This past week I found myself in the south-suburban area of Chicago, and that afforded an opportunity to explore a small portion of the Thorn Creek Trail.
Thorn Creek Trail Map
The overall trail is a 17.2 mile that winds it’s way through through multiple nature preserves in and around Park Forest and Chicago Heights. I did not have time on this outing to explore the entire trail, so I focused on a small loop set in Schubert’s Woods that goes around Sauk Trail Lake.
This is a three and a half mile loop that is almost entirely ensconced in trees, although you do periodically glimpse the roadways and buildings through the woods, and there is a brief section that runs alongside the road at the north end of the lake. But in other portions it is possible to feel like you are entirely out in the woods:
The trail is there somewhere…
Given that this is a woodland trail and that we are now entering the last third of Autumn, the trail was often partially - and sometimes entirely - covered with leaves. They appeared to be mostly oak leaves, which gave a pleasant and satisfying crackle and crunch under the wheels. The only caveat here is that, at times, it was a little challenging to know exactly where the sides of the path were.
The trail itself is asphalt, and (where I could see it) appeared to be very well maintained. It offered a smooth and comfortable riding surface throughout this section. In most areas it winds its way through the woods, leaving straight sections only for the portions that parallel roadways. Because it circles a small lake, fed by the eponymous Thorn Creek, there are some portions of rise and fall to it, particularly on the western side of the lake where the creek enters it. This is nothing dramatic - Cyclemeter registered no ascent or descent at all, but it seems to always underestimate on those measures[^1] - but it is there. This is not a perfectly flat trail.
As you get around to the western side of the lake you get some nice views of the water as well:
The trail was not in heavy use this autumn afternoon. I did encounter a handful of walkers - a couple of whom seemed a little surprised to encounter someone cycling on the path, perhaps not expecting it because of it being late in the season. But most of the time I was alone.
My time for riding was limited on this day, hence the relatively brief adventure. I viewed this mostly as an opportunity to get a sample of this trail system. If this short section is a reasonable representation of the rest of the trail, however, it seems like it could offer a pretty decent experience for a person looking for a riding opportunity in the area. The map shows it largely winding through forest preserves - and at one point along a golf course opposite the woods - with occasional roadway crossings. And at 17.2 miles it would offer a nearly 35-mile round trip end to end.
Probably the most challenging thing about using it was finding the right spot to join it. For example, the trail maps show the trail beginning, at the south end, at S Western Avenue and Steger Road. But while the trail does run to that point, there appears to be no practical location to park near that point - it’s just a fairly busy intersection. In fact, the trail at that point looks like something that isn’t finished yet - like they were planning to go further, but haven’t gotten to it yet.
All-in-all, a pleasant ride. If an opportunity presents in the future I’d like to explore the rest of the trail.
[^1]: This is one of the few downsides to Cyclemeter. It appears to me that it relies upon the altimeter in the phone to determine ascent and descent, while some other mapping programs, like Ride with GPS, appear to use topographical map data. Probably the most dramatic variance on this for me was on the Hilly Hundred. During that event I ran both Cyclemeter and Ride with GPS at the same time - Cyclemeter to track my ride, and Ride with GPS for the turn-by-turn directions (I had the phone hooked up to a battery pack - this is a battery-burning activity). On day two of that event, Ride with GPS tracked ascent at 3,262 feet, which is more or less consistent with what the event organizers indicate. Cyclemeter, on the other hand, recorded ascent at 1787 feet. It’s a difference 1475 feet, 45% less than the actual ascent. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things - better to have a consistent measure over time for comparisons. But following an event focused on hill climbing it did leave me feeling a little like it was trying to cheat me…