

There is such a thing as a "Cadillac" project which gets more out of it than simply a utilitarian use.  The BT would be one of those projects.  The money spent on this will get more out of it in terms of generating support for cycling than standard lanes would.  When combined with Rahm's outlined biking agenda, I don't think we need to sweat too much.  Also, I don't think I need to belabor the points already made, but simply say that, yes, obviously bicycles belong on the streets.  That said, one of the largest commuter path for cyclists is the LFT...that is the one of the many benefits of cycling, right?  We are able to go on the streets or trails - we have the freedom of mobility and choice that cars often don't.

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on June 13, 2011 at 1:51am

I'm so glad to read all the entries in support of the BT, as I was worried that the "we" used by clp was speaking for Chainlink participants in general.

 

Today I woke up to find that Trib columnist Barbara Brotman wrote a glowing column describing her experience riding the protected bike lanes in NYC, and Sun-Times reporter Fran Spielman has a prominent story about how CDOT is considering "scramble" crossings for pedestrians, with plenty of quotes about road diets and how the streets need to be shared by all. Nice way to start the week! 

Permalink Reply by Duppie on June 13, 2011 at 2:22am

I am all for bike paths. Together with protected bike lines,  bicycle boulevards, and ample bike parking they are all tools that can be used to make bicycling safer for all Chicagoans.

 

I do question however the sensibility of spending $50-70 million on one 2.65 mile stretch of bike path. That translates into a cost of $18.9-$26.4 million per mile. That is a lot of money that could be spend to built other bicycle related infrastructure. Assuming the cost of building a protected bike lane runs at about $2.5 million per mile, we could build 20-25 miles of bike lane for the cost of this trail. Seems like an extraordinary large opportunity cost.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 13, 2011 at 2:36am

Here's the Spielman article. 

I'd like to add an example.  Downtown Concord, NH has a few major intersections with diagonal crosswalks near the state capitol.  I like the basic idea that Spielman describes, because it worked well in Concord, but 14 seconds is a bit brief for the size of some Loop intersections, IMO.  14 seconds would leave a lot of the most vulnerable peds stranded mid-intersection when the traffic got the green light again.

 

I believe that the Concord intersections using this configuration allowed peds 20-25 seconds to cross.  Those intersections were comparable in size to a large Loop intersection.  Because usage varied considerably depending on time of day and day of the week, the ped walk signals there were push-button activated, with a ped wait time of less than 1 minute before the ped signals activated.  Signage at these intersections allowed NO vehicle turns on red.


Michelle said:

....

Today I woke up to find that Trib columnist Barbara Brotman wrote a glowing column describing her experience riding the protected bike lanes in NYC, and Sun-Times reporter Fran Spielman has a prominent story about how CDOT is considering "scramble" crossings for pedestrians, with plenty of quotes about road diets and how the streets need to be shared by all. Nice way to start the week! 

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on June 13, 2011 at 3:04am

I can't be 100% positive, but I believe that the $70 million also covers the construction of the new pocket parks that will act as entry ways on to the trail.  The land just north of Levitt and Milwaukee - for example - is one of them.  I know that the already constructed park at Albany & Bloomingdale is another and there are several more in the works - these are important especially in Logan Square, which has the lowest amount of park space of any neighborhood in the city.  

 

We tend to think of things on this site as, "well, it costs X for X miles of bike lanes." Given this is a bike site, maybe that's not so bad...but a lot of times, such as this case, the money being spent is having a impact on other things beyond bicycle infrastructure.

Duppie said:

I am all for bike paths. Together with protected bike lines,  bicycle boulevards, and ample bike parking they are all tools that can be used to make bicycling safer for all Chicagoans.

 

I do question however the sensibility of spending $50-70 million on one 2.65 mile stretch of bike path. That translates into a cost of $18.9-$26.4 million per mile. That is a lot of money that could be spend to built other bicycle related infrastructure. Assuming the cost of building a protected bike lane runs at about $2.5 million per mile, we could build 20-25 miles of bike lane for the cost of this trail. Seems like an extraordinary large opportunity cost.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service