Details and a timeline have been revealed for the construction of the W Chicago Avenue and N Halsted Street intersection in River West. The project comes at the same time as the adjacent Bally’s Casino received initial funding and a new design. The project is being led by the Chicago Department of Transportation.
Project site map via CDOT
Site map of reconstructed intersection via CDOT
Work will stretch from around N Green Street on the west end to N Kingsbury Street to the east, as well as from W Ancona Street to the south to the Chicago River to the north. N Halsted Street will receive part of a dedicated bus lane up to the intersection, with widened sidewalks on both sides that will relocate bike lanes to sidewalk level with tactile separators along all sides.
Rendering of rebuilt Chicago Avenue via CDOT
Rendering of rebuilt Halsted Street via CDOT
Rendering of rebuilt Halsted Street via CDOT
This will also relocate the current bus stops to the street edge, split from the main walking path at the furthest edge of the road. Chicago Avenue will see the continuation of the existing BRT lanes, however no dedicated bike lanes will be included along Chicago Avenue. With these changes, all of the intersections will have their rounded corners sharpened with tighter turning radius to increase safety.
View of current Chicago Avenue bridge via CDOT
Rendering of rebuilt Chicago Avenue via CDOT
The second major aspect will be the construction of a new tied-arch bridge for Chicago Avenue over the river, replacing a temporary bridge erected in 2018. The white arch bridge will allow for a wider crossing as well as for a continuation of the riverwalk under both sides of the river. Other small aspects will include lighting upgrades, traffic signal modernization, and added landscaping.
Rendering of rebuilt Chicago Avenue via CDOT
Rendering of rebuilt Halsted Street via CDOT
Comments on the design were being accepted until last month with engineering work entering its final phase. With financing already in place via TIF funds, construction is set to begin by the end of this year and wrap up by the third quarter of 2026. During this period, which will also see the construction of the casino, traffic will be redirected to surrounding streets.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
I am curious about what happens to all these steel bridges once replaced. This isn’t the first, nor will it be the last.
Is the steel recycled, or is there a fun adaptive reuse in another location?
I would bet a scrapper is buying it and will sell anything obviously useful while melting down the rest to be recycled.
That one is a temp bridge, it goes back to the company that is leasing it. Like one on Division.
Let’s see if all the guys who whine about parking podiums apply equal zest in condemning unnecessary car infrastructure such as this!
In some respects it is, but also the current Halsted/Chicago intersection is an unsafe abomination as it is, so it did need redoing. There are still too many traffic lanes being added in the new proposal though. It kind of feels like trying to make an awkward suburban (in some ways) stroad into a complete street.
This is most definitely not unnecessary car infrastructure! The current bridge, viaduct and road conditions in the area are horrendous and are in dire need of replacement. Good on CDOT to do this concurrently with the construction of the casino!
I see bus stops with no shelter and no benches. They look like suburban Pace stops.
We’ve lost a lot of our really good design and adventure in the world these days.
It makes me sad
I’m not sure the renderings include every element of the project. My guess is that they focused on the pavement. This may yet be included.
As a frequent #8 bus rider, I’m concerned about the choke point at Halsted and Erie (old railroad bridge) and at Halsted and Hubbard (another old railroad bridge) because when they back up, everything north of them will still come to a standstill. I would have like to see a longer term plan to fix those bottlenecks as well. Also, this plan doesn’t seem to leave space for a light rail commuter train crossing over (under?) from Goose Island — without which we continue to need wider streets for buses and cars.
I completely agree.
Busses, as they currently exist on Chicago streets, are nearly worthless. At the whim of bad drivers; Taxis, ubers, and lyfts; amazon, UPS, FedEx, and USPS deliveries; parked cars, and an impressive list of creative ways to block a lane.
We need to get public transit off the streets. Raise it up or dig down. Unless we add cow catchers to the front of busses and light rail (wouldn’t that be nice) to just gently push cars and trucks and things that go out of the way.
I’m often disappointed in the cities “vision.” our leadership needs cataract surgery and more people who take public transit on the boards.
Some trees along Chicago would be nice
if we can keep them alive
I cannot stand the new bridges we install. Ugly and unmovable.
what a sad city we live in at times.
Another CDOT loser. This bridge is ugly. Look how fat those tubes are. This is an important location and they are templating a borrowed and boring design. Does the uneducated political hacks running the CDOT bridge department ever understood the meaning of the word “design”? Good design does not cost more. Lazy design is being lazy and producing works like this bridge. This city use to have pride in its engineering.
I mean look, I’d love a soaring, cantilever spar cable-stayed bridge designed by Santiago Calatrava, but that’s definitely going to cost more. For a simple span like this, a basic tied-arch is fine, and it leaves visual deference to the historic Ward complex on the east bank.
Wrong, it’s not just fine and I’m not looking for an engineering marvel of the world. This is an UGLY lazy CDOT design that has horrible visual proportions. Thoughts like yours make great cities less great. Design does not have to cost more if CDOT engineers put some brain power into it.
Sadly the bridge will not be consistent with the majority of the historic Bascule bridges on the river. Where is our sense of heritage?
I agree with the person who commented on the Railroad viaducts. Unless these “Pinch Points” are dealt with concurrently, it doesn’t matter what they do on the blocks in between. Halstead will be a nightmare. It’s very bad now, and will become useless as a north /south route.
Hi John, I totally agree with this observation. I have also heard Jefferson St (which dead ends in the loop by the Metra tracks) is supposed to be extended north passed Chicago Ave. I can’t remember if it goes all the way to Division. This will definitely help with the pinch points. Who knows. These plans keep changing.
waste of money. does very little to improve the pedestrian experience and is an underwhelming sense of purpose for a major transition point between two major east-west neighborhoods in the city. just another soaring concrete slab floating through the air. shame on them.
Personally, I think zero new roads should be built without bike infrastructure, especially arteries like Chicago Ave. Bikes will still use the road and contribute to frustrating driving without dedicated lanes.
This proposal is a big F-U to pedestrians of Chicago. What a mess!
I.AM.Horrified!! ONLY one lane each way for all traffic (excluding buses) over Chicago Ave. I thought the new bridge would give us relief to Chicago Ave traffic jam and this gives no relief at all and now going to add casino traffic! I’m in disbelief. It’s already nightmare and going to be worse.
The Chicago bus currently carries almost as many passengers as the private vehicles that use Chicago. It makes sense for them to prioritize the bus with its own lanes, since better bus service is really the only way to move more people along Chicago.
Why is the viaduct still needed if the railroad track is being removed… couldn’t they just lower this entire intersection now?
Probably would have to really re-engineer all redo much more all off the surrounding roads to accomplish that and would be very costly.