Why does the Roosevelt Rd bridge still exist?

[The Urban Politician]

I am curious why the Roosevelt Rd bridge, in its current form, still exists. Perhaps I am confused about something, but here's how I understand this thing:

It is a bridge over the Chicago River, but east of the river its initial intention was also to span above all of those railroad tracks, which are now gone. In the place of those tracks is the God-forsaken planning blunder known as Dearborn Park I & II.

So my question is, now that the railroads are gone, what reason does the Roosevelt Rd bridge have in being elevated above the ground east of, say, Clark St?

[Steely Dan]

^ the rail lines are are not entirely gone. metra's rock island ROW into lasalle street station still runs through there and i'm sure that the city doesn't want an at grade railroad crossing on roosevelt. east of clark street the road has to transition from elevated back down to grade by state street.

[Mr Downtown]

Well, the short answer is to allow a pedestrian passage at Plymouth Court, which is important for access to the school as well as connectivity between DPI and DPII. Because the road has to be elevated over the Metra Rock Island tracks, it can't get back to ground (with an acceptable grade) for a grade crossing at Plymouth. So it has to stay elevated over Plymouth just enough for a walkway, then quickly drop to State. (The old viaduct was also elevated over State, and descended to grade at Wabash).

The long answer is that a small coterie of Dearborn Parkers were insistent on the elevation. At the time, I thought it would be better in the long run to get the Metra tracks elevated and Roosevelt Road put on grade--just like the situation at Polk. But beyond the real engineering challenges, and the fact that the two projects were being done on different schedules by different agencies that had no interest in coordinating efforts, there were rather passionate arguments from Dearborn Parkers. Some were pretty logical: not making kids cross what turned out to be a really busy wide arterial (though I think frequent traffic signals would help tame the beast). Others were not so logical: the 1169 building tried to insist on still having an overpass at State so the people who wait for the Roosevelt bus wouldn't be able to stand next to their building. One guy from 1169 was furious with my suggestion to elevate the Metra tracks (because it would lower Roosevelt to grade) and circulated a flyer claiming a 15-foot-high viaduct 800 feet away would throw all of Dearborn Park into permanent shadow. In the end they got solid walls, like freeway sound walls, put up on the sides of the viaduct, so peds on the viaduct couldn't throw trash into their courtyard.

There were lots of heated meetings. I have a fat file of documents.

[Belacqua]

Is there any walkway at where Federal would be, or is that completely closed off? It seems like there is some kind of entrance at least on the south side of the viaduct.

[Mr Downtown]

Closed off, though there's no reason a passage couldn't be put through there. At the time the viaduct was built, there were a lot of scary guys living and hanging out under the Clark Street viaduct, and a passageway at Federal wasn't something the neighbors particularly wanted (though I don't remember it being a big issue, either). The school doesn't have an entrance on that side.

Everything under the viaduct is open, just enclosed by tilt-up concrete panels. There was briefly talk of leasing parking spaces underneath, but CDOT has ended up using it for storage. When they were rebuilding Wacker, all kinds of stuff was shuttled in and out using Wells.

[edsg25]

Isn't there a parallel between Roosevelt Road in that stretch east of the river similiar to Randolph between LSD and Michigan. Randolph once bridged over the r.r. tracks, but Illinois/Center and Lake Shore East to the north and Millennium Pk to the soth made it appear that Randolph is at grade level

[Mr Downtown]

When Roosevelt Collection and Riverside Park (maybe) feed off Roosevelt, we may quit thinking of the viaduct as elevated, same as we do with Randolph.

[FreeRadical]

VOID

[PrintersRowBoiler]

Didn't the bridge go under MAJOR rehab in the early 90s? I agree with the development planned adjacent to it including the existing Target and Southgate that the bridge will appear to be at grade in the future.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler

Didn't the bridge go under MAJOR rehab in the early 90s?

The part east of the river was demolished and rebuilt from scratch in 1994-96.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by FreeRadical

The Burlington Northern also runs under that bridge into Union Station. Every single commuter train from the western suburbs, along with Amtrak.

That bridge is not going anywhere.

not only isn't it going anywhere, it shouldn't go anywhere. aren't we better off having these two levels in place?

[Mr Downtown]

East of the river, I think it would be better if Roosevelt were an ordinary arterial on ground level. Drivers wouldn't see it as a superhighway, Clark Street couldn't have been turned into a superhighway, Dearborn Park might have more openings, and projects like Riverside Park and Roosevelt Collection wouldn't be megastructures that have to be built in one piece. The only thing we'd lose is the opportunity to put retail parking below grade for those two developments.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The only thing we'd lose is the opportunity to put retail parking below grade for those two developments.

That's a BIG thing. I don't mind having Roosevelt elevated, so long as the developments don't resemble the ones across the river.

[SouthLoopSOX]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

I am curious why the Roosevelt Rd bridge, in its current form, still exists. Perhaps I am confused about something, but here's how I understand this thing:

It is a bridge over the Chicago River, but east of the river its initial intention was also to span above all of those railroad tracks, which are now gone. In the place of those tracks is the God-forsaken planning blunder known as Dearborn Park I & II.

So my question is, now that the railroads are gone, what reason does the Roosevelt Rd bridge have in being elevated above the ground east of, say, Clark St?

i could see an argument about disrupting the grid systems.....but what other reasons do you have ( viable reasons...not bs) to call DB I & DB II "God forsaken planning blunder". To me that is stupid.... and I mean really painfully dumb.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

East of the river, I think it would be better if Roosevelt were an ordinary arterial on ground level. Drivers wouldn't see it as a superhighway, Clark Street couldn't have been turned into a superhighway, Dearborn Park might have more openings, and projects like Riverside Park and Roosevelt Collection wouldn't be megastructures that have to be built in one piece. The only thing we'd lose is the opportunity to put retail parking below grade for those two developments.

I'm not sure why the elevated nature of the street gives it the feel of a superhighway? I suspect when it really fills in on Roosevelt between the River and State, it will appear like just another (albeit wide) street.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I'm not sure why the elevated nature of the street gives it the feel of a superhighway?

Because there are no intersections. It's a six-lane quarter-mile straightaway with no parked cars, no crosswalks, and no traffic signals. It's no wonder that drivers treat it like the Great Lakes Dragaway, and not just on SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY