Concept & Rationale

Let's Beautify the GBT (Figure 1) is a four-phased approach, which utilizes a tiered structure of implementation such that costs can be taken into consideration when the FGBT takes the design proposal to the 2040 Winnetka Comprehensive Plan, and seeks to address the problems raised by the FGBT (Appendix A). The design incorporates murals on the underpasses, the introduction of cosmetically pleasing plant life, QR codes, and tiered retaining walls in order to fully encapsulate the desires of our partners–improving the beauty, physical health, accessibility, and interactivity of the trail.

Figure 2: GBT Beautification Poster.

Figure 20: Isometric sketch of the mural implementation.

Figure 21: Before view of the Pine Street underpass.

Figure 3: After view of the Pine Street underpass mural.

Murals

Specifications & Use

Five selected underpasses running through the Winnetka section of the GBT will include murals. The selected underpasses will be those which are most frequently tagged with graffiti. These murals will be roughly 20ft long and 8ft tall and will be located on both sides of the trail, painted on the interior walls of each underpass (Figure 20). These will be situated such that users of the trail will be able to appreciate the artwork without having to divert their attention away from the trail. Outdoor paint will be used for the mural, which will cost around $35-80 per gallon. One of the five underpasses selected will include Pine Street, whose before (Figure 21) and after (Figure 3) views are pictured to the left. A muralist will potentially be chosen by contest (see Next Steps) in order to better represent the Winnetka community.

Rationale

Murals fill two important roles to improve the underpasses along the GBT. They will improve the aesthetic of the trail and discourage graffiti, which has been plaguing the underpasses. The murals will also benefit the community of Winnetka by potentially incorporating artwork from local artists and contributing to the community identity.

The design review feedback indicates that a majority of those questioned believe that the addition of murals along the underpasses will be overwhelmingly positive: adding to the beauty of the trail, as well as the town's identity (Appendix K). Making use of carbon-absorbing paint was considered, as suggested during the design review, however research shows that the paint is difficult to work with in an artistic setting (Appendix K) due to limited availability of paint, a cost of nearly four times that of the regular outdoor paint per gallon, and increased preparation requirements.

The project partners believed that the color of the murals will compliment the natural color of the indigenous plant species (Appendix F).

Figure 10: Elm street underpass.

Figure 22: Elm Street underpass plants.

Figure 23: Oak Leaf Hydrangeas.

Figure 24: Jacob's Ladder.

Figure 25: Cross Vine.

Underpass Plants

Specifications & Use

Plants underneath the underpasses will be incorporated to further remediate the underpass’s shadowy underbelly, like the Elm Street underpass (Figure 10), and to provide an opportunity to incorporate unique plants that can grow in the direct sun of the rest of the trail (Figure 22).

The plants will provide a significant improvement to the underpasses’ aesthetic and will include Oak Leaf Hydrangeas (Figure 23), large shrubs which will decorate the center of the underpass, Jacob’s Ladder (Figure 27), small flowers which will grow along the sides of the underpass, and Cross Vine (Figure 25), which will also grow along the sides of the underpass.

Rationale

A series of tests were performed according to the user testing guide (Appendix D) in order to use the collective opinions of users of the GBT to determine which plants will be included in the underpass revitalization.

Three categories of plants were chosen in order to fully incorporate plants within the architecture of the underpass: flowers, vines, and shrubs. For each category, five plants were chosen based on their indigenous status in Illinois and minimal maintenance requirements. For the flowers category, Virginia bluebells, Jacob’s ladder, Black snakeroot, Purple violet, and Pale Purple coneflower were tested. For the vines category, American bittersweet, Cross vine, American Wisteria, Pipe Vine, and Prairie Rose were tested. For the shrubs category, Milkweed, Oakleaf Hydrangeas, Chokeberry, Buttonbush, and Sweet gale were tested.

The testing process involved traveling to the Green Bay Trail in Winnetka, Illinois, and asking ten users of the trail to rate the plants in each of the three categories on a scale from 1-10.

The results determined that Oak Leaf Hydrangeas, Jacob's Ladder, and Cross Vine were the favorites of users of the trail (Appendix E).

Figure 26: QR code.

QR Codes

Specifications & Use

QR codes will be included underneath the underpasses in order to improve user experience and interactivity of the trail (Figure 26). These QR codes will link users to the Friends of the GBT webpage which will provide information about native plants and other wildlife as well as volunteer and fundraising opportunities through the team's partner, FGBT. This will take the underpasses from passive structures along the trail, which detract from the trail's natural beauty, to areas users can interact with, and which will contribute to the experience and understanding of the overall trail. This inclusion will make Winnetka's portion of the GBT a destination for people to visit.

