Like the I-94 Rehabilitation Project, it looks like I-96 is going to be rebuilt as well.
http://www.freep.com/article/2012043...xt%7CFRONTPAGE
Printable View
Like the I-94 Rehabilitation Project, it looks like I-96 is going to be rebuilt as well.
http://www.freep.com/article/2012043...xt%7CFRONTPAGE
Didn't this stretch of 96 get rebuilt just 8 -10 years ago?
Well, yeah, but how are Michigan's uncreative road-builders supposed to make money unless they replace all our interstates every eight years, always building them bigger and more expensively?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevgoblue
Welfare program for construction firms. That's all it is.
No, it just got the el-cheapo "slap 4 inches of asphalt on it and call it good" treatment, which never lasts all that long. This time they're going to take it down to the dirt, including replacing the drainage and lighting systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevgoblue
Yeah, probably not even 8 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevgoblue
Amen, Ray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
If this 7-mile segment of I-96 can be closed for months-on-end, doesn't that make it a bit *ahem* unnecessary?
There has to be some other road in the metro area that needs attention more than I-96 between Telegraph and Newburgh. Maybe by 2014 it will be worse, but right now the worst that I can say about that stretch of road is that that the asphalt patch between lanes make switching lanes noticeable but otherwise it is smooth sailing.
I wonder how this will affect the rapid transit bus route planning [[assuming the RTA finally gets approved)..
I find this a disturbing indictment on Michigan road building. We go cheap and fast and the result is predictable. I hope they dig it all up, do it right this time and put a strong Autobahn-depth pavement.
This road is kind of special for me as I watched it being built then drove on it immediately when it opened just over 30 years ago. At the time I was a Sears delivery driver and Sears had moved their warehouse from Highland Park, where I also lived, to Livonia. The drive was a long and difficult cross town plod, generally winding along Schoolcraft and Plymouth paralleling the dig and construction.
It didn't take long for it to start falling apart and has been blacktop-acketed at least a couple of times since. To underline its poor construction, bear in mind that this road is primarily a commuter rat rut, not enduring the same heavy truck pounding that 94 and 75 do. I hope the idea of requiring road builders to warrantee their work gets revisited.
This was not a cheap fix. MDOT spent a couple of million to resuface the roadway so it would last another ten years. This process is known as asset management. Remember this stretch of road is pushing 40 years of age. 40 years is a long time to go without much maintenance. The rebuild will not increase capacity, but it will address the now 40 year old bridges that take a beating everyday. In my mind it was money well spent. A couple of million to extand a freeway another 10 years vs $150 million to reconstruct it then. Not to mention the costs to society and business by closing a road down every 30 years as opposed to every 40 years.
...no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
It being closed to maintain it.
Using your logic, even if we kept it open, if we're able to close to one lane to do roadwork, then that lane isn't needed. Then when it's time to do road work on the next lane and we need to shut it down, then that one isn't needed.
And before you know it every road is deemed as unnecessary because we have to close lanes to do road maintenance.
Several people went on long rants on how the multi-billion dollar project on I-94 is necessary [[because it wasn't up to grade, it would increase economic activity in the city, etc.), what's going to be excuse for wasting money on this project, other than to shrink the freeway and remove the heavily underutilized lanes?
I think we do overvalue freeways, especially in urban areas. But it is only part of a system. Thus, the system will continue to handle traffic without this segment. Then on another day, this segment will handle traffic for another segment. Its a network.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Long-haul trucks to and from Canada us I96 quite extensively. They'll move to I94 for the time being.
That makes sense. That would help MDOT make the argument that I-94 needs to be widened. Look at all this TRUCK TRAFFIC!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Does anyone else think this idea of closing entire freeway is bad policy? It has to discourage suburban-downtown entertainment traffic for smaller, discretionary trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I think MDOT is going easy on contractors.
That freeway is sort of lightly used, isn't it? I mean, at some points, with the express lanes and local lanes, it's kind of overkill, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Anyway, we've had this discussion before. When they close a freeway, they predict all sorts of traffic snarls lasting forever and ever until the freeway is re-opened. What happens when they close a freeway permanently? The traffic goes elsewhere, and the snarls do not materialize ... pretty interesting.
That freeway is probably never utilized at more than 50% capacity. At almost any time of the day you can drive from downtown to the M-14/275 interchange 85 MPH and barely ever have to touch your brakes [[unless you see the cops or something).Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
MDOT recently put out a video explaining why some areas seem to be fixed several times why others seem to be neglected.
It's all about the right fix at the right place at the right time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=2k2jYoOxPdY
Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.
I'm completely for the expansion [[err... creation) of mass transit, I just don't think you're appraisal is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
They're closing it down because the work can be performed faster. Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.
