Pier pressure: is the Navy Pier Flyover bike/ped bridge really worth $45 million or is there an alternative?

Everyone agrees that conditions on Chicago's Lakefront Trail between the river and Ohio Street Beach need to be improved. The Chicago Department of Transportation is planning to build the Navy Pier Flyover, a bridge-like structure that would carry trail users up over the river, Illinois Street and Grand Avenue, bypassing these problem spots, at a jaw-dropping $45 million price tag. To put that in perspective, in 2008 the Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Transportation estimated the entire replacement cost of that city's then 300-mile bike network at about $60 million. Today on Grid Chicago Steven Vance proposes an alternative: http://gridchicago.com/2012/navy-pier-flyover-is-it-worth-45-million-or-is-there-another-way/

What do you think: is it worth spending $45 million on the flyover or do you prefer Steven's proposal?

Keep moving forward,

John Greenfield

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 29, 2012 at 11:27pm

I rode my bike today (Friday, June 29, 2012) from Montrose beach to Randolph Street (and took Lower Randolph to Jefferson to Lake to Green to Fulton to The Publican to meet some people for drinks). I had the "privilege" of riding through the "affected zone". It helped remind me why I devised this proposal and wrote about it on Grid Chicago. I was riding southbound and in the short time (well, longer than it needs to be) to bike from Jane Addams Memorial Park to Randolph Street, I witnessed at least 5 people bike in the northbound curbside lane of Lower Lake Shore Drive (a behavior I discussed in the proposal).

I don't know if any infrastructure can solve the problem Lisa describes.

Lisa Curcio said:

Without rereading, my memory is that the flyover will not solve the Jane Addams Park problem. Perfect example of the problem there: Today--I assume because of the storms--there were not as many people as one would expect on a Friday afternoon. There was, however, just at the top of the hill heading north from Grand, a family of four holding hands and stretched across the entire right side of the path into the left side of the path. On the side of this charming chain that was closest to the middle of the path was a very small child. They seemed quite surprised when I came up behind them--slowly--and told them that there would be a lot of bikes coming through.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 29, 2012 at 11:38pm

I've thought about my proposal more since posting this (and since it's been viewed more than 1,300 times). I biked through the "affected area" today (Friday). Here's what I think:

1. The proposal doesn't necessarily have to compete with all three segments of the Navy Pier Flyover. The proposal is an immediate solution to the issues. This is apparent because there was an immediate and effective solution in 2009 when the Lake Shore Drive Bridge sidewalk that *all* Lakefront Trail users pass over was inaccessible. The converted travel lane over Lake Shore Drive Bridge, through Illinois Street and up to Grand Avenue, could be built in 48 hours with a little asphalt (south of the bridge) metal plates, guardrails, and Jersey barriers.

2. The creation of north-south safe bikeways (read: protected bike lanes, cycle tracks, whatever you want to call them) near the Lakefront Trail will reduce the demand of the Lakefront Trail. At least one commenter in this discussion has proposed using lanes on Columbus Drive for the use of people bicycling. I like this idea. I think it's complementary to my proposal. People who ride north and south on the Lakefront Trail (to access their jobs, their homes, or just to avoid automobile traffic in the grid) may find SAFE streets more convenient.

3. There is a lot of poor design on the Lakefront Trail, not just near Navy Pier. There are lots of tight turns (I'd have to stop and write all of these down, which would delay my trip), bumpy and uneven pavement (I'd never get to where I was going if I stopped to denote each location), multiple intersections too close to each other (think North Avenue pedestrian overpass near LFT western bypass at North Avenue beach), and narrow sections (think Ohio Street Beach ramp), among other issues. These are all disadvantageous to cycling, and to the mixture of modes on the Lakefront Trail.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 30, 2012 at 6:34am

Your idea about the converted travel lane sound like a solid one.

Columbus Drive should have bike lanes with jersey barriers due to vehicle speed. It's a great intermediate option between the lakefront and the Loop. I've often used it to avoid the congestion in both areas, especially after a concert or movie in Grant Park or Millennium Park.

I absolutely agree about many poorly designed locations all along the lakefront. There are too many pinch points, blind intersections with no convex mirrors for assistance, intersections too close together, etc. This makes the path less safe than it could be.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on June 30, 2012 at 10:35am

... as bad as, if not often worse than, the physical shortcomings of the LFT is the Park District's continued obsession with placing vending kiosks directly adjacent to it. This could be fixed almost overnight if the political will existed.

A group of us bombarded CPD with emails a few years back to complain about specifically the positioning of the large kiosks at Fullerton and Jane Adams (which are relatively recent additions in the greater scheme of things). CPD did make some slight improvements later on and backed them away from the LFT a little bit.

