I urge you to not advance the "Redefine the Drive" project in the 2026 Regional Transportation Plan in its current form. This deeply flawed project has faced overwhelming opposition from community members and elected officials, and it needs to go back to the drawing board.

Notably, the draft plan does not reflect where the public understands this project actually stands, still referencing and describing a "preferred alternative" for NDLSD. After significant public resistance, IDOT publicly acknowledged they are revisiting the alternatives analysis. The Regional Transportation Plan must reflect the current status.

I am asking for two specific corrections:

1. Remove the "preferred alternative" language from the RTP and its appendices. The plan should not describe a design the sponsoring agencies have stepped back from.

2. Reclassify NDLSD as a "visionary" project. CMAP defines visionary projects as those "in the early planning stages and thus, still conceptual in nature with pending analysis of alternatives." That is a precise description of NDLSD today.

From the beginning, this project's premise has ignored its own public input showing that an overwhelming majority of residents want investment in transit and a reduction in the Drive's impact on the lakefront. That desire was reflected in HR 438, which passed unanimously in the Illinois General Assembly and called for the Drive to be made a true boulevard with investments in transit. A majority of Chicago's alderpeople representing the North lakefront have called for the same.

Despite this, IDOT and CDOT presented plans with no transit improvements, proposing to lock in a superhighway for the next hundred years of Chicagoans. It would be profoundly irresponsible for CMAP to ratify that outcome.

This project is in tension with CMAP's own commitments as adopted in its Comprehensive Climate Action Plan, and the 2026 RTP itself names mode shift through enhancing transit, biking, and walking as a core strategy for reducing regional emissions. An eight-lane expressway through a lakefront park is impossible to reconcile with the plan's own stated priorities.

The Illinois General Assembly has just made a historic investment in transit, alongside dramatic changes to regional transit planning and governance. The assumptions underlying this project's alternatives analysis predate that shift. Advancing a design built on outdated assumptions would squander the moment we find ourselves in.

Cities from Seoul to San Francisco have reclaimed waterfront highway land and gained park space, transit ridership, and economic activity. Chicago's lakefront is our defining public asset and the reason many of us live here. This is an opportunity for Chicago’s leaders to prioritize livability – rather than private vehicles hurtling at high speed through a lakefront park.

Please correct the plan's description of this project, reclassify it as visionary, and give this corridor the process it deserves.