DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit Bike Share Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit PREPARED FOR: Detroit Bike Share Partnership PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design LivingLAB Bike Share Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit May 6, 2013 Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design LivingLAB Bike Share Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Benefits of Bike Sharing .............................................................................................................................. 12 4 Experience in Other Cities (Comparative Analysis) ...........................................................................18 5 Local Context Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 27 6 Opportunities and Issues ........................................................................................................................... 56 7 System Planning ............................................................................................................................................ 60 8 Business Model ............................................................................................................................................. 80 9 System Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 84 10 System Revenues .......................................................................................................................................... 86 11 Financial Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 96 12 Stakeholder Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 99 13 Operational Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 102 14 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 104 15 Appendix A – Funding Opportunities under MAP-21 ..................................................................... 105 16 Appendix B – Stakeholder Meeting Notes .......................................................................................... 108 ii | Detroit Bike Share Partnership Bike Share Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit List of Figures Figure 1.1 Greater Downtown Detroit (GDD) Study Area ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 2.1 Historic Development of Bike Share Technology ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.2 Bike Share Family Tree .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.3 Low-Tech Green Gears Bike Rental System in Jackson, WY. .............................................................. 9 Figure 2.4 Example of Stationless Bike Share ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.5 Elements of a Fourth Generation Bike Share System ............................................................................ 10 Figure 2.6 Safety Features of DecoBike Bicycles (Miami Beach) ............................................................................ 11 Figure 3.1 Relative costs of transportation investments .......................................................................................... 12 Figure 3.2 Transportation costs disproportionately affect low-income households ........................................ 14 Figure 3.3 Relative annual cost of different transportation modes ....................................................................... 14 Figure 3.4 Map of CMAQ Nonattainment Areas in Michigan ............................................................................... 15 Figure 3.5 Urban Transportation Spectrum ................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3.6 Safety messaging for Citibike in NYC includes rules of the road on the handle stem ................. 17 Figure 3.7 Comparison of Daily Bicycle Ridership and the Number of Annual Bicycle Injury and Fatality Crashes (1998 – 2008)......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4.1 Map of Active Bike Share Programs in the United States .................................................................... 18 Figure 4.2 – Most systems offer a key for annual members to directly access a bike without having to use the kiosk. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5.1 Greater Downtown Detroit Transit Services .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 5.2 Existing and Proposed Non-Motorized Facilities in Greater Downtown Detroit. ...................... 32 Figure 7.1 City-wide Map of Potential Bike Share Demand in Detroit. ................................................................ 61 Figure 7.2 Map of Potential Bike Share Demand in Greater Downtown Detroit. ............................................ 62 Figure 7.3 Percentage of the Population Living in Poverty in Greater Downtown Detroit. ........................... 63 Figure 7.4 Percentage of Non-English Speaking Population inGreater Downtown Detroit. ....................... 64 Figure 7.5: Station Locations Suggested by the Public. ............................................................................................. 