I-375 New Options

[motz]

We need to get a grip on spending. There are 3 I-75 projects that should be stopped. This I-375 thing, the expansion in Oakland County, and the junction with M-59. Last I heard the M-59 deal was $400,000,000 [[maybe it was only $40,000,000 but it still money we don't have).

I-75 and M-59 has to be fixed, period. It's amazingly dangerous and difficult to get on to M-59 at this current juncture, and that needs to be addressed. I agree that I-75 shouldn't be expanded in the OC, and agree with other posters that the I-94 expansion is just the damn dumbest thing around. I-375, as previously stated, needs work done to it and if the State can convert it to a boulevard for cheaper? PLEASE DO. I-375 is just what someone else referred to it as, it's a moat.

The Davison though... It's such a nice, quick way to take the Lodge from WSU to 75 It is absolutely excessive in it's size though..

[DetroitPlanner]

We need to get a grip on spending. There are 3 I-75 projects that should be stopped. This I-375 thing, the expansion in Oakland County, and the junction with M-59. Last I heard the M-59 deal was $400,000,000 [[maybe it was only $40,000,000 but it still money we don't have).

No way would it be $400 million. The scope of the 8 Mile to M-59 project does not include the interchange. There is currently no plan to fix it. Changes to the S and at University should alleviate some of the pressure, but not all of it.

[Khorasaurus]

The Davison though... It's such a nice, quick way to take the Lodge from WSU to 75 It is absolutely excessive in it's size though..

I still can't believe it was rebuilt and widened less than a decade ago.

[Junjie]

I voted for #4, but I wouldn't have a problem with any plan that removes the freeway. I wish there were ways to remove [[or cover) more of the moat surrounding downtown...

Agreed, it would be great to see 75 decked over between downtown and midtown.

[mikeg19]

The M-59 interchange needs to be taken care of. No doubt about it. I-375 is getting done regardless, so why not make it a more appealing design by turning it into a functional Blvd? And it looks like it's gonna be cheaper as well to do that instead of just a rebuild.

[paulj313]

Seems like the less popular opinion here, but I like option 3 the most. Seems like it'll provide a more walkable surface while still keeping traffic moving away from Jefferson.

[ghettopalmetto]

Replacing the freeway with an eight-lane "boulevard" seems to defeat the purpose, no?

Got to love MDOT and their plug-and-chug "engineering".

[DetroitPlanner]

Seems like the less popular opinion here, but I like option 3 the most. Seems like it'll provide a more walkable surface while still keeping traffic moving away from Jefferson.

Hey watch it buddy... I claimed that unpopular one yesterday!

[royce]

The smartest thing that options 3-5 do is eliminate the curve at Jefferson. That curve kills all walkability and access to the riverfront. Overall, however, I really don't like any other the options in their current incarnation. I voted for four because I thought it was the best choice of the options, but I still thing there's a better option. Of course, that would be Royce's option.

Actually, if option six didn't leave a big whole in the ground and instead created underground parking and surface level development like residential or retail, then I would have chosen it. The idea of keeping the remnants of the freeway there with the thought of a Dequindre Cut scenario makes no sense if you want to connect downtown to the East.

Again, each of the four viable options 3-6 have good points but they leave a few problems that go unanswered. Regarding option 3, if the freeway ends at Larned, there's a problem with the flow of traffic crossing Larned. Cars coming off the freeway stop at Larned, then a few hundred feet they have to stop again at Jefferson. If anyone knows how backed up the Fisher gets at Gratiot, one can only imagine how backed up it would get there. Also, if the curve if eliminated, then cars from Jefferson will be making left turns but stopping at Larned for a red light. That distance between Larned and Jefferson is only a few hundred feet. Expect back ups on to Jefferson if that light is not timed right to let the majority of cars turning left from Jefferson get back on the freeway. One thought is to eliminate any crossing of traffic east and west on Larned and just let the freeway end at Jefferson.

