I-375 New Options

[Jason]

I agree about the interchange's connectivity. It has the appearance of being a normal surface road, and I think most people would assume that the freeways had continuous service drives and that this surface road connected to them. But it's not the case at all, the surface boulevard is a glorified onramp.

My guess is that they figured that if the new boulevard connected with continuous service drives, that the service drives would be too good of a route and there would be too much traffic on them.

[Scottathew]

New press release

MDOT opens public comment period on I-375 improvement project in Detroit




January 5, 2021 -- The Michigan Department of Transportation [[MDOT) today opened the official 45-day comment period on the Environmental Assessment [[EA) portion of the I-375 project in Detroit. The EA is part of the federal requirement process to receive clearance to transform the current outdated freeway into a street level urban boulevard. A formal public hearing and virtual outreach event will be held later this month.


Interested parties can submit formal comments on the project website at www.Michigan.gov/I375Study. An online comment form is available to allow the public to voice their opinion on the recommended alternative. All comments received prior to Friday, Feb. 19, will be included in the official record. In addition to the website, options include e-mailing MDOT-I-375Corridor@Michigan.gov or mailing comments via US Mail postmarked by Feb. 19 to:


MDOT
Attn: Monica Monsma
P.O. Box 30050
Lansing, MI 48909


The preferred alternative involves building a boulevard from Gratiot Avenue to Atwater Street, creating at-grade intersections at cross streets, realigning the I-75 freeway from Mack Avenue to Brush Street, and building a single-point urban interchange [[SPUI) to access the boulevard from the interstate. The design includes features to make the corridor walkable, additional options for nonmotorized users and future placemaking opportunities for the city.

[JonWylie]

I really like how this project has come along, and it seems to get a little better with every iteration [[besides the delay). The only thing I haven't really grasped is the purpose of the small road to the east of the new Blvd. I don't understand why it doesn't either extend the entire length of the blvd, or why it's there at all?

[bust]

I really like how this project has come along, and it seems to get a little better with every iteration [[besides the delay). The only thing I haven't really grasped is the purpose of the small road to the east of the new Blvd. I don't understand why it doesn't either extend the entire length of the blvd, or why it's there at all?

I really like it too. And that's a good question.

Just thinking out loud here--

Maybe it's to reduce traffic in that area by preventing access to/from Lafayette and South.

Especially if it doesn't continue further south because they have plans/hopes for something better on the "excess land" they'll open up south of Lafayette. That would be a great place for retail where not enough exists. It would help enliven the new Boulevard too.

EDIT: I also love how the project includes taming traffic exiting 75, where today onto Gratiot they zoom. Great news.

[Scottathew]

For those of you not wanting to go to the link:

[Jason]

I'm not a fan of how many lanes there are.

I also much better liked the Michigan Left version, because in my experience as a pedestrian, only having to watch for cars coming from one direction, and having a good median in the middle of the road, is much better than having cars coming from all directions and hoping that they won't run you over.

I don't remember who it was but one group wanted there to be pedestrian/bike underpasses under the major intersections. And I don't imagine that would be very expensive since you'd just be placing a precast concrete underpass before filling in the rest of the freeway [[the "hole" is already dug). It would also help move cars faster because then you could remove the pedestrian phase from the lights.

[Scottathew]

I don't remember who it was but one group wanted there to be pedestrian/bike underpasses under the major intersections. And I don't imagine that would be very expensive since you'd just be placing a precast concrete underpass before filling in the rest of the freeway [[the "hole" is already dug). It would also help move cars faster because then you could remove the pedestrian phase from the lights.

Fascinating point about the hole already being dug. I'd rather not have tunnels. I think a lot of folks would be a little shy about taking such a tunnel in Detroit. The city has come a long way, but it still has its issues with crime.

[casscorridor]

I'm not a fan of how many lanes there are.

I also much better liked the Michigan Left version, because in my experience as a pedestrian, only having to watch for cars coming from one direction, and having a good median in the middle of the road, is much better than having cars coming from all directions and hoping that they won't run you over.

I don't remember who it was but one group wanted there to be pedestrian/bike underpasses under the major intersections. And I don't imagine that would be very expensive since you'd just be placing a precast concrete underpass before filling in the rest of the freeway [[the "hole" is already dug). It would also help move cars faster because then you could remove the pedestrian phase from the lights.

Agree on the lanes. Way too many. Overkill. Especially since they don't feed directly from I-75 as they do today, and even then there's barely any traffic. There should be at least one lane cut off from each way, and add parking lanes and *one way* protected bike lanes on each side as two-way protected lanes have been shown to lead to more accidents than one-way.