71 Figure 7.6: Preliminary Station Plan. .............................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 7.7 Example Station Dimensions (based on information from Public Bike Share Company of Quebec). ................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 7.8 Capital Bikeshare On-Street Station. ........................................................................................................ 76 Figure 7.9 Potential On-Street Station in Corktown. ............................................................................................... 76 Detroit Bike Share Partnership | iii Bike Share Feasibility Study for Greater Downtown Detroit Figure 7.10 Capital Bikeshare Sidewalk Station. ........................................................................................................ 77 Figure 7.11 Potential Sidewalk Station in Downtown Detroit. ............................................................................... 77 Figure 7.12 B-Cycle San Antonio Off-Street Station. ................................................................................................. 78 Figure 7.13 Potential Public Plaza Station in Downtown Detroit. ........................................................................ 79 Figure 7.14 Potential Public Plaza Station in Downtown Detroit. ........................................................................ 79 List of Tables Table 4.1: Comparison of Detroit to US Cities Operating Bike Share Systems ................................................... 19 Table 4.2: Programs to Address Barriers to Access amongst Bike Share Programs in the United States .... 23 Table 6.1: Greater Downtown Detroit Potential Users, Opportunities, and Challenges for Bike Sharing . 57 Table 7.1: Comparison of Station Density in Select Bike Share Cities ................................................................... 67 Table 7.2: Number of Stations that can be Supported in Greater Downtown Detroit ..................................... 67 Table 7.3 –Bike-to-Station Ratio for North American Bike Share Systems .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Detroit Neighborhoods
    St Clair Shores Oak Park Ferndale Hazel Park Warren Southfield Eastpointe 43 68 85 8 29 42 93 Harper Woods 83 34 7 90 78 16 44 19 54 97 4 95 105 76 77 56 94 86 60 72 33 26 6 45 81 67 84 69 88 58 Hamtramck 17 74 Redford Twp 12 103 39 30 40 1 89 41 71 15 9 20 100 66 80 96 70 82 5 51 36 57 2 38 49 27 59 99 23 35 32 73 62 61 50 46 3 37 53 104 52 28 102 13 31 79 98 21 64 55 11 87 18 22 25 65 63 101 47. Hubbard Farms 48 48. Hubbard Richard 77. Palmer Park 47 91 19. Conant Gardens 49. Indian Village 78. Palmer Woods Dearborn 20. Conner Creek 50. Islandview 79. Parkland 92 21. Core City 51. Jefferson Chalmers 80. Petosky-Otsego 22. Corktown 52. Jeffries 81. Pilgrim Village 23. Cultural Center 53. Joseph Berry Subdivision 82. Poletown East 24 Inkster 24. Delray 54. Krainz Woods 83. Pulaski 25. Downtown 55. Lafayette Park 84. Ravendale 75 14 26. East English Village 56. LaSalle College Park 85. Regent Park Melvindale 27. East Village 57. LaSalle Gardens 86. Riverdale 28. Eastern Market 58. Littlefield 87. Rivertown Dearborn Heights River Rouge 1. Arden Park 29. Eight Mile-Wyoming 59. Marina District 88. Rosedale Park 10 2. Art Center 30. Eliza Howell 60. Martin Park 89. Russell Woods 3. Aviation Sub 31. Elmwood Park 61. McDougall-Hunt 90. Sherwood Forest 4. Bagley 32. Fiskhorn 62.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics Vol
    LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics Vol. 11 No. 1 2020 DOI: 10.2478/logi-2020-0002 © 2020 L. Černá et. al. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Methodical Manual for a Set of Transport Regulations in Railway Passenger Transport Lenka Černá1*, Vladislav Zitrický1 and Borna Abramović2 1University of Žilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovak Republic, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 2University of Zagreb, ZUK Borongaj, Borongajska cesta 83a, 10000 Zagreb, Republic of Croatia, E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding Author: Lenka Černá Abstract: The European Union is the first and only region worldwide where passengers have comprehensive and integrated fundamental rights on all modes of transport. The rights are based on the principles of non-discrimination, accurate, timely and accessible information as well as prompt and adequate assistance. There is also a specific code of transport regulating conditions under which a carrier transports persons, baggage, animals and goods on the rail network. The actual creation of such transport regulations should follow from a certain methodology. Thus, the paper´s objective is to propose methodical procedures that would be related to a set of regulations in railway passenger transport. The manual proposed will respect relevant legislation, which determines minimum requirements for developing transport regulations, and obligations of carriers as well. As the code of transport is part of public proposals for concluding transport contracts of the carriage of passengers, the methodical manual will contribute to making regulations in passenger transport to be better suited to practical requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Sustainable Movement & Transport
    3.4 Sustainable Movement & Transport 3.4.3 Challenges & Opportunities cater for occasional use and particularly for families. This in turn impacts on car parking requirements and consequently density levels. A key The Woodbrook-Shanganagh LAP presents a real opportunity to achieve a challenge with be to effectively control parking provision as a travel demand modal shift from the private car to other sustainable transport modes such management measure. 3.4.1 Introduction as walking, cycling and public transport. The challenge will be to secure early and timely delivery of key connections and strategic public transport 3.4.4 The Way Forward Since the original 2006 Woodbrook-Shanganagh LAP, the strategic transport elements - such as the DART Station - so to establish behaviour change from planning policy context has changed considerably with the emergence of a the outset. In essence, the movement strategy for the LAP is to prioritise walking series of higher level policy and guidance documents, as well as new state Shanganagh Park, straddling the two development parcels, creates the and cycling in an environment that is safe, pleasant, accessible and easy agency structures and responsibilities, including the National Transport opportunity for a relatively fine grain of pedestrian and cycle routes to achieve to move about within the neighbourhoods, and where journeys from and Authority (NTA) and Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII). a good level of permeability and connectivity between the sites and to key to the new development area are predominantly by sustainable means of The key policy documents emerging since 2006 include, inter alia: facilities such as the DART Station and Neighbourhood Centre.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Downtown Detroit Development Update
    2018 DOWNTOWN DETROIT DEVELOPMENT UPDATE MACK MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. N Q I-75 BRUSH GRAND RIVER Little Caesars Arena TABLE OF CONTENTS FISHER FWY I-75 A B C CASS J Fox Theatre WOODWARD Comerica 4 5 6 6 7 CLIFFORD O Park The Fillmore Ford Introduction Development 139 Cadillac 220 West The 607 3RD Field Overview Square MGM Grand Casino ADAMS GRAND CIRCUS PARK D E F G H BEACON PARK G MADISON S K U 7 8 8 9 9 The 751/ 1515-1529 Church of City Club David Stott BAGLEY GRATIOT BROADWAY Marx Moda Woodward Scientology Apartments Building E CBD Detroit WOODWARD WASHINGTON T MICHIGAN AVE. P I-375 I J K L M STATE L Greektown CAPITOL PARK N Casino Hotel 3RD GRATIOT 10 10 11 11 12 1ST Westin BRUSH Detroit Free Detroit Life Element Detroit at The Farwell Gabriel Houze Greektown Press Building Building the Metropolitan Building R Casino M H Building D MONROE LAFAYETTE BEAUBIEN W LAFAYETTE CAMPUS MARTIUS PARK N O P Q R I A W FORT CADILLAC SQUARE 12 13 13 14 14 CONGRESS B THE WOODWARD Hudson’s Little Caesars Louis Kamper and Mike Ilitch One Campus ESPLANADE RANDOLPH Block and Tower World Headquarters Stevens Buildings School of Business Martius Expansion M-10 W CONGRESS C Campus Expansion LARNED W LARNED JEFFERSON SPIRIT PLAZA JEFFERSON S T U Cobo F Center 15 15 15 16-19 20-21 Philip Shinola Siren Special Feature: Public Infrastructure HART Renaissance Capitol Park Projects PLAZA Center Houze Hotel Hotel About The 2018 Development Update 22-23 24 Featured Building Developments Pipeline Methodology Development Project: MoGo Station Developments New Construction and Major Renovation Other Downtown Developments QLINE Park/Public Space The District Detroit Business Improvement Zone (BIZ) Area Bike Lane TOTAL FLOOR AREA TOTAL DOLLARS INVESTED BEING DEVELOPED IN PROJECTS IN REPORT 3,548,988 $1.54 billion square-feet invested $1.179 billion 1,815,000 sq.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT Detroit Records
    476430 Do Not Detach Hotter Than July SUNDAY BRUNCH Sunday, July 28 1:00 pm Roberts Riverwalk Detroit Hotel 1000 River Place Dr Detroit, Ml 48207 Admit One 476430 LQL8QZ Do Not Detach Hotter Than July SUNDAY BRUNCH Hosted by Billionaire Boys Club Sunday, July 29 1:00 pm The Detroit Yacht Club 1 Riverbank Rd Belie Isle | Detroit Admit One Z. Q £ 8 Q Z City of Detroit CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Your petition No. 140 to the City Council relative to Detroit Black Gay Pride, Inc., for "Detroit’s Hotter Than July. 2002" July 25-28, 20Q_2_at Palmer Park; also Candlelight Spiritual/March, July 25, 2002. was considered by that body and GRANTED in accordance with action adopted_____ 3/20/02 —__ J.C.C. page. Permit Honorable City Gour’iCTT— To your Committee of the Whole was referred petition of Detroit Black Gay JACKIE L. CURRIE Pride, Inc. (#140) for “Detroit’s Hotter City Clerk. Than July! 