Mount Prospect board narrows Melas–Meadows pedestrian-bridge options; staff prefers prefabricated truss

The Village of Mount Prospect’s Committee of the Whole on Jan. 14 reviewed four main‑span designs and a funding plan for a proposed pedestrian bridge that would span Northwest Highway and the Union Pacific Railroad to link Melas Park and Meadows Park.

Village staff presented four main‑span alternatives — a prefabricated truss, an arched “Fair and Diehl” truss, a network tied arch and a cable‑stayed design — and said the prefabricated truss is the staff‑preferred option because it is relatively quick to build and less expensive than the other signature designs. “Our staff’s preferred option is the Fair and Diehl truss,” presenter Director Dorsey said during the meeting.

Why it matters: the crossing would remove a barrier between two large park properties, create a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle path across a busy highway and active rail corridor, and is tied to several federal and state grants that staff said are only available if the project is advanced to a shovel‑ready stage.

What staff told the board: project work completed to date includes a Phase I preliminary engineering report, geotechnical borings, coordination with the Mount Prospect Park District and Union Pacific Railroad, and initial approach and lighting layouts. Staff said the Phase I report was completed under an IDOT process and that having Phase I and Phase II work done increases the project’s competitiveness for grant funding.

Funding and cost: staff said the village has secured about $5,600,000 in grant commitments so far, including an Invest in Cook award (~$61,000 for Phase I), a congressional appropriation for Phase II (from Rep. Quigley) of about $517,000, an Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP) award of $3,000,000, and a Surface Transportation Program (STP) shared allocation of just over $2,000,000. The village applied to the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) Grade Crossing Protection Fund for roughly $2.9 million; staff said it will not know the ICC decision until around April.

Staff walked the board through estimated local shares and funding gaps for each main‑span option. For the prefabricated truss, staff estimated a village local share of about $1,800,000 and a funding gap of about $1,600,000 (the gap is the portion staff hopes the pending ICC request or additional STP funding would cover). The arch and tied‑arch alternatives raised the local share and gap; the cable‑stayed option produced the largest village share and gap, which staff and consultants described as “prohibitive” given current funding.

Board discussion and direction: trustees asked about structural durability, wind and snow loading, ADA access, surface materials and long‑term maintenance. Brett Sauder of SIORBA Group, the structural consultant, said all four designs are engineered to the same code for pedestrian and vehicle loading, wind and extreme events and that each design would include approach ramps meeting ADA slope requirements. Staff and consultants told trustees routine maintenance and finish choices (galvanizing, paint, lighting) would influence life‑cycle costs but that none of the four options had substantially different expected maintenance burdens.

Several trustees said public‑safety and connectivity benefits factor strongly into their support; others pressed staff on funding risk if grants fail to materialize and on whether previously‑spent Phase I/II engineering funds could have to be repaid. Village staff said written award notices are in hand for several funding sources and that the remaining risk is the pending ICC request; they said if the ICC award does not come, staff would recommend pausing and seeking further funding before bidding.

Timing: staff proposed completing pre‑final plans by May 2025 and final plans by September 2025, with a bid letting in November 2025. The current construction schedule in the presentation showed a December 2025 award, off‑site fabrication beginning in January 2026, on‑site work starting April 2026, substantial completion October 2026 and final completion December 2026; landscape restoration might not conclude until fall 2027.

Public comment: several audience members spoke. A local resident suggested alternatives such as an undercrossing and asked the board to quantify the number of people who currently cross the tracks. Staff replied earlier study work had evaluated alternatives and noted the railroad does not support tunnels under its tracks and IDOT declined a traffic signal at the adjacent highway crossing. Trustees also discussed branding, bridge lighting and how signage and materials could reflect Mount Prospect’s identity.

Where it stands: after discussion the board generally directed staff to proceed with design development consistent with the staff recommendation (the prefabricated truss concept and related design refinements) and to continue pursuing the ICC award and other funding options; no final construction authorization or binding vote was taken at the Jan. 14 meeting.

Ending note: staff and consultants said additional design detail — materials, fencing style, lighting and branding — will be developed once the board confirms a main‑span type and earlier funding questions are resolved.