This is the perfect opportunity to enlarge downtown and improve the pedestrian experience. Unfortunately, MDOT has a poor track record when it comes to anything else besides overbuilding auto infrastructure. The also botched the recent opportunity to rebuild Woodward Ave through midtown, which is still a pedestrian nightmare.

[Atticus]

Fascinating point about the hole already being dug. I'd rather not have tunnels. I think a lot of folks would be a little shy about taking such a tunnel in Detroit. The city has come a long way, but it still has its issues with crime.

To be blunt, beyond just crime, I would imagine any tunnels would likely become the overnight encampments of the homeless. Agreed though that many pedestrians would be leary to use them. As such, since many pedestrians may instead try and cross at the intersections anyway, it is probably better to have a crosswalk and a “walk/don’t” walk indicator.

[Jason]

So on one hand it does seem like homeless people would take shelter down there, and that even if not a lot of people would not want to go in the tunnels.

But on the other hand there's the Dequindre Cut where there are underpasses under the same roads, and even more restrictive since you're trapped in the rail trench, but the Dequindre Cut is popular. Maybe it's a problem there too, I don't actually know. But I've become more confident about the city and I don't think every decision has to revolve around those kinds of issues anymore.

Anyway though I looked more closely in google maps, and the area where the underpasses go is actually mostly currently solid ground. The underpasses would also cut off some driveways, and may also involve some underground utility relocation.

[Satiricalivory]

It's still too damn wide, we don't need a road this large that just goes to the riverfront.

God I'm so sick of MDOT's car obsession.

[Satiricalivory]

To be blunt, beyond just crime, I would imagine any tunnels would likely become the overnight encampments of the homeless.

Detroit has some of the lowest homeless populations of any major city. This isn't really a concern.

[Dexlin]

That is still a butt-load of new land that will be developed to tie the two neighborhoods back together. That the plan is to take away I-375 is even this far along is an accomplishment, quite frankly. You'd think by these comments this isn't a significant improvement.

[Gistok]

With what appears to be the elimination of the Madison Ave. exit, how are people coming down I-75 going to get to [[and from) Comerica Park, Ford Field and the Theatre District on game days?

[royce]

That is still a butt-load of new land that will be developed to tie the two neighborhoods back together. That the plan is to take away I-375 is even this far along is an accomplishment, quite frankly. You'd think by these comments this isn't a significant improvement.

I, agree, Dexlin, that the taking away of I-375 is the win-win, and the new preferred alternative is not bad. However, I've been to the public meetings and MDOT had narrowed the choices to two alternatives. Following that action, I would think that this week's announcement would tell the public which alternative they chose, not tell the public that they have come up with a "totally new" alternative. It makes everything that went on before a moot point and I'm not understanding MDOT's thinking here. I'm just saying that there were six alternatives narrowed down to two and you [[MDOT) come up with a never-before-seen "preferred" alternative. This to me is mind blowing. Why wasn't this "preferred" alternative included as part of the original alternatives?

As for this "preferred" alternative there are a few items I don't like. First of all, if you are going to make a median a median, make it substantial. Create a median that truly separates the two directions of traffic and gives you that "park" like feel. Think of East Grand Boulevard between Gratiot and Mack or Moross between Kelly and Mack. Giving us something like the median on Gratiot at Eastern Market [[which was a substantial improvement to that area in my opinion) was not what MDOT sold us on when they originally announced the removal of I-375 south of Gratiot. In all of the previous alternatives you had a nice and wide median. The only issue for debate was whether or not to put it to the west or east of the removed freeway.

My second issue with this new "preferred" alternative deals with the "future planned" land. Instead of it just abutting the properties to the east of the current service drive, why not include an alley for future development. I like the potential for commercial, residential, parkland, or whatever, but if it's going to happen, then MDOT needs to have infrastructure in place for when it does. Since the eastern service drive already has infrastructure in place, keep it as an alley for that future development.

This proposal can be a game changer for Downtown Detroit, but as someone wrote earlier, MDOT still seems to be too concerned about the automobile. The stuff about the crisscrossing roads south of Mack seems insane at first glance. It's things like this that keep me from being a fan of MDOT. Oh, and one other thing, is the person or persons that decided to put a "median" on Livernois, especially near the Avenue of Fashion, still working for MDOT? Hey, if I don't get a chance to go to the public meeting and one of you does, can you ask that question for me. Thanks in advance.

