The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was distributed in March 2001. Since that time, the I-94 public comments received during the open comment period for the DEIS document and Public Hearing have been summarized.

Comments on the DEIS and the adoption by the SEMCOG General Assembly of the transit report Improving Transit in Southeast Michigan: A Framework for Action, October 2001, caused the study team to consider modifications to the DEIS Build Alternative. The DEIS comments indicated that a narrower cross-section was desired to reduce impacts on neighboring properties and reduce displacements. The study team began to look for ways to reduce the overall width. The Improving Transit in Southeast Michigan: A Framework for Action report indicated that while transit was considered for the I-94 corridor, it did not make it through the analysis and into the recommended system. The reserved space in the median could be eliminated as there was no adopted regional plan for transit indicating that the I-94 corridor was recommended to be a part of a transit system for southeast Michigan. The 2025 traffic analyses indicated that in most locations, the three-lane service drives could be reduced to two-lane service drives and still have adequate capacity, without causing an unacceptable amount of congestion which would have poor traffic flow.

Therefore, based on the public comments and the results of the regional transit study Improving Transit in Southeast Michigan: A Framework for Action, October 2001, the Build Alternative as stated in the DEIS had been modified slightly three different ways. The modifications are to either the service drives or the reserved space in the I-94 median. The modifications included:

1. DEIS Build Alternative Modification 1: Reduce the service drives to two eleven-foot through lanes with an eight-foot multi-use lane* (a ten foot reduction in width on each side) and eliminate the reserved space in the median reducing the median width to approximately 6-10 feet.
2. DEIS Build Alternative Modification 2: Reduce the service drives to two eleven-foot through lanes with an eight-foot multi-use lane* (a ten foot reduction in width on each side) and retain the 30-foot reserved space in the median.
3. DEIS Build Alternative Modification 3: Retain the three lane service drives on each side of the mainline and eliminate the reserved space in the median reducing the median width to approximately 6-10 feet.

*Since this phase of the study was conducted, the 2025 traffic analysis indicate that only a two-lane service drive is predominately required. The City of Detroit, Federal Highway Administration, and Michigan Department of Transportation have come to a funding agreement and the eight-foot lane on the service drive will be designated as a shoulder in the Recommended Alternative.

It is assumed that each modification to the DEIS Build Alternative will contain 12- to 14-foot inside shoulders in addition to the median widths listed above.

The three modifications to the Build Alternative were evaluated against the following alternatives in order to determine the Recommended Alternative for the corridor:

• No-Build Alternative (do nothing except as-needed maintenance)
• Enhanced No-Build Alternative (rebuild the freeway as it exists today with minor roadway improvements)
• Build Alternative (as listed in the DEIS)

Recommended Alternative:

Based on the comparisons of the three alternatives and three modifications to the DEIS Build Alternative listed above, the DEIS Build Alternative Modification 1, with refinements, is the Recommended Alternative

• Part I Grand River to Lucky

• Part II Lucky to Conner

The DEIS Build Alternative Modification 1 includes four through traffic lanes and improved geometrics, provides a two-lane service drive, and a median without any reserved space. The refinements include a 14-foot inside shoulder in each direction along the freeway; an 8 foot shoulder in each direction along the service drives instead of a multi-use lane due to a funding agreement between the City of Detroit, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Michigan Department of Transportation, and a three-lane section of the eastbound service drive along I-94 between M-10 and I-75. On August 1, 2003, the Detroit City Council provided concurrence on the Recommended Alternative.

The Recommended Alternative satisfies the Purpose and Need for the project as described in the DEIS, most effectively addresses public, stakeholder, and agency comments and concerns, and is less costly to construct than the other build modifications. This selection was based on many factors that were grouped into the following categories: engineering, community access and circulation, environment, and social and economic.

Based on the factors listed above, the Recommended Alternative will:

Engineering:

• Provide increased capacity by adding an additional through traffic lane in each direction.
• Correct safety and operational problems by improving entrance and exit ramp configurations, providing auxiliary lanes to minimize conflict points, and providing a safe, modern design meeting MDOT and AASHTO standards.
• Allow independent projects to be constructed separately of the mainline freeway. For instance, the Gratiot and Conner interchanges and adjacent service drives may be constructed independently of the I-94 construction, thus helping to maintain traffic.
• Address existing drainage problems by providing a new state-of-the-art drainage system with adequate capacity for 100 year storm events for the existing and additional paved areas.
• By following the existing centerline, allow grade separation structures to be built prior to constructing the mainline of I-94 and continue to use during and after I-94 is reconstructed.
• Utilize existing service drives: over 60-percent of the existing service drives can be preserved in their present configuration.
• Correct interchange deficiencies at I-75 and M-10 by eliminating left-hand exits and entrances and providing 21st century geometrics.
• Result in the lowest construction cost of all of the build alternatives.
• Require less right-of-way with fewer associated impacts than the other build alternatives due to the two-lane service drive and median without reserved space.
• Result in lower maintenance costs compared to the no-build alternatives.

