Here are my ideas regarding DuSable Lake Shore Drive. C. Jenny Walbridge 312-608-8070, 60660
The Drive has served the people—trail users and car drivers, and bus riders—well, for a long time. Why not consider whether/how we could improve it, for users of the future? I think it needs the light touch of designers AND a practical viewpoint. My immediate reaction is that we neither have lots of money for redoing this area, nor need to spend a lot on it to make it better serve Chicagoans/tourists.
As we see, gas prices are going down, but this is NOT a reason for the City to attempt to do other things to try to encourage more car driving, which does make Chicago money (i. e., gas taxes). It’s time for something different—looking to the future with an imaginative lens. A symptom of the changing tomorrow is the plethora of new vehicles on the roads. And we should consider how to take care of the users who already are there, on the trail, in minor ways, before proposing major $$ changes.
Drivers of cars don’t need an improved Drive. The DSLSD experience is a great one for car drivers already; keeping the asphalt repaired is all it needs. The underpasses on the North stretch have been decorated artistically and look great.
Global warming may cause the Lake to assert itself; the buildings that sit next to it may be in danger some day soon! Rocks have been added on the lakeshores to save structures—good idea! These additions may be important for the trail, also, and have indeed been added in a place or two.
This global warming concern is legitimate, though spending lots of money to fill in some land along the Drive might be a bad idea, because, like I say, the City doesn’t have it, and that includes the taxpayers who live here, like myself. Yet adding more trail users would also be smart for the future. If you have to expand the width of the trail for this purpose, maybe that would be a good idea.
Lake/trail users could benefit from some basic facilities: more bathrooms; drinking fountains; and shelters, for protection against rain bursts and sun. These might encourage trail users. Also, were the trail wider, and were there more beachfront, users might increase in number. I imagine spots delineated for viewing, for pedestrians and bikers to stop and paint or take photos of the skyline—both along the North side of the Loop and the Southside, looking to the landscape. Stations for exercising, like many trails in cities have, might also enhance the DSLSD trail experience.
Now that we have e-bikes, scooters, and skateboards, as well as bicycle transport, maybe it’s time for some more lanes along the trail. Where would folks taking the suggestion of the New York Times, recently, for seniors to walk with ski poles, fit in on the current trail? What about rollerskaters or rollerbladers—where do they have room to move?
Utilizing the ideas of Katy Bowman, biomechanist (see Move Your DNA; nutritiousmovement.com), our human bodies evolved stepping on uneven ground. A trail for “hunters/gatherers”—with uneven-surfaced pathways—would be a revolutionary nod to getting and staying enriched while healthy. Could we make a trail to compete with San Fran?
Meanwhile, a decorated but flat pathway especially for the wheelchair-bound would be a stimulant to their recreation, too. I can see an expanded Lakefront Trail that accommodated these ways of moving and facilities: creative designers would maybe even volunteer their efforts, working in a group for a better DSLSD.
The Drive has a lot to offer, but maybe the two-legged, small-vehicle level is the one to plan for—not the automobile, which has already attained its full enjoyment use pattern. However, buses could share the Drive better, too: more of them instead of cars sounds like a good future-planning technique.