[Junkin4Life]

For those of you not wanting to go to the link:

Will the Blvd be named Hastings Blvd?

[Danny]

Here come the jammy jam traffic.

[JonWylie]

I plan on going to the in person meeting this month and raise a few questions, I still support the project, but I'd like to get clarification on a few things. Besides what I said above, I'm also confused about,

1. Where the eastern market-brush park connector goes? There seems to be a 4 way stop with only 3 roads that go in to it, with the road going northwest seems to just stop.

2. Why rebuild the seperated boulevard on Jefferson, why not whittle it down a little more to a smaller two way road in front of UDM and the ren cen, if they are going to tear up the on and off ramp for 375, I feel like you might as well make the road match up with East Jefferson.

3. What is the plan for the 4-way stops after Jefferson? ARe they going to be 4 way stop signs, are they going to be traffic signals, or are they going to give the right of way to the boulevard?

4. What is the plan to RFP the new land? What will it be zoned? What are the preferred uses?

I'll also likely advocate for a lane reduction in each direction.

[Satiricalivory]

^ Your participation in the meeting and advocacy for lane reductions is greatly appreciated.

[hybridy]

Will the Blvd be named Hastings Blvd?

Maybe Gilbert will build his own Arc de Triomphe at the terminus of the blvd I'm sure GM will sell him the land

[Dexlin]

A few things. The materials show a 10-foot wide two-way cycle path on the east side of the street next to the 10-foot sidewalk. There will be countdown pedestrian signals and refuges in the islands. Signalized intersections are at Jefferson, Larned, Lafayette, Monroe, Macomb, Clinton, Gratiot and the BC/BS parking garage. Eastern Market is accesible from both northbound and southbound I-75, the latter from the new road over the freeway, not to mention the new connection from an extended Montcalm road connection with an associated cycle path.

As for the land, it is owned by MDOT. They'll likely sell it, or partner with someone to develop it. The city [[through its planning commission and city council) is in charge of figuring out the appropriate zoning.

[casscorridor]

Just looked at this again, and wow... what is going on here? Looks like a glitched out game of Cities Skyline.

The redevelopment of the Brewster-Douglass site will be completely cut off so that MDOT road designers can over-engineer one of their beloved freeway interchanges.

And what's up with Montcalm street not connecting to the new boulevard? There's lots of potential development that will be discouraged by not connecting the roads.

I get this is a huge improvement over what's there but there should be way more consideration given to the potential for new development, as well as the pedestrian and non-motorized experience, rather than simply traffic flow. But maybe that's just asking way too much from MDOT.

[Dexlin]

What? Brewster-Douglass is [[mostly) completely cut off from the neighborhoods to the east and south NOW. This actually adds a connection to Eastern Market via the new road. It's rendered like it is because they don't own that land. The developer will have to figure out how exactly they want to internally line up with that new street.

And are you really asking why they aren't going to connect a street that close to the intersection of the new boulevard with I-75?!

[CR75]

The redevelopment of the Brewster-Douglass site will be completely cut off so that MDOT road designers can over-engineer one of their beloved freeway interchanges.

I actually agree with this. I get that the stated goal of the project is to re-connect Lafayette Park with Downtown, but I would argue that the more important goal should be to re-connect Eastern Market with Brush Park and the sports complex [[heck, some people in Lafayette Park even oppose the project, if I recall!)

The giant "boulevard-to-nowhere" with accompanying giant interstate ramps does not help with this at all, and it does not look "walkable" at all. They need to make the boulevard-to-nowhere much smaller and the overpass over I-75 needs to look more like the one on Woodward which at least is somewhat walkable.

[JonWylie]

A few things. The materials show a 10-foot wide two-way cycle path on the east side of the street next to the 10-foot sidewalk. There will be countdown pedestrian signals and refuges in the islands. Signalized intersections are at Jefferson, Larned, Lafayette, Monroe, Macomb, Clinton, Gratiot and the BC/BS parking garage. Eastern Market is accesible from both northbound and southbound I-75, the latter from the new road over the freeway, not to mention the new connection from an extended Montcalm road connection with an associated cycle path.

As for the land, it is owned by MDOT. They'll likely sell it, or partner with someone to develop it. The city [[through its planning commission and city council) is in charge of figuring out the appropriate zoning.

On the Environmental Assessment, it shows that the previous plan has traffic signals below Jefferson, but they have been removed in the new preferred alternative. I'd be curious to see if they plan on 4 way stops, or what the alternative is. Wouldn't be a terrible place for some traffic circles.