Also, I'm not understanding the logic behind putting a two way street on the northbound service lanes for Options three and five. You have traffic flowing southbound, which is needed because there are many access points to garages and other downtown streets that need to continue. A simple northbound service drive for Option three is all that's needed.

Now, the issue with ending the freeway south of Gratiot with Options 4-6 is plagued with many problems. First, I'll assume that ending the freeway south of Gratiot means that it ends north of Monroe Street. Monroe Street currently serves as the immediate access route to north I-375/75 from Greektown. Will there be enough time for cars to cross this new boulevard or will the wait times on either side be long causing major back ups?

In addition, if the freeway ends at Monroe, cars will have to stop at Monroe. Then they'll have to stop at Lafayette. Then they'll have to stop and Larned. Then they'll have to stop at Jefferson. Then they'll have to stop at Woodbridge. Then they'll have to stop at Franklin. Then they'll finally stop at Atwater [[Ok, I'll stop). Yeah, that's a lot of stopping.

Another issue is the access to the riverfront south of Jefferson. To avoid stopping at all of these intersections, closing off Woodbridge and Franklin make sense from a traffic flow standpoint heading north and south, but what about the traffic flow from those two streets heading east and west? I'm not sure if these streets will be cut off. I can't tell from the renderings.

Finally, as someone pointed out earlier, what's the point of making a eight-lane boulevard if the purpose is to make the area more walkable and perhaps denser with development? Again, if Option 6 had some definite plans for development like a string of apartment complexes with ground level retail and underground parking, I would go for that one in a heartbeat.

[Khorasaurus]

In addition, if the freeway ends at Monroe, cars will have to stop at Monroe. Then they'll have to stop at Lafayette. Then they'll have to stop and Larned. Then they'll have to stop at Jefferson. Then they'll have to stop at Woodbride. Then they'll have to stop at Franklin. Then they'll finally stop at Atwater. Instead, a lot of stopping. More to come with edit.

Why is this a bad thing? One of the big flaws with the freeway right now is that it limits the turning movements. All traffic coming downtown on what is currently I-375 has to either take the Lafayette ramp, the Larned ramp, or the Jefferson curve. A boulevard would allow turns at Clinton, Macomb, Monroe, Lafayette, Larned, Jefferson, Franklin, and Atwater.

Sure, it would slow down the people who are trying all the way the Ren Cen or the waterfront, but that's a reasonable trade. It isn't that important that people go 70 MPH for five blocks. That's not what freeways are for. There's a reason I-375 is the shortest interstate in the country.

[animatedmartian]

Actually, if option six didn't leave a big whole in the ground and instead created underground parking and surface level development like residential or retail, then I would have chosen it.

Actually, it looks like that's what they sort of overlaid in the rendering. If you squint in the cross section, you can see that there are cars under the future development potential. I chose 6 because I kind of assumed the median would be filled in either way if there was development but I do think they could have conveyed that element better in the renderings rather than suggesting a ditch.

[dtowncitylover]

I'm not a city planner/civil engineer but could a rotary work at the terminus with Jefferson?

[rbdetsport]

I'm not a city planner/civil engineer but could a rotary work at the terminus with Jefferson?

Absolutely not. They are very unfriendly for pedestrians. It would be putting lipstick on a pig at that interchange.

[Lowell]

My vote is for 2. As one who uses 375 regularly, Plan 2 retains the current ease of access to and from the core of downtown. This is well-accustomed to by driver and cuts down the back-ups and idling traffic with all the emissions and waste of time that come with it. It improves it by adding access to the riverfront district that will reduce back-ups further.

If 375 is made street level, it will still be too wide for ease of crossing, just as Jefferson is now, and there are not that many people crossing on foot/bike from that direction anyway. Instead we will have huge back-ups on I-75 as traffic is slowed to street level and speed. On game days and event days it will be a total cluster***, particularly for northbound I-75 traffic.

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. My only adjustment I would like it sot have it covered between Lafayette and Larned with a parkway, such as exists in Oak Park over 696. None of the plans embrace that concept. Too bad.