2002” at Palmer Park. After consultation with the concerned depart­ ments and careful consideration of the request, your Committee recommends that same be granted in accordance with m the following resolution. Respectfully submitted, SHEILA COCKREL Chairperson By Council Member S. Cockrel: Resolved, That subject to the approval of the Consumer Affairs, Health, Police, Recreation and Transportation Depart­ ments, permission be and is hereby grant- ced to Detroit Black Gay Pride, Inc. (#140) i6r “Defroify Rotf&r Than July! 2002”, July 25-28, 2002 at Palmer Park; also, Candlelight Spiritual Vigil/March, July 25, 2002, commencing at Woodward, pro­ ceeding in the area of McNichols and Merrill Plaissance, ending at Palmer Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on the European Commission Proposal on Bus and Coach Passenger Rights: Report on Responses
    Consultation on the European Commission proposal on bus and coach passenger rights: report on responses Introduction 1. On 4 March 2009 DfT published a consultation paper seeking views on the 'European Commission proposal on bus and coach passenger rights’ which aims to make bus and coach travel more attractive and accessible to all passengers, including disabled people and people with reduced mobility, and to create a level playing field across Europe, both between operators and different modes of transport. 2. The proposed Regulation sets out provisions to: prevent discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of residence with regard to conditions and prices offered to passengers by operators; establish standard rules on liability in the event of death or injury of passengers and loss of or damage to their luggage and to harmonise these with other modes of transport; prevent discrimination on the grounds of disability or reduced mobility with regard to booking a journey or boarding a vehicle (unless safety regulations or the size of the vehicle makes it impossible); give disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility the right to assistance during their travel free of charge; oblige companies to provide passengers with adequate information, throughout their journey, particularly where services are cancelled or subject to long delays, and with information about their rights; and ensure operators have a complaint handling mechanism, with each Member State designating a body responsible for the enforcement of the proposed Regulation. 3. The consultation paper was published on the DfT website (www.dft.gov.uk) and sent to 95 stakeholders. The consultation ran for six weeks, ending on 14 April, rather than the usual twelve, to ensure that stakeholder views could be taken into account before detailed negotiations on the proposal began in April 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study
    City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of
    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibition's Proving Ground: Automobile Culture and Dry
    PROHIBITION’S PROVING GROUND: AUTOMOBILE CULTURE AND DRY ENFORCEMENT ON THE TOLEDO-DETROIT-WINDSOR CORRIDOR, 1913-1933 Joseph Boggs A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2019 Committee: Michael Brooks, Advisor Rebecca Mancuso © 2019 Joseph Boggs All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Michael Brooks, Advisor The rapid rise of an automobile culture in the 1910s and 20s provided ordinary North Americans greater mobility, freedom, privacy, and economic opportunity. Simultaneously, the United States and Canada witnessed a surge in “dry” sentiments and laws, culminating in the passage of the 18th Amendment and various provincial acts that precluded the outright sale of alcohol to the public. In turn, enforcement of prohibition legislation became more problematic due to society’s quick embracing of the automobile and bootleggers’ willingness to utilize cars for their illegal endeavors. By closely examining the Toledo-Detroit-Windsor corridor—a region known both for its motorcar culture and rum-running reputation—during the time period of 1913-1933, it is evident why prohibition failed in this area. Dry enforcers and government officials, frequently engaging in controversial policing tactics when confronting suspected motorists, could not overcome the distinct advantages that automobiles afforded to entrepreneurial bootleggers and the organized networks of criminals who exploited the transnational nature of the region. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER I. AUTOMOBILITY ON THE TDW CORRIDOR ............................................... 8 CHAPTER II. MOTORING TOWARDS PROHIBITION ......................................................... 29 CHAPTER III. TEST DRIVE: DRY ENFORCEMENT IN THE EARLY YEARS .................. 48 The Beginnings of Prohibition in Windsor, 1916-1919 ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Gang Initiative in Detroit: an Aggressive Enforcement Approach to Gangs Timothy S