But there are still little refreshment and sunglasses stands, etc., especially along the Oak to North Ave stretch, right on the LFT where customers queue by standing in the LFT. Those kiosks could be placed elsewhere with very minimal effort, on that stretch, they could be east of the LFT and then face east as well, which would result in customers queuing safely away from the LFT.

There really is absolutely no reason to place a kiosk where a customer needs to stand in the LFT, and I can't imagine the customers enjoy the hassle of being in everyone's way either.

The piddling amount of revenue these bring in (just like the 4 wheel pedal cars) does not even remotely justify how this diminishes the lakefront experience for hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of people all summer long.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on August 3, 2012 at 11:50am

I've posted an update along with new renderings of the Grid Chicago alternative proposal.

http://gridchicago.com/2012/navy-pier-flyover-followup-new-renderin...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by O on August 3, 2012 at 1:28pm

John:

I was under the impression that the flyover was part of a project that included roadwork on the LSD bridge as well? You appear to be saying that the flyover alone is $45 million dollars. Can you direct me to an online source that clean clear this up? Thanks.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by globalguy on August 3, 2012 at 1:44pm

No solid numbers but this from 2009: "The Navy Pier Flyover envisions using an estimated $40 million to develop what’s essentially a bridge rising adjacent to upper Lake Shore Drive, cantilevered out to the east of the busy expressway." From Chicago Journal

And this from Cityscapes in early 2011: “Why are we doing this now?” said one, alluding to chronic financial woes in Washington, Springfield and Chicago. “How are we going to pay for this?”

Don't know if the first quote answers your $$$ question but the second certainly appears to indicate that the high cost was already an acknowledged issue well before being raised on this thread ...

O said:

John:

I was under the impression that the flyover was part of a project that included roadwork on the LSD bridge as well? You appear to be saying that the flyover alone is $45 million dollars. Can you direct me to an online source that clean clear this up? Thanks.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on August 3, 2012 at 2:32pm

You should put in context that the "Why are we doing this now?" comment was from someone on his blog, not Kamin. Kamin also added:

>With all due respect to these cherished readers, I think they’re wrong: This project, which is called the Navy Pier Flyover and would cost up to $45 million in federal and state funds, is exactly the kind of infrastructure project that Chicago and the country needs.

It will create much-needed construction jobs. It will encourage commuters to bike or walk instead of drive, cutting air pollution. It will promote the economy by improving access to Navy Pier, the state’s top tourist attraction. And it will enhance Chicago’s greatest public space, the lakefront, by alleviating dangerous chokepoints like the one on the lower level of the Lake Shore Drive Bridge, where drivers, cyclists, inline skaters, joggers and pedestrians all jockey for space.

Other readers instantly grasped these points. “THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!” said one. “I use that area often and it’s AWFUL!” Added another: “One word -- tourism. Just imagine the photos of the city that people will get from this vantage point. ‘In Chicago, wish you were here!’ I’d guess it pays for itself in no time.”

but for cyclists, this is a breath of fresh air:

>America spends billions building and fixing the nation’s highways, using tax dollars to subsidize energy-wasting driving. But let Chicago try to build a transformative piece of infrastructure and people go nuts. They’re reacting against the idea of the elevated pathway, not its promising design.

As I posted on Steven's Grid Chicago page, cyclists deserve something first-class on the lakefront, not the hodgepodge the LFT is as of now. Give us something that will make us excited and proud to be biking in Chicago!

da' Square Wheelman (aka garth) said:

No solid numbers but this from 2009: "The Navy Pier Flyover envisions using an estimated $40 million to develop what’s essentially a bridge rising adjacent to upper Lake Shore Drive, cantilevered out to the east of the busy expressway." From Chicago Journal

And this from Cityscapes in early 2011: “Why are we doing this now?” said one, alluding to chronic financial woes in Washington, Springfield and Chicago. “How are we going to pay for this?”

Don't know if the first quote answers your $$$ question but the second certainly appears to indicate that the high cost was already an acknowledged issue well before being raised on this thread ...

O said:

John:

I was under the impression that the flyover was part of a project that included roadwork on the LSD bridge as well? You appear to be saying that the flyover alone is $45 million dollars. Can you direct me to an online source that clean clear this up? Thanks.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Bedno on August 3, 2012 at 2:52pm

I was at that MBAC meeting years ago, vaguely remember a condo owner literally asserting in genuine fear that the flyover would be used by gangs of hooligans to burglarize them. Maybe they're an asset to your cause.