[Detroitnerd]

Um, why the hell do all these designs, with the exception of ONE, take the footprint of I-35 and open up no new parcels for development?

[DetroitPlanner]

Um, why the hell do all these designs, with the exception of ONE, take the footprint of I-35 and open up no new parcels for development?

Opening up new land for development is not the reason for the project. The reason is to look at ways to open up access for pedestrians while still allowing cars to access the tunnel and downtown offices.

[ghettopalmetto]

Um, why the hell do all these designs, with the exception of ONE, take the footprint of I-35 and open up no new parcels for development?

Because opening new parcels for development would be "social engineering". It's pretty clear from the presented alternatives that MDOT still plans on looking at this canyon as an automotive sewer, designed strictly to move as many cars as quickly as possible, with no regard for any other context.

[Khorasaurus]

Because opening new parcels for development would be "social engineering". It's pretty clear from the presented alternatives that MDOT still plans on looking at this canyon as an automotive sewer, designed strictly to move as many cars as quickly as possible, with no regard for any other context.

At least they are actually considering removing it. It was only 15 years ago that they wanted to widen it and add ramps directly into the Ren Cen parking garages.

[southen]

im in the minority among other LP residents, but option 4 is the best in my opinion. i enjoy biking and walking and this area is atrocious for walkability and actually discourages it through the area. open it up for further development [[gilbert of course) and make it more pedestrian in scale and friendliness. the direct access to the riverfront is also a huge bonus. we need to stop paying attention to the 9-5 crowd that doesnt want 5 minutes added to their commute and address livability issues and what works for the people who live in the area.

[DetroitPlanner]

At least they are actually considering removing it. It was only 15 years ago that they wanted to widen it and add ramps directly into the Ren Cen parking garages.

That is not what the proposal was. There was going to be a straitening out of the curves in Jefferson and an extension. No new lanes to ramps to private facilities [[illegal use of federal and state dollars). It died when Granholm was elected and opted for a program that focused on repair instead of operations.

[Honky Tonk]

That is not what the proposal was. There was going to be a straitening out of the curves in Jefferson and an extension. No new lanes to ramps to private facilities [[illegal use of federal and state dollars). It died when Granholm was elected and opted for a program that focused on repair instead of operations.

That really is too bad because the exit to the Geektown Casino garage, is a serious accident waiting to happen, if one hasn't already. Game day @ Ford Field is another traffic situation disruptive to residents East of 375.

[mwilbert]

im in the minority among other LP residents, but option 4 is the best in my opinion. i enjoy biking and walking and this area is atrocious for walkability and actually discourages it through the area. open it up for further development [[gilbert of course) and make it more pedestrian in scale and friendliness. the direct access to the riverfront is also a huge bonus. we need to stop paying attention to the 9-5 crowd that doesnt want 5 minutes added to their commute and address livability issues and what works for the people who live in the area.

I agree with this. I find it odd that apparently a lot of LP people don't see it this way--it seems obvious to me it would make living in LP that much more attractive, but I guess it isn't as obvious as I think it is.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I'd vote for 4, for opening up land and raising the roadway.

A number of years ago when the tail end of the "Central Freeway" was to be torn down in San Francisco due to earthquake damage, the decision was made for the rebuilt elevated portion to "land" short of Market Street. I was sure that it was folly and should land after crossing Market in order to eliminate a Market Street bottleneck. It has actually worked pretty well, and the traffic moves well on the replacement boulevard as well.

[Scottathew]

Now after I-375, can we move onto the Davison?

Completing the Davison freeway to I-696 at Mound?


Just kiddin'!

[southen]

I agree with this. I find it odd that apparently a lot of LP people don't see it this way--it seems obvious to me it would make living in LP that much more attractive, but I guess it isn't as obvious as I think it is.

much of LP is older and i think many of them dont walk downtown to begin with. in addition to that from what ive gathered and seen comment wise, many people enjoy their easy freeway access and some have concerns that the noise will be too much... i know i plan on heading to eastern market thursday and voting for proposal 4.