Community Access and Circulation:

• Provide continuous service drives throughout the project as an alternative to freeway travel for local trips.
• Provide improved east-west pedestrian and transit flow that does not exist today, adjacent to the I-94 corridor.
• Due to the narrower cross section than other build alternatives considered, provide more flexibility for placement of pedestrian crossings thus improving neighborhood access.
• Allow a safer sidewalk configuration than the no-build alternatives, since sidewalks are proposed adjacent to the continuous service drives.

Environment:

• Result in the least number of potential buildings affected.
• Allow for retaining wall design to reduce noise levels. Twenty-first century noise and retaining walls will be constructed as appropriate throughout the corridor to improve neighborhood noise levels.
• Allow for improvement of water quality due to upgrading existing drainage system and the addition of pollution control measures where needed.
• Provide moderate air quality benefits due to reduced congestion and improved traffic operations by increasing capacity and 21st century roadway design.

Social and Economic:

• Provide better local access by separating through traffic from local traffic, thus encouraging opportunities for economic development of the corridor. The continuous service drives will collect and distribute local traffic and enhance traffic circulation.
• Improve connections among I-94, I-75, I-96, and M-10, thus enabling Michigan’s major trade corridors to continue to accommodate economic growth.

Transportation Measures Compatible with the Recommended Alternative:

This section describes transportation actions that were originally proposed as stand-alone alternatives, but by themselves did not meet the purpose and need of the project or the goals and objectives of the study and were eliminated. These transportation actions depend upon the Recommended Alternative to facilitate their usefulness and are complementary to it. In conjunction with the Recommended Alternative, they would enhance the efficiency of I-94, the M-10 and I-75 interchanges, and the transportation system of the project area.

Transportation Systems Management (TSM):

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) includes activities or strategies that improve the operational efficiency of transportation systems. The proposed improvements described in this section would consist of less capital-intensive enhancements designed to increase the capacity of the freeway through operational improvements. TSM strategies include Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Incident Management and could be implemented with the Recommended Alternative.

ITS uses surveillance, monitoring, and communication technologies to manage traffic flow. Such systems are used to facilitate incident management strategies to mitigate congestion caused by traffic crashes, disabled vehicles, or roadway maintenance activities.

MDOT has extensive experience in the use of ITS to improve freeway operations. In fact, some elements of ITS technology, such as changeable message signs, are currently in operation on I-94. Future elements of the system on I-94 would be coordinated with the Michigan Intelligent Transportation System Commission (MITSC). The Recommended Alternative could allow for the installation of communication technologies that may be needed in the future.

Among the ITS tools are:

• Fiber optic cable that transmits travel information via variable message signs, changeable speed limit signs.
• Vehicle detection systems that use buried loop detectors, video image processing, automatic vehicle identification, or closed-circuit camera control to count vehicles.
• Traffic surveillance systems that use closed circuit television or low-frequency and ranging radar to detect speed, congestion, or incidents.

Transit:

Transit, sometimes referred to as public transportation, is an effective way of moving large numbers of people to their destinations. Different modes of public transportation are distinguished based on the type of hardware they use, the types of service they provide, and the manner in which they operate. Modes range from taxicabs that provide flexible door-to-door service using automobiles to commuter rails that provide train service between downtown terminals and the suburban areas of major cities.

Three transit options could be implemented within the I-94 project area along with the Recommended Alternative:

• Modifications to existing transit service.
• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
• Regional transit initiatives.

Existing Transit Service - The Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) provides bus service primarily within the city of Detroit. The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) provides service primarily within the suburbs but also offers express and local bus service from the suburbs to Detroit service centers in the Central Business District (CBD). These transit providers do not currently use I-94, although many of the routes cross or run parallel to I-94.

The Recommended Alternative provides an opportunity to improve existing transit in the I-94 project area. Improvements would include significant modifications to existing bus routes and increased transit service. The proposed Recommended Alternative would allow transit operators to provide better services for residents and surrounding businesses. The Recommended Alternative would include continuous service drives on I-94. The service drives could be used to provide and integrate transit services within the project area and the city of Detroit.

A redesigned I-94 would also encourage the development of transit service hubs. Transit service hubs are locations where different types of transportation come together and passengers transfer from one type to another. These hubs increase travel options, decrease travel time, and contain costs.

DDOT operates approximately 54 local routes and four limited (express) routes. Limited routes offer fewer stops, thereby reducing travel times, and operate during the peak periods of the day. The CBD routes (primarily north-south routes) and the cross-town routes (mainly east-west routes) service the project area. Most of the DDOT routes traverse the project area to serve downtown and cross-town destinations. Residents of the project area use these routes to travel to various destinations within and outside the area.

Three of DDOT's major transit facilities are located within the project area:

• DDOT Headquarters (located north of I-94 at Saint Antoine) - Administrative functions and bus maintenance facility
• Gilbert Terminal (located at Hudson and Wabash) - Dispatch facility for 166 buses
• Shoemaker Terminal (located at Saint Jean and Shoemaker) - Dispatch facility for 187 buses

Ten SMART routes to downtown Detroit cross I-94. The rest of the routes operate on either other freeways in the region, other parts of I-94, or surface arterials. The number of weekday SMART riders is approximately 30,000. The number of Saturday and Sunday riders is approximately 16,000 and 6,000 respectively. Approximately 29 percent of the trips are from the suburbs to Detroit, 19 percent are from suburb to suburb, 33 percent are from Detroit to the suburbs, and 17 percent are within Detroit.

DDOT is reviewing the possibility of developing transportation hubs in Detroit along I-94 at the Gratiot, Woodward, and Wyoming interchanges. In addition, future facilities east of Detroit at I-696 and at 23 Mile Road, as well as west of the city at M-39 and I-275, are being considered. These hubs would provide the public with more direct and speedy travel, particularly for destination points outside of downtown Detroit. For example, to travel from an east-side service hub to the west side, a passenger could transfer to an express bus utilizing I-94 for fast travel to a west-side hub. This approach decreases travel time and increases travel options, two important factors in promoting the use of transit services.

In conjunction with the rehabilitation of I-94, an opportunity exists to coordinate transportation modes such as automobiles, line-haul buses, paratransit buses, trains, taxis, and intercity buses. There is also an opportunity to coordinate service providers including SMART, DDOT, and other public and private providers of various transportation modes.

The new intermodal passenger facility planned for a site directly south of the present Amtrak station on Woodward Avenue near I-94 would enhance transit service. At this location, passengers could transfer between rail and bus service. For example, an express shuttle service could take passengers from the facility to destinations along the redeveloped Woodward corridor.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - BRT would provide stations at closer spacing and still serve land uses beyond a convenient walking distance of the busway. This would be accomplished through the use of express and limited-stop services. BRT is also recognized as a legitimate precursor to rail.

Exclusive bus facilities were proposed as a substitute for a fourth traffic lane. The estimates of future ridership did not justify an exclusive bus lane at this time. Therefore, this alternative was dropped from consideration as a substitute for an additional driving lane.

A travel information survey was conducted in the fall of 1995 to supplement existing travel information. The survey indicated that 46 percent of I-94 trips had a Detroit destination. Less than 13 percent of all trips using I-94 during peak periods begin and terminate in Detroit. Because the project area is entirely within the city of Detroit, a BRT alternative would only serve those whose origin and destination are within the project area limits. It is possible that commuters from outside the city of Detroit might use the facility if convenient park-and-ride facilities were provided.

Based on results from the travel information survey, less than 2 percent of commuters would likely use transit service on I-94. Therefore, this alternative would not have an appreciable impact on current and future congestion.

Regional Transit Initiatives - Several Transit Initiatives that would impact the I-94 corridor have either started or have recently been completed. The I-94 Rehabilitation Project, as it is currently proposed, would accommodate the results of the Regional Transit Initiatives. Foremost among these initiatives is the Southeast Michigan Transit Vision, which actively engaged the community in crafting a Regional Vision for Transit. The project laid out a transit vision and plan that integrates all transit activities in southeast Michigan and set the course of action for transit for the Southeast Michigan Region.

SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) is the appropriate forum for the discussion of regional transit issues and how they relate to the highway network. SEMCOG is responsible for developing the Regional Transportation Plan - a multi-modal plan for southeast Michigan. A regional transit plan will help focus the transit needs and the infrastructure necessary to service these needs, in the most efficient manner. Some broader issues related to transit include; the identification and servicing of the major destinations and attractions, spatial distribution of the regional population and other specific demographic concerns such as the aging population. These would be most adequately addressed by the regional transit plan.

Transit is seen in the I-94 Rehabilitation Project as a compatible alternative. This means that the Recommended Alternative would accommodate transit enhancements as determined by the regional transit plan and the operating agencies.

Transit studies that have either started or have been completed recently in Detroit include:

• Improving Transit in Southeast Michigan: A Framework for Action: In October 2001, SEMCOG released the results of the regional transit study for southeast Michigan. The proposed transit corridors included Woodward, Gratiot, and Van Dyke Avenues; it did not include transit along I-94. SEMCOG has since amended the Transportation Improvement Program to include these corridors.
• The Downtown-Airport Rail Study: The results of this study indicated that rail service between Downtown and Metro Airport was feasible. This study is in the second phase of the study: alternative analyses.
• The Woodward Transit Alternatives Study: The initiative was started in 1999 to develop a transit alternative along Woodward Avenue within the city of Detroit. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is one of the options seriously under consideration in this study. The study has identified BRT and light rail as the two appropriate transit options on Woodward. No funding has been allocated at this time for further study.
• Bus Rapid Transit Options Study for Southeast Michigan: Speed Link as it is referred to has been completed. MAC - the Metropolitan Affairs Coalition sponsored the initiative. This study assessed the feasibility of BRT in southeast Michigan and identified potential BRT corridors. The results of this study have been included as part of SEMCOG’s regional Transit Vision Plan.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will incorporate the results of the transit studies, if they are available at that time.

Next Steps

The next steps include completing the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which will document the public involvement process and the selection of the Recommended Alternative. A Record of Decision (ROD) will be published in the Federal Register.

> Return to I-94 Rehabilitation Project