Jump to content

People Mover may get expanded to New Center


Allan

Recommended Posts

MCS has always been in the wrong location which is just one of many reasons it ultimately failed, but one I think is often downplayed. Detroit's main terminal should have always been somewhere within the New Center-to-downtown area. Who knows, Detroit's main train station may have very well have survived (if at even limited capacity like so many other's in major cities across the country) if it would have been located along Woodward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

MCS wouldn't work as a train station anymore. The only thing I could see it ever be is a Casino or the world headquarters of some major company.

The reason I said "former" is because, like Jasoncw said, this is all hypothetical. In my fantasy Cobo Arena would be torn down and replaced by a major transportation hub with a People Mover station, light rail station, and commuter rail station. It would also have a mid-rise hotel as well as a large retail promenade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Michigan Avenue was more developed, I don't think MCS would feel more like it would work. It's about the same distance from Campus Martius as the DMC, and with some reliable and immediately understandable (something with tracks) mass transit, it would work just fine, and the mile of other transit would be worth entering through that train station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think MCS would be best, not just because of its location, but also because of the importance of the building itself. If restore it would be somthing along the lines of Grand Central Station in New York, or Union in Chicago in terms of its grandure. Also its size makes it perfect for hotel/ casino space to fill up over half the upper floors, so it would be easier to get finnancing. Besides if they can redevelope the Book-Cadillac, then MCS is not such a pipe dream anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seattle has a new streetcar up and running. Do you think this would work in Detroit? It seems like SEMCOG could have built a similar system with their $100 million transit study grant...

From the Seattle website:

Costs & Funding

The total budget for design and construction of the South Lake Union Streetcar is $50.5 million. Costs includes a $31 million Maximum Allowable Construction Contract (MACC) and $9 million Streetcar Vehicle Purchase (3 Vehicles), in addition to the costs of planning, engineering, project management and direct material purchases that are borne by the City.

To make the Streetcar a reality, area property owners are contributing $25 million through a Local Improvement District. The balance of funds will come from Federal, State & local Governments. To date the City of Seattle has been able to secure approximately $46 million with more on the way.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/stcar_slu.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Lake Union Transit, aka, the peppermint! hehe :)

Go Seattle, GO!

And yes, Detroit could impliment streetcars anytime anywhere. In fact, watch for that to be the plan for the Central Business District-to-Eastern Market along Gratiot. At least, that's the word I've gotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't imagine why it would have survived given how the Washington Boulevard redevelopment hadn't yet begun. It wasn't exactly in a touristy area, or would be a place you'd want to have traveled too from the RenCen, or had enough residents or workers on the Washington Boulevard to get full carts to the RenCen.

It's too bad, though. If it could have just hung on for a few more years I think it would have made it in today's Detroit, or be on its way to something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

DTOGS has updated their public document you can see how stations would be set up

After looking at these I see no reason why street level LRT wouldn't work you'd be able to maintain 4 lanes traffic, turn lanes and parking north or south of the Blvd

http://www.dtogs.com/PublicDocs.html

120' Right of Way - 4 Total Traffic Lanes & Far Side Platforms

100' Right of Way - 4 Total Traffic Lanes & Parking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woodward can easily function with 4 lanes of traffic. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason that we should continue to maintain 9 lanes of traffic for the following one-way volumes:

Woodward (M-1) NB Ferry to Palmer Detroit 10/31/2000 12,880

Woodward (M-1) SB Ferry to Palmer Detroit 10/31/2000 11,693

Woodward (M-1) NB Montcalm to Fisher (I-75 Service Dr) Eb Detroit 6/20/2000 9,084

Woodward (M-1) NB Montcalm to Fisher (I-75 Service Dr) Eb Detroit 6/20/2000 9,084

Woodward (M-1) SB Montcalm to Fisher (I-75 Service Dr) Eb Detroit 6/21/2000 9,878

Woodward (M-1) SB Montcalm to Fisher (I-75 Service Dr) Eb Detroit 6/21/2000 9,878

In all honesty, what URS is suggesting in their plans is not only for the addition of light rail to woodward and the other avenues, but also improving the corridors from a signaling standpoint. The plans proposes to remove quite a few of the signals which I am sure, as people who drive around detroit, you know aren't really necessary.

I think their plan will benefit not only transit users, but drivers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should study the East Jefferson corridor between the Renaissance Center and Alter Rd.

There are quite a few people who live in the Grosse Pointes and commute downtown along Jefferson so chances are if you build a park and ride station near Alter Rd many will use that option. There's more than enough space to put either a parking garage or a parking lot near the intersection.

And the population and employment density along the corridor is relatively high, especially between Downtown and Cadillac Blvd. When you consider what a light rail line would do for any developments that are going in along the riverfront it makes even more sense to build a line along that corridor.

The best places to build the stations would be:

Brush St (Renaissance Center)

Riopelle St (Lafayette Park)

Chene St (Rivertown)

McDougall St (Elmwood Park)

Mt Elliott St (Harbortown)

E Grand Blvd (Islandview)

Van Dyke (West Villages)

Crane St (East Villages)

Cadillac Blvd (Gladwin Park)

Montcalm St (Marina District)

Lycaste St (Chrysler Jefferson Plant)

Conner St (Conner Creek)

Coplin St (Jefferson Chalmers)

Alter Rd (Grosse Pointe Park)

Or something along those lines...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they start out with a bigger study, and then narrowed it down to these three?

Anyway, I think Woodward makes the most sense, but I think any major road in Detroit would be good.

Ideally, aside from helping drivers by reworking the lights/intersections, it would also help them by reducing the number of cars on the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hudkina:

That was a big question that was asked to the DDOT/URS guys during some of the public meetings... why not East Jefferson. As Jason points out, east jefferson was in the initial set of alternatives along with other routes like Greenfield, 8-mile, Grand River, etc. From what I can remember, the reason east jefferson was ruled out came down to the economic end. The team felt that while East Jefferson was certainly a logical choice, part of the goal of the project was to encourage growth (the "G" in dtogs). They seemed to feel that East Jefferson is doing OK as it is and doesn't need a ton of assistance at the moment. The other point was that there was a lot of higher income uses along that corridor which was less likely to use transit. While I don't necessarily agree with all of that, I suppose I can understand where they are coming from. The other thing to note is that the existing ridership figures on the selected corridor (woodward, gratiot and michigan) really help out in the final scoring equation that is used to weigh each study in anticipation for the new start funding process. I am not sure how the jefferson (and paralleling charlevoix & kercheval) routes do with ridership.

that said, I like the stations you propose. My buddy and I drove the route last weekend and I can visualize quite a few of the locations. It really is cut out for LRT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.