Rationale

QR code placement was decided by the tests outlined in the user testing guide (Appendix D). The results of the testing was outlined in the user testing results (Appendix E), which rated various placements of the QR codes along the trail according to user interaction with them. The underpasses were found to be the most interacted-with location for the QR codes.

After troubleshooting with various apps that would meet the project needs, it was determined that linking directly to the FGBT website would be most effective as it wouldn't require users to download an app to learn about the native plant and wild life species and would have the added benefit of granting the FGBT more web-traffic and popularity, benefiting their fundraising and volunteer events.

Figure 4: View of the the tiered retaining wall implementation.

Figure 7: Slope beside the trail with stagnant water.

Figure 27: Televising the storm drains.

Figure 28: A catch-basin.

Retaining Wall & Drainage Solution

Specifications & Use

The drainage solution, centered around tiered retaining walls (Figure 4), is designed to solve the drainage issues along the slope of the trail (Figure 7). With a system of level ground and vertical retaining walls, the water runoff from the at-grade level will become more manageable. Additional ramps built into the foundation of the retaining wall near more populated areas will improve accessibility to the trail and add another layer of importance to the retaining walls. The retaining wall will be composed of two 6ft walls as well as ADA compliant ramps (1:12 slope) and flower beds and will be constructed out of stone block with concrete foundation.

The drainage problem that Winnetka’s portion of the GBT faces will be further addressed through the annual inspection of the drainage pipes by televising, implementing catch-basins in the storm inlets, and grading the ground such that there is a positive slope of 1% extending from the storm-inlets.

Televising the storm drains will be conducted yearly by sending a camera through the drains to make sure the drains are in-tact and unclogged (Figure 27).

Catch-basins will be implemented inside each storm inlet so that sediment and other materials which enter the storm inlet are caught in the catch-basin as opposed to collecting at the bottom of the drain and preventing water from being drained away (Figure 28). This will simplify the WPD and FGBT maintenance and lessen the stagnant water problem the trail faces.

The slope extending from the storm inlets will be graded according to a 1% incline and the path itself will be inspected to ensure it is sloped to 1.5-2% in order to facilitate water runoff.

In accordance with the tentative budget of $100,000, as researched by the team, the drainage solution will be implemented through a tiered system of options, ranging from the cheapest, low-impact solution, to the most expensive, high-impact solution. The least expensive, Tier 3, will involve an annual inspection of the drainage pipes with televising, and utilizing volunteers and existing WPD/FGBT staff to grade the ground such that there is a positive slope of 1% extending from the storm-inlets. Tier 2, the middle-of-the-road solution, will involve everything from Tier 3 as well as implementing catch-basins in the storm inlets to catch debris and other material which would otherwise build up in the drain and clog the drains from effectively removing stagnant water. The most expensive, Tier 1, will involve everything from Tier 2 and 3 as well as implementing the tiered retaining wall to address the runoff concerns due to the steep slope, as well as address the accessibility concern of the trail.

Rationale

The project partners were very interested in the tiered retaining walls and believed that access points should be added in high-traffic areas to address the accessibility concern of the trail (Appendix F). This idea was justified in the design review, as the questionnaire polling found that a majority of respondents felt that adding ramps and flower beds to the retaining wall would be beneficial to the design (Appendix K).

In accordance with the ethical concerns agreed upon by the team (Appendix B), the team reached out to a Civil Engineering field expert, Mark Richards, Vice President and Director of Engineering at Webster McGrath & Ahlberg, Ltd. After sending him a copy of the lidar surveys (Appendix L), photographs (Appendix C), and project background (Appendix A), a meeting was held in order to determine what, in his expert opinion, are the primary culprits for the stagnant water beside the trail, and how his firm would approach the problem (Appendix E).

Per Mr. Richards’ advice, televising the drainage pipes to conduct annual inspections of the drainage system, implementing catch-basins in the storm inlets to prevent debris, sediment, and other material from clogging the storm drains, and grading the ground extending from the storm-inlets to allow movement of the stagnant water was considered.

A slope of 1% from the storm inlets and 1.5-2% across the trail was recommended according to standard industry practice.

The meeting affirmed the team’s proposal to incorporate retaining walls. He suggested considering block for the wall itself and making use of a cement foundation for support.

Mr. Richards provided cost estimates for these components, which included $2000 per year for televising of the drains, $1500 per catch-basin, and $30 per surface foot for the retaining wall.

Mr. Richards also advised making use of a tiered-cost approach to the design, something his firm often used when dealing with city municipalities.

For a complete breakdown of the costs for the design concept, please reference the Bill of Materials in Appendix H.

Page updated

Report abuse