Depends how you define "just fine". If we're simply going to say that the mere presence of detour routes negates the need for an expressway, well, you can also get from Detroit to Florida...or wherever "just fine" without I-75.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
I don't think there's a great deal of objection to inter-city freeways, not from urban planners, or even by the environmental crowd. I believe most of the objections are against commuter trunk roads, intra-city freeways, urban expressways etc. For instance, I imagine many of us would be much happier if, in the 1950s, they routed roads around cities, with exits for arterials leading into the cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Instead, they rammed them right through with little thought about what this would do to the delicate networks of streets and thoroughfares.
And, no, Hermod: Why it was done doesn't change what it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
Regardless of the rationale, or the speed at which the work is completed...
...it still stands that MDOT decided the road network could function with this segment of I-96 effectively removed from the map for one year. Rationalize that however you want.
I have shirts in my closet that I throw away if I go a year without wearing them.
But hey, money is free. Build all the gold-plated roads you want.
I'd rather have a longer timespan with minimal capacity. There are people who just don't know any way to get around except the freeways. I hope they at least leave the service drives up and running for those souls who might want to venture from boring Livonia to exciting Corktown.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
We have the Lodge rebuilt, now we will have 96 rebuilt and then I-94 will be done in 2015 and beyond. Things will be looking up road wise in the near distant future. The next road that needs major attention is I-75 between I-696 and 14 mile.
If having good freeways were tied to desirability, Kansas City and Detroit would be the most desirable cities in North America.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJ
And the least desirable city would be Vancouver, B.C.
Stop being in denial. Everyone knows that poor maintenance of Metro Detroit's extensive freeway network is the number one reason why Michigan was the only state to shrink in population last decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
And this "looking up" business from a poster who has admitted he thinks Detroit is a shithole he should be able to bypass at top speed, no matter what the consequence for the places he zooms by.
Isn't that what you were advocating? You said that inter-city freeways should bypass the cities so that people can zoom past them without slowing down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Here is a radical solution: Dig up 8-mile and Telegraph and make them into deep canals with no bridges. Then the dirty suburban traffic can't get into the city.
Close, but very different. The modern expressway should have been conceived as a townless road: It never goes through a town or city, it skirts them, allowing normal access at radials that lead into a given city. SteveJ, on the other hand, wants an ever-larger, ever-faster, ever-more-divisive road plowed THROUGH Detroit, thereby damaging the city he says is a shithole he wants to bypass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Carry on with your bullying and know it all sarcasm. I actually feel sorry for you. I'll leave it at that.
This is a project to re-build a freeway outside the city of Detroit. Its not a new or groundbreaking project.
How did it turn into a Detroit is a shit hole fight?
Closing the road for a season is bad. Having it reduced by two or three lanes for two seasons is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
M-DOT weighed the options, and took the one it felt would have the least impact, because this freeway is important, and having it at a reduced state for two construction seasons is too impactful.
I know you somehow want to twist it into a "we don't need freeways and everyone should move back in from the suburbs" statement, but your assertion is simply false.
M-DOT, in my opinion, is the best run government agency in this state. They have our best interests in mind. That's evidenced over and over again as they battle Matty over the Gateway project, the NITC, and continue to execute projects ontime, on budget, and have implemented strategies capital preventative maintenance.
In fact, this 7-mile segment of I-96 is SO IMPORTANT that the Detroit metropolis can function without it for an entire year. Think about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
That's a fact. Decided by MDOT, not me. So if you want to bitch, take it up with them, and tell your esteemed MDOT that they're wrong. Because you said so.
All topics turn into a Detroit is a shithole fight. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheels
Stromberg2
Ryan Road between 8 Mile and 9 Mile in Warren got redone a year ago. They shutdown a lane in each direction to complete the work. So I guess, according to your logic, that this road can be converted to a one-lane in each direction road, since we can do without those lanes during construction?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Your logic is very, very flawed in this thread.
GhettoP has a valid point, and you are over-simplifying it to make yourself sound smart. What defines a "suitable" road, road network, or system is all in the eye of the beholder. If Ryan Road were a street that went though a local commercial district and was fronted with homes and shops and had schools on either side, then YES, you would consider narrowing it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
There is no magic formula that says you must be able to go from 6 Mile and Haggerty to the Ren Cen in exactly X minutes of less. There are plently of people who EXPECT that they are ENTITLED to make that trip in X minutes. Just because it was built and is fast doesn't mean anything less would mean a breakdown in civilization, and that point is proved by the fact that you can shut down entire stretches and people don't have to go on long-term disability from commuting paralysis.
The Southfield Freeway, the "Gateway" I-75/I-96, how about even the stretch of I-696 that wasn't finished for 15 years?
In an age of declining [[or hopefully steady) population, the whole system of planning for growth and building roads and sewer/water to accomodate that is flipped on its head. It can in many cases make the suburbs vs inner city problem even worse, becaue the housing units kept growing while our population was shirinkin, for a good 4 or 5 years at least.
I'm not advocating for removal of any freeways, but there is a case for changing our thinking when it comes to the road network. Ann Arbor and Lansing have implemented "Road Diets" where a 4- or 5- lane road with tons of extra capacity is re-striped or in some cases reconstructed as a 3-lane cross-section. The extra space you free up can be used for a combination of extra curb lawn, extra sidewalk, bike lanes, on-street parking, or even dedicated transit lanes.
Last example is a [[growing) place like Seattle, where they are tearing down the 'stacked' freeways along the ocean and replacing them with 4-lane boulevards. Capacity is cut by 75%. Guess what? They are assets to the city, businesses, and residents... even though [[gasp!) the traffic through that stretch of town can't go 80. Now, they foolishly aligned thier spending policies to improve transit and access to other modes [[walking/biking) to help reduce/slow growth of traffic demand, but that must be crazy west-coast thinking.
Well, one of the posters has consistently rallied for bigger, faster, wider freeways through Detroit because he dislikes Detroit and wants to be able to speed across it to get where he wants to go. So it appears these attitudes go hand in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheels
1) Freeways are necessary to bypass long stretches of the city.
2) The city is a shithole worth bypassing at any cost to it.
What this sort of person doesn't do is see the two ideas together this way.
1) Freeways allow us to bypass long sections we refuse to invest in.
2) As long as we invest in wider freeways and faster traffic, the sections we refuse to invest in can be larger and longer. [[Return to Point 1)
Plus it's a shitload of money to spend on a redundant piece of infrastructure. If they're dropping a couple hundred mill on a roadway that the community can live without for a year then think about what they aren't putting money into to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
There is a magic formula: Economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
You can choose to ignore economics, and ignore the benefits of efficient trade and transportation. In a few years, you might notice that someone else is doing better.
There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Interstate Highway System created wealth in the USA.
I will quickly join those who find things to criticize. They placement of freeways. The overuse for long-haul freight [[better done via rail.) The failure to include mass transit into the mix. Much is done wrong each and every day.
But for all that, we are wealthier because of good transportation.
Well, let's apply this logic to light rail.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
We haven't had light rail in the city for 50-60 years. We've been doing fine without it for decades, therefore under your logic we don't need it! Problem solved!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Keeping in line with the "magic" part... economics is not magically tied to highway funding. The only magic formula is the highway engineering manual that says all your roads have to be Level of Service C or you have to expand them.
Now, your last statement is still valid, we are wealthier becuase of good TRANSPORTATION... but becuase the "good" part for Detroit area is highways only, we are not as wealthy as we would be if all of our transportation was better. I could even argue that if all of our transportation was 'just OK' instead of highways 'good' and everything else 'blows,' we would be much better off.
Detroit has less congestion than other cities... you could extrapolate that to say that other cities have spent less proportionately to expand thier way out of congestion based on the fact that they have a lot while we have a little. Now compare the economic success of Detroit and its suburbs to any other city and suburbs that has highways and more investment in transit and frieght [[which would be all of them) and tell me that we're better off for having what we do.
I think that it would help for you to consider your definition of "we" and "fine" compared to what others around the country and world would think. And, instead of picking a type of transit, let's say transit. Even though our transit sucks, it certainly isn't for a lack of ridership, and those who have to rely on transit have not been doing fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
I have to agree with GhettoPalmetto. At a population of 710,000 and an empty downtown, Detroit probably does not need its freeway infrastructure. At 1.8 million people, the radial roads and the major crosstown routes were gridlocked without the freeways. I used to commute from Gratiot and Seven Mile to downtown on a daily basis before I-94 was extended east of Gratiot. Gratiot was a major gridlock at 5PM. Often you waited through two or three light cycles to get through [[especially around the city airport). Now, the radial roads are far less traveled in rush hour.
I'll tell you: You are better off for 'having we we have'.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
Your logic is not sound.
A successful Detroit in the future will depend on good transportation for goods and services.
Good transportation for goods and services alone will not make Detroit successful.
This logic extends elsewhere...
A successful Detroit in the future will depend on civic financial responsibility.
Civic financial responsibility wiill not alone make Detroit successful.
Its all about doing everything right. No 'magic' bullets, unfortunately.
But you can't argue that we're a failure because we have no congestion, when in fact we have no congestion because we're a failure.
Good transportation helps. It is not by itself sufficient. We are better off than we would be without the ability to move about our goods efficiently around our area.
Investment in transportation is of course not the only thing that has to be done.
That's not what I said at all. I said the road is a redundant piece of infrastructure. There is no light rail line anywhere in Detroit so it can't possibly be redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48091
The problem isn't the road. The problem is that there are too many roads like it that suck up resources that could be used elsewhere. OTOH, the Detroit area is severely lacking mass transit infrastructure. The region has virtually no rail based transit system.
Absolutely it does not! I still can't figure out why the hell they would do anything to I-94 other than decommission it... Yet they want to add an extra lane to be maintained! If there is any part of Detroