Not that he has/will have a ton of say in the matter.
But he's the only candidate/sitting candidate that has said anything on the subject one way or another.
Printable View
Not that he has/will have a ton of say in the matter.
But he's the only candidate/sitting candidate that has said anything on the subject one way or another.
To be perfectly honest, I don't trust Duggan as far as I can throw them [[in other words, I don't trust him at all).
Widening I-75 for 20 miles could not be done for $580 million - or roughly $2.9 million/mile. That cost is, essentially, the bare minimum for ONE lane, assuming the roadway is running on the surface like I-94 does west of AA. It ignores the cost of re-engineering bridges, obtaining land, building significant portions at an artificial level [[elevated or in a ditch) and creating a drainage system, not to mention the very high cost of obtaining the necessary right-of-ways and the inevitable lawsuits.
Duggan is the only candidate who has potential to bring Detroit back. Not saying he will do it, as reaching potential is different than having potential. But still, he's the only one with the potential to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
At least someone out there is voicing opposition.
I guess we will just have to wait and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement
Honestly, the level of discourse of Detroit politicians rarely ever reaches such loftiness as articulating policy or a particular stance on an issue. You mostly just hear "We need lower crime and more jobs!" No shit, assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by brizee
It's like Bing's demolition plan. We need to tear down x amount of houses by the end of term whatever. Yeah, well, then what? How will that ultimately bring the city back?
It's scary that Duggan raises the bar simply by saying we need to not widen freeways and do more than just tear down houses. Sad but true.
The talent/brain power pool here has just been shrinking so rapidly for so many years.
I too am tired of politicians saying we need 'jobs'. Duh. We all know that. The question of course is how to get them. That's the true challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
On topic, I am guessing that Duggan is opposing freeway construction because it plays well with Detroit residents. I can't imagine that he really opposes money being spent in Detroit. But he needs issues that show that he's a real Detroiter. Even better, its an issue he has no control over. So if elected, he can still say he opposed the widening -- but will still get the benefits.
Who do you trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Very few of the people at the helm.Quote:
Originally Posted by MidTownMs
I'm not impressed with any of the mayoral candidates quite frankly.
We wont have to widen highway if the same amount of money is used to put light rail systems throughout Southeast Michigan especially Detroit. The would result in less traffic on the vehicle traffic on the freeways leaving more spaces for trucks to use
I'm with you there. SSDE, [[same shit, different election) Who do you want? Twittle Dee or Twittle Dum? I wish Rashida Tlaib would run. She seems determined, I have faith in her.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Yes you will. The freeway needs work. Both the I-75 and M-10 interchanges are dangerous and do not operate well. The bridges are too low to meet interstate spec, hence the unusually large number of bridge hits on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Secondly, you just can't spent money earmarked towards maintaining and improving the national highway system on transit. Each penny must be spent on a core set of criteria. MAP-21 [[federal transportation legislation) enforces this. With the amount of road needs in the state, MDOT would just move this money elsewhere, probably to widen even more freeways in Grand Rapids. Needs are great throughout the transportation system and since needs far outstrip revenue to address them, it makes moving money between silos even more difficult.
Finally, this region's biggest obstacle is not the capital side of transit, but the operating side. It costs a lot of money to operate these systems. Power and labor ain't free. This region is not willing to pay for it.
Geometric reconfiguration of an interchange does not require widening of the freeway. Unless you work for MDOT, where widening is always required. You're smart enough to know this, Planner.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Nobody is suggesting as such. But it is true that the Michigan Constitution caps transit funding to 10% of all state transportation funding. The State of Michigan makes it that much harder to put together matching funds necessary to obtain federal transit dollars. MDOT looks at its projects in isolation, and not as a holistic system.Quote:
Secondly, you just can't spent money earmarked towards maintaining and improving the national highway system on transit. Each penny must be spent on a core set of criteria. MAP-21 [[federal transportation legislation) enforces this. With the amount of road needs in the state, MDOT would just move this money elsewhere, probably to widen even more freeways in Grand Rapids. Needs are great throughout the transportation system and since needs far outstrip revenue to address them, it makes moving money between silos even more difficult.
Just as it is with roads. MDOT can always find money to build new freeways and widen existing roads. Upkeep? Forget it. Asphalt and crack sealer ain't free. This region is not willing to pay for it.Quote:
Finally, this region's biggest obstacle is not the capital side of transit, but the operating side. It costs a lot of money to operate these systems. Power and labor ain't free. This region is not willing to pay for it.
There are real challenges to transit funding in Michigan [[greatest among them, a DOT stuck in the 1950s). You don't have to make it that much more difficult by simply conceding it as a lost cause.
The point I am making is you will be spending billions on this roadway for a reconstruction in order to fix many problems [[not the least of this is that it is heavily congested most of the day). To not address this now means never addressing it. Short of building another crosstown freeway through mid-town [[which is not a proposal) there are few other options. Much of this congestion is being caused by truck traffic and we are an industrial town. If we don't address what is important to job growth some other region will.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Grand Rapids used nearly all of their ARRA money to widen freeways. In addition, they have also built more lane miles per capita than we have yet many on this board holds them as the place we should admire and has its economic act together, they did this with great support. http://michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-15...9--RSS,00.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi..._us_131_i.html
The previous studies done [[by Corradino, I believe), showed that the $1 billion+ freeway widening would save the typical driver a whopping 30-60 seconds. Do the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
That doesn't even consider the effects of induced traffic, which, if you've ever driven in the Atlanta area [[up to 15-lane freeway widths) or the 401 outside Toronto [[20 lanes), you know damn well that freeway expansion and widening doesn't solve congestion.
Michigan is willing to spend money on widening the freeways. I would love to see money from somewhere be used on Woodward avenue from Temple to the Boston Edison area where Woodward had been repaved a couple of years ago. It is a damn shame that a main thoroughfair in the city is so need of repaving. Why has it not been taken care of? I don't see any signs of construction of the light rail happening this spring or summer. Do commuters have to drive along Woodward another couple of years destroying the suspensions on their cars and trucks while the city and state do studies for another couple of years. This is why Detroit and Michigan are a big joke. It is not the lack of federal and local funds that causes that put the city and state in the condition that they are in but the misuse of funds by incompetent or paid off elected officials and planners
Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Paving was put off to coordinate it with Light Rail [[now M-1). It is going to begin this year. Don't blame it on elected officials, blame it on the advocates for screaming about whether it should be in the center of the roads or on the side.
Using induced demand is a silly arguement. Thats like saying if we build more transit then we will need to build even more, and we can't afford to operate a system of that size.
http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=506975
I personally think the paving should be the whole road, not just the center or the side.....Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Since we've abandoned the thread title in favor of a discussion of freeways, I propose we widen I94 even more, thus enabling complete removal of Fisher Fwy [[and Chrysler below I94).
Since this is going to happen anyway, you might as well do it fully so it can carry all the thru truck traffic.
LOL The road will be reconstructed with improvements to the base. Without knowing where the rail lines would be, it would mean tearing it up and reinforcing the base if it was done when it was supposed to be done, leading to even more people screaming about MDOT constantly closing roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
LOL! Great catch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
It is absolutely remarkable that, in this day and age, anybody is arguing for expanding freeways through urban areas to "ease congestion."
It is especially distressing that this point is being made by somebody with the word "planner" in their handle.
As somebody wittier than me pointed out: Expanding freeways to ease congestion is like loosening your belt to lose weight.
Good luck with stopping that! A major reconstruction of the A720 into downtown Montreal is set to begin in a while and despite the city recommending a smaller footprint, the provincial government wants a wider highway berth instead. Go figure.
I will mostly side with dissenters for the sake of discussion. There is a lot that goes into making these decisions. I would suggest that those who want to comment on this topic read the EIS.
Let me guess: It's the boilerplate MDOT highway expansion EIS that says:Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
"By widening the roadway, congestion will be reduced and average traffic speeds will be increased, thereby decreasing the amount of fuel wasted and exhaust discharged into the atmosphere."
Is that about right?
See 5.3.1. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...D_292072_7.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
The City's official position is support for the project.
All that means is that the geniuses employed by the City got bamboozled by MDOT too.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
This is city planning out of the 1950s. No other city or state can afford to do the crap that Detroit, Michigan does.
Hasn't the last 50 years of history in Detroit demonstrated the folly of freeway construction to build a city? It might work out in the suburbs but what evidence is there for anything positive from freeways?
Seems like we're missing any pro-freeway-widening voices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
I agree that freeway construction didn't serve the urban cores so well. But interstate [[meaning long-distance freeways) have been acknowledged widely for the post-war success of American commerce. As such, it has dramatically helped the development of the south and southwest. This is good for America, even if not so much for Detroit.
Widened and improved freeways [[W&IF) won't help Detroit's redevelopment much. But that's not the point. W&IF will help Detroit maintain and become more central to international trade. It is good for the general economy, and that's good for Detroit in the long-haul.
There's also a great short-term argument. The cash will be spent, and it might as well be spent here. Bridges in Washington state collapse. And we oppose modernization.
Why? Because the new urbanist idea opposes them. And its a valid POV. But applying doctrine universally is dangerous. Detroit needs commerce. W&IF will help commerce here. Commerce is good. Commerce brings wealth. We need wealth. Bring on W&IF.
Ignore Duggan's comments. He's just playing to the crowd he needs on his side to win -- Detroit residents who hate the State [[and frankly feds, except when money's needed).
If that's true then why has Detroit declined so dramatically in prominence since the advent of the interstate highway system? The city is as integrated into the highway network as any major American city could possibly be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Commerce is become exponentially less reliant on a viable freeway system; in the case of Detroit, you're asking for W&IF for a city with a continuing decline of population. If anything, the city/region needs a less expansive freeway network than it did years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
I imagine this earmarked funding is not considered as an either/or, but if it were the case -- dump the widening and get BRT in place, STAT. That will draw in population and, ultimately, the need for increased interstate shipping.
If this project--which was first proposed over 15 years ago--is so essential to interstate commerce, then where is the money for capital improvements to the freight rail system? This should be a given, considering the increased amount of goods being shipped by rail, and the incredible increase in diesel prices since the 1990s. But no, not in Michigan. Because someone drew some lines on a map decades ago, so freeway widening MUST be a priority, changing paradigms be damned!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
And if the widened freeway is intended to accommodate trucks, does that mean passenger cars will be banned from the new lanes? Of course not. MDOT is just using this silly justification to sell a pre-ordained bill of goods. Because MDOT knows how to do precisely two things: 1) Build new roads in cornfields and 2) Widen existing roads ad infinitum. For them to think otherwise would be for them to admit that they have their heads up their asses.
The original justification for this project was to untangle logjams at the downtown interchanges. Then it was to repair the bridges. After that, they were going to allow a right-of-way for future light rail service. Now it's for international truck traffic. What excuse, er, reason is next?
This is just like the long-proposed I-73 freeway in South Carolina, where the cash-strapped DOT wants to build a billion dollar freeway through delicate swampland, because tourists from Ohio and Michigan can't find Myrtle Beach.
It wasn't the freeways that killed Detroit. If that were the case, then most of America would be dead -- which I suppose could be argued. Detroit's decline is unrelated and in spite of interstate freeways.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
GP: you're right about MDOT. Their heads are misplaced. Rail is doing pretty well right now, but don't count trucks out yet. Sure, diesel is relatively expensive, but its still the best way for short/mid hauls and certain cargo. As natural gas enters the trucking market thanks for fracking, that cost will become a non-factor.
It still looks to me like a hunt for reasons to hate a W&I that makes a lot of sense. MDOT's stupidity doesn't mean they're wrong. Just stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
What is the cost of this project again? $1.8 billion to create up to 18 lanes of right-of-way along 7 miles of I-94? To save a minute of travel time in the short run? That makes a lot of sense to you?
"Detroit needs commerce. W&IF will help commerce here. Commerce is good. Commerce brings wealth. We need wealth. Bring on W&IF."
Again, 50 years of evidence that investing in freeways in Detroit has had no positive impact. What, we haven't spent enough on freeways?
I call BS on the "increase of commute by 1 minute" study... it's obviously not taking rush hour into consideration...
Whether we are in favor of the widening or not... it's already started to happen... bridge by bridge... as the decaying bridges between Connor on the east and I-96 on the west, are being replaced... they are being widened for the future expansion. The Van Dyke bridge is already a sign of what's happening.
I can see this is going to be a long term project... probably a decade or more... and so the 1.6 billion or whatever is going to be spread out over at least 10 years. It's not as though we're getting a lump sum all at once.
As for people who are not happy about it... too little too late...
Because the widening is fait fucking accompli! The pro-widening side doesn't have to argue its case, because they've already won the argument. The only people still talking about it are the ones who are angry about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Yeah, $1.6 billion, no big deal. Move along now, nothing to see here. Accept what is handed to you, never question authority, let assumptions remain unchallenged. Great tactic. Just spend the money and never provide objective data in support for such a massive outlay. Never revisit conclusions in the face of changing facts. Just trudge forward as if Eisenhower is still the President. That's the MDOT Way [[TM).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Now if only MDOT could fill a pothole.
Why yes. Of course not if you assume the only benefits are as you stated. But I don't accept your narrow view of the world designed to serve your goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
If we get nothing else, we'll get new bridges!
I like progress. Its, well, progressive!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Oh, what are these magical benefits? Aren't they the same benefits Detroit has been realizing since the Interstates began construction in the 1950s? You might want to recall that the population in Southeastern Michigan has been stagnant--not growing, stagnant--for over 40 years. Why is there so much money needed for new freeways now, all of a sudden?
And progress? If you consider Atlanta an eternal traffic jam full of progress, then go ahead. But gasoline isn't ever dropping below $3 a gallon, so if you consider a petroleum-based future as "progress", well, I guess a city has a right to practice hara-kiri.
This endless freeway expansion is just like Detroit's demolition program. One of these days, it's going to pay off. We're not sure when, we're not sure how, but let's keep spending millions of dollars doing the same damned thing over and over and hope that one day, it actually works.
Do you think that most American cities carved themselves up with freeways to the extent that Detroit did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
You can't compare Detroit of the 1950's to Detroit of today. There are far less rail lines. NAFTA has happened and 30 percent of the trade with Canada flows through Detroit, with even more making the trip through Detroit to Port Huron. Detroit is a lot more important of a place regarding trade with Canada and Mexico than it was then. This has meant a lot of slow moving lumbering trucks on our roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...2_410010_7.pdf
As far as the fossil fuels, we are making cars like the Volt, C-Max and soon Fusion Hybrids and sending them out to decrease our dependancy. I can forsee in a decade cars that will blow these out of the water in terms of saving fuel.
Moving goods is real advantage that Detroit has over just about anywhere else in the world. We should do everything we can to use that to spin off jobs and grow our economy and repopulate our neighborhoods.
Is that so? Makes you wonder how on God's Green Earth that trade with Canada hasn't come to a grinding halt since MDOT proposed this 18-lane disaster way back in 1998 or so. If it's so NECESSARY, why has Detroit and the United States been able to survive the past 15 years without it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
As pertains to the health of a metropolis, the problem isn't fossil fuels, as much as it is vehicle dependency. This is just an expensive technological solution to a very, very simple man-made problem.Quote:
As far as the fossil fuels, we are making cars like the Volt, C-Max and soon Fusion Hybrids and sending them out to decrease our dependancy. I can forsee in a decade cars that will blow these out of the water in terms of saving fuel.
Makes one wonder why that hasn't happened yet, huh? Just throw a few billion bucks at a road, and when that doesn't work, try again, right?Quote:
Moving goods is real advantage that Detroit has over just about anywhere else in the world. We should do everything we can to use that to spin off jobs and grow our economy and repopulate our neighborhoods.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Some cities did better, some worse. But Detroit doesn't seem like an outlier here. Cleveland is a mess. Seattle's waterfront elevated road isn't quaint. San Francisco has removed some urban freeways of late -- and they were stakes right into the heart. The Big Dig was done for a reason. I'm not seeing Detroit as particularly bad -- bad though we were.
"After that therefore because of that?"Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Several other phenomena occurred besides freeways 1950-2013
I'd agree, de-industrization, crime, racism had a lot more to do with the decline of Detroit than freeways ever did. If Freeways were so horrible, why does Chicago [[similar freeway system, if not worse), and Minneapolis [[A lot more freeways than any other City I have ever encountered) have done so well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Yes freeways did displace people, but I am willing to bet that the numbers pale in comparison to those pushed out by losing a job, feeling unsafe in their homes, or just plain bigots.
Huh? Wha...? Heh. Heh-heh. Hahaha. HAHAHAHAHA!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Freeway removal was a stake in the heart of San Francisco?
OK. Now that I know you don't know what you're talking about, I better understand why you choose to defend the ridiculous.
Embarcadero. Central. Raised aerial freeways. Gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
http://www.seattle.gov/transportatio...%20removal.pdf
'stake in the heart' was probably a little dramatic. Yet the heart isn't only downtown.
Wes, I'm glad to have somebody to disagree with because it usually spurs me on to clarify my thoughts. But your arguments are so specious I really don't feel that challenged by them.
If freeways were so necessary to cities, explain the success of the city of Vancouver?
I also appreciate the opportunity to explore my brilliance, I mean clarify my thoughts. I will try to direct more of my brilliance your way so as to break through your hard protective shell of erroneous information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I don't think freeways are essential for civic success. But I do think they are very healthy.
Vancouver is fringe case. Only Canadian city on the Pacific. Rail terminus. Major port. What moves through Vancouver moves because it must. And it moves slowly. Freeways are less important where the road ends. There is virtually no through traffic. Only one 2-lane road goes north.
Oh, yes. A fringe case. Because it's the only place the freeway-maniacs never got to put their plans for urban freeways into action.
We shouldn't cheer on economic activity for its own sake. That's how you end up with prisons, casinos, parking lots, Howard Johnsons and enormous freeways.
We should cheer on economic activity that improves the quality of urban life.
Not that which shaves 60 seconds, max off the commute of people who want to zip through at 95 MPH.
And I always thought that the size of prisons was based on the criminal generating capability of the populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Lot fewer HoJos around with all the freeways than there were before freeways started.l
You're behind the times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
A McPrison.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
I was in Manhattan this past weekend, and my first thought was, "What a dump!". That place seriously needs some economic activity. If only they were smart enough to build an eighteen-lane-wide freeway connecting Brooklyn to Wall Street to Times Square, and on to the Bronx, they might have a chance of real economic development. Idiots.
They get by in their own clickety clack kind of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Don't you know detroityes logic yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
When you're talking about preserving the status quo, you can bring up other cities and show them as examples.
But when you challenge the status quo, no other city may be compared to Detroit. Such comparisons are greeted with the cry, "APPLES! ORANGES! APPLES! ORANGES!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I don't know what you're talking about. I can't wait for I-94 to be widened! Then Detroit will be an exciting, modern city like this:
Attachment 20275
Look at all that economic growth!
No city could have a successful economic development as Detroit has. Where else could a person enjoy outside dining at your favorite restaurant on the famous "Broadway Street" and get harass by grown urchins who would say polite things to you after you refuses to give them some change. Detroit; a place where if one raise a family he/she would get a friendly occasional visits by your friendly neighborhood cop imposter. You don't have to open the door for him; he or they would just kick it down. Detroit, a place that is an envy of all major metropolis that has subways and light rail systems. They have to go through the trouble of maintaining theirs. Detroit doesn't for it is just a figment in residents imaginations so they could travel light rail vicariously while waiting on a slow ass bus to come along.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
All 3.3 miles of 150 mil, high speed rail.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213