I-375 New Options

[Satiricalivory]

Yeah they need to go further and remove more of the highway. Get rid of that corner all together and transition everything up to the surface.

Funny thing is though is that this is the best iteration they've had yet. Before the intersection at Gratiot didn't exist and the highway was still below grade until it crossed it.

[Atticus]

Yeah they need to go further and remove more of the highway. Get rid of that corner all together and transition everything up to the surface.

Funny thing is though is that this is the best iteration they've had yet. Before the intersection at Gratiot didn't exist and the highway was still below grade until it crossed it.

At a previous meeting MDOT had with one of my neighborhood groups, many of these same traffic question were asked. Here is the long and short of what was said:

-In order for the Federal Highway Administration [[FHWA) to approve the design [[which is needed because I-75 is an interstate), one non-negotiable item by FHWA was that traffic exiting from I-75 to the new Blvd must not back up onto the through lanes of I-75.

-Put more simply, the boulevard and interchange design at the north end had to be able to push a lot of vehicles through to make that happen. This is why the original design from a few years ago looked more like a traditional freeway interchange [[big interchange= push vehicles through). After really sharpening their pencils, this was the most urban-like design that could be created which could still maintain the necessary throughput to get necessary FHWA approvals.

-Also remember the existing I-75 configuration has “two exits”: 1) I-375, and 2) Gratiot connector. Both of these are currently mini-freeways, and the traffic from both are being combined into one exit [[the new boulevard). So there will be a lot more traffic on the northern part of the boulevard than what uses I-375 today.

-The long and short of it is I think we have a pretty good compromise with this design. Like all of you, I would like less lanes and even more of an urban feel. But given the requirements placed on the MDOT by FHWA, I think MDOT did about as good of a job as can be expected. Honestly, I give them a lot of credit for reworking some of their designs to meet the restrictions put on them, and to also address many of the comments our neighborhood group made.

[Dexlin]

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!)

I honestly don't know why the two of you keep harping on this. there is currently one roadway connection between [[and a small pedestrian-only bridge): Wilkins. This plan actually adds and additional connection between Brush Park and the Eastern Market. Like what are you all even talking about?

[DetroitSoldier]

I hope they do this right and leaders have an eye toward a similar sort of plan with M-10.

[rbdetsport]

I hope they do this right and leaders have an eye toward a similar sort of plan with M-10.

M-10 should just be removed. There is no need for a boulevard. Reconnect the several numbered streets that were cut off by the M-10 originally, and those lots that have been superblocked. We have massive spoke boulevards for a reason - inflow/outflow. The grid is still mostly in tact. Enough is enough with considering a savings of a minute or two for the sake of keeping an urban core in ruin.

[Satiricalivory]

I honestly don't know why the two of you keep harping on this. there is currently one roadway connection between [[and a small pedestrian-only bridge): Wilkins. This plan actually adds and additional connection between Brush Park and the Eastern Market. Like what are you all even talking about?

We're talking about removing this area of highway altogether while we have the opportunity because this was nothing but a mistake from the very beginning.

[JonWylie]

M-10 should just be removed. There is no need for a boulevard. Reconnect the several numbered streets that were cut off by the M-10 originally, and those lots that have been superblocked. We have massive spoke boulevards for a reason - inflow/outflow. The grid is still mostly in tact. Enough is enough with considering a savings of a minute or two for the sake of keeping an urban core in ruin.

Honestly just cut it off at the Southfield freeway, people can used Southfield Fwy to 96 to get downtown if they want, or 75.

[Gistok]

Honestly just cut it off at the Southfield freeway, people can used Southfield Fwy to 96 to get downtown if they want, or 75.

That sounds VERY expensive. Not only to fill in the freeway, but redo all the sewer systems that go under the freeway [[some cross over going down, across, and back up with pumps)... and then redo all the surface roads... probably hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not like there's a shortage of land in the city.

And tearing out all those relatively newly rebuilt bridges... ouch!

It would likely meet a lot of resistance from WSU, Henry Ford Hospital, New Center, and University of Detroit Mercy [[probably hurt their school enrollment).

[casscorridor]

At a previous meeting MDOT had with one of my neighborhood groups, many of these same traffic question were asked. Here is the long and short of what was said:

-In order for the Federal Highway Administration [[FHWA) to approve the design [[which is needed because I-75 is an interstate), one non-negotiable item by FHWA was that traffic exiting from I-75 to the new Blvd must not back up onto the through lanes of I-75.

-Put more simply, the boulevard and interchange design at the north end had to be able to push a lot of vehicles through to make that happen. This is why the original design from a few years ago looked more like a traditional freeway interchange [[big interchange= push vehicles through). After really sharpening their pencils, this was the most urban-like design that could be created which could still maintain the necessary throughput to get necessary FHWA approvals.

-Also remember the existing I-75 configuration has “two exits”: 1) I-375, and 2) Gratiot connector. Both of these are currently mini-freeways, and the traffic from both are being combined into one exit [[the new boulevard). So there will be a lot more traffic on the northern part of the boulevard than what uses I-375 today.

-The long and short of it is I think we have a pretty good compromise with this design. Like all of you, I would like less lanes and even more of an urban feel. But given the requirements placed on the MDOT by FHWA, I think MDOT did about as good of a job as can be expected. Honestly, I give them a lot of credit for reworking some of their designs to meet the restrictions put on them, and to also address many of the comments our neighborhood group made.

Sorry but there's nothing "urban" about that interchange. As designed, it looks pretty much impossible to cross as a pedestrian. I can understand they're under pressure from the feds, but there must be something else they can improve here for pedestrian connectivity. For example, connecting the new Boulevard with Montcalm street with a stairway/ramps. And some sort of elevated pedestrian crossing over the interchange to connect brush park, like the Bagley bridge in Southwest, it could be a work of art!

[Gistok]

^^ I agree with you on that. The reason for an overpass at Montcalm is likely due to the fact that they don't want anything causing a backup onto the freeway, say at a sporting event time, although they still have a traffic light at the SB freeway exit to the boulevard. But yeah... it does not look too pedestrian friendly.

[rbdetsport]

The interchange design is terrible. I get that it is MUCH better than what is there now, but can we stop that sentiment for once. If you’re going to do it, do it right. And this design isn’t right. They already have two Collector-Distributor roads along southbound I-75 that are 4 lanes and 2 lanes wide, respectively. These are enough to ensure that mainline 75 is not impacted by congestion. I can understand the Montcalm underpass, as those signals would be close. But doing a half-assed Diverging Diamond Interchange is a shame. DDIs are actually known to be more pedestrian-friendly than a tradition interchange, but this is not done in that style of design. This is done for fast-moving, congestion reducing only. This isn’t University Drive in Auburn Hills.. this is downtown Detroit.

[Satiricalivory]

I'm not sure what better alternative there is other than removing that corner all together. Would the fed even approve of that?

[Gistok]

I'm not sure what better alternative there is other than removing that corner all together. Would the fed even approve of that?

I believe Atticus posted the copy/paste MDOT answer in post #152.

But I agree, the interchange as [[potentially) planned seems to make nobody happy.

[CR75]

I honestly don't know why the two of you keep harping on this. there is currently one roadway connection between [[and a small pedestrian-only bridge): Wilkins. This plan actually adds and additional connection between Brush Park and the Eastern Market. Like what are you all even talking about?

Not sure why you have to be so aggressive, it really does not help you drive your point home.

I will respond anyway because I care about this issue and because it affects me directly. The way I see it, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to at least attempt at restoring one of Detroit's most vibrant neighborhoods, after it was wiped out by I-375 and Lafayette Park in the 50s and 60s under the [[in)famous Urban Renewal projects. The current plan is an improvement, for sure, but judging by the renderings it's nowhere close to its stated goal of creating a walkable urban environment, as many others in this thread have stated. The next opportunity we will have to get this right will maybe occur in 50 years, and likely I will not be around/will be retired in Aruba so please allow me to politely voice my concerns.

[JonWylie]

That sounds VERY expensive. Not only to fill in the freeway, but redo all the sewer systems that go under the freeway [[some cross over going down, across, and back up with pumps)... and then redo all the surface roads... probably hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not like there's a shortage of land in the city.

And tearing out all those relatively newly rebuilt bridges... ouch!

It would likely meet a lot of resistance from WSU, Henry Ford Hospital, New Center, and University of Detroit Mercy [[probably hurt their school enrollment).

94 is like 3 blocks from WSU and HFHS

[Gistok]

94 is like 3 blocks from WSU and HFHS

You missed the "800 pound gorilla" in my comments... the hundreds of millions it will cost to tear up and remove the freeway + infrastructure...

They would have to put James Couzens Hwy back in...
https://www.detroityes.com/mb/showth...Couzen-Highway

From Wyoming Ave. until 8 Mile the roadway has businesses along both sides of the Lodge [[where the cement walls are) where James Couzens Hwy used to exist.

It's way more than just removing a freeway... and the cost is such that it will never happen.

[eastland]

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?

They will just use public transit!

[royce]

Not understanding the decision to not have a parking lane for the northbound side of the boulevard. If MDOT is offering vacant land for future development, then wouldn't there be a need for street parking for that future development will. If not, then future development has to make room for parking lots. I believe the previous alternates 4 and 5 had parking lanes, at least on the service road on the eastside.

[Junkin4Life]

M-10 should just be removed. There is no need for a boulevard. Reconnect the several numbered streets that were cut off by the M-10 originally, and those lots that have been superblocked. We have massive spoke boulevards for a reason - inflow/outflow. The grid is still mostly in tact. Enough is enough with considering a savings of a minute or two for the sake of keeping an urban core in ruin.

That would be a perfect project to build a subway station

[JonWylie]

That would be a perfect project to build a subway station

That would be awesome.

[masterblaster]

That would be a perfect project to build a subway station

Is there still an appetite for a Detroit-to-Pontiac commuter rail? The I-375 trench could be the new southern end portion of a commuter rail line. You could route the commuter rail line along the original right-of-way down the Dequindre Cut until it intersects with Gratiot. Then you could use the right-of-way of the Gratiot connector and the old I-375 to put a tunnel for the commuter rail trains. The commuter rail would end at a transit station in the basement of the RenCen, adjacent to the PeopleMover Station.

A man can dream!

[Scottathew]

Is there still an appetite for a Detroit-to-Pontiac commuter rail?

My pie-in-the-sky vision has always been a subway from Detroit to Pontiac. The real estate along Woodward Avenue would be become very valuable as people would want walking distance access to a faster way to get to midtown and downtown.

Might be a great project if we ever needed to spend dollars to simulate the economy. I doubt there would ever be enough political will to make it happen though.

[bust]

I support that vision, after this one:
Fast transit NE from downtown to St. Clair Shores.
It's even more logical, if even more resisted--
Closer than 3 miles from Campus Martius to Grosse Pointe.
But it must be rail.
Or for at least two thirds it wouldn't take.
Most riders like rail waay way better.

[JonWylie]

Reporting back from the meeting yesterday,

The presentation and information was all pretty much what you can find online, but I did get a chance to ask some questions and chat with one of the engineers and have some info to pass on.

First, he seemed frairly confident we could see a move up in the schedule. He cited the change in federal administration as well as the allignment of interest from the city, state, and federal government around a project like this. Throughout the whole presentation they stressed that it was 2027 or sooner, so hopefully that comes true.

Second, he also told me that many of the bigger players in the area, Gilbert, Ross, Eastern Market, Ford Field, Illitches, etc. were all very pro the project. He said Ford field pushed back the most probably, but there was some changes with Montcalm and Madison that helped address some of the issues they had. He also indicated that he doesn't expect the timeline of this project to effect or be effected by any of the developments in the area. He spoke about the UM site and how that seems to be moving quick, but said sites like Lafayette West haven't really been that engaged.

They also said they are looking at options for intersections below Jefferson and that hasn't been decided yet.

Given what they said, I'm not sure there's much wiggle room on the lane number or size of the road. They seemed to be pretty sure that they were going to see a lot of cars in and out of the area, but I still made the comment and I would encourage everyone to do the same to see if there will be any concessions.

As for the space on the Lafayette Park side, they said they would likely target medium density mixed use buildings, but that was a little out of the scope of where they are now.

[EGrant]

Appreciate the update!