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU School of Justice Studies Faculty Papers School of Justice Studies 1-1-2002 The Anti-Gang Initiative in Detroit: An Aggressive Enforcement Approach to Gangs Timothy S. Bynum Michigan State University Sean P. Varano Roger Williams University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/sjs_fp Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Bynum, T.S., and Varano, S.P. 2002. “The Anti-Gang Initiative in Detroit: An Aggressive Enforcement Approach to Gangs.” In Gangs, Youth Violence and Community Policing, edited by S.H. Decker. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Justice Studies at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Justice Studies Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHAPTER 9 THE ANTI-GANG INITIATIVE IN DETROIT 215 9 CRIME PATTERNS Detroit's crime trends show a mixed pattern. While the levels of some major crimes have attenuated in the past several years, the decline has not been as dramatic in other crime categories. Although the frequency and rate of violent crimes such as murder and robbery have decreased during recent years, there were troubling increases in aggravated assaults and burglary between 1995 and The Anti-Gang lriitiative 1998. Table 9.1 details changes in Detroit's crime between 1995 and 1999.2 Data in Detroit reflect both the total number of reported crimes in each crime category, and crime rates per 100,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (C M R)
    E/ECE/253 E/ECE/TRANS/489 CONVENTION ON THE CONTRACT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD (C M R) and PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE done at Geneva on 19 May 1956 UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES CONVENTION RELATIVE AU CONTRAT DE TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL DE MARCHANDISES PAR ROUTE (C M R) et PROTOCOLE DE SIGNATURE en date, à Genève, du 19 mai 1956 CONVENTION ON THE CONTRACT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD (CMR) Preamble THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, HAVING RECOGNIZED the desirability of standardizing the conditions governing the contract for the international carriage of goods by road, particularly with respect to the documents used for such carriage and to the carrier's liability, HAVE AGREED as follows: Chapter I SCOPE OF APPLICATION Article 1 1. This Convention shall apply to every contract for the carriage of goods by road in vehicles for reward, when the place of taking over of the goods and the place designated for delivery, as specified in the contract, are situated in two different countries, of which at least one is a Contracting country, irrespective of the place of residence and the nationality of the parties. 2. For the purpose of this Convention, "vehicles" means motor vehicles, articulated vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers as defined in article 4 of the Convention on Road Traffic dated 19 September 1949. 3. This Convention shall apply also where carriage coming within its scope is carried out by States or by governmental institutions or organizations. 4 . This Convention shall not apply: (a) To carriage performed under the terms of any international postal convention; (b) To funeral consignments; (c) To furniture removal.
    [Show full text]
  • Famous People from Michigan
    APPENDIX E Famo[ People fom Michigan any nationally or internationally known people were born or have made Mtheir home in Michigan. BUSINESS AND PHILANTHROPY William Agee John F. Dodge Henry Joy John Jacob Astor Herbert H. Dow John Harvey Kellogg Anna Sutherland Bissell Max DuPre Will K. Kellogg Michael Blumenthal William C. Durant Charles Kettering William E. Boeing Georgia Emery Sebastian S. Kresge Walter Briggs John Fetzer Madeline LaFramboise David Dunbar Buick Frederic Fisher Henry M. Leland William Austin Burt Max Fisher Elijah McCoy Roy Chapin David Gerber Charles S. Mott Louis Chevrolet Edsel Ford Charles Nash Walter P. Chrysler Henry Ford Ransom E. Olds James Couzens Henry Ford II Charles W. Post Keith Crain Barry Gordy Alfred P. Sloan Henry Crapo Charles H. Hackley Peter Stroh William Crapo Joseph L. Hudson Alfred Taubman Mary Cunningham George M. Humphrey William E. Upjohn Harlow H. Curtice Lee Iacocca Jay Van Andel John DeLorean Mike Illitch Charles E. Wilson Richard DeVos Rick Inatome John Ziegler Horace E. Dodge Robert Ingersol ARTS AND LETTERS Mitch Albom Milton Brooks Marguerite Lofft DeAngeli Harriette Simpson Arnow Ken Burns Meindert DeJong W. H. Auden Semyon Bychkov John Dewey Liberty Hyde Bailey Alexander Calder Antal Dorati Ray Stannard Baker Will Carleton Alden Dow (pen: David Grayson) Jim Cash Sexton Ehrling L. Frank Baum (Charles) Bruce Catton Richard Ellmann Harry Bertoia Elizabeth Margaret Jack Epps, Jr. William Bolcom Chandler Edna Ferber Carrie Jacobs Bond Manny Crisostomo Phillip Fike Lilian Jackson Braun James Oliver Curwood 398 MICHIGAN IN BRIEF APPENDIX E: FAMOUS PEOPLE FROM MICHIGAN Marshall Fredericks Hugie Lee-Smith Carl M.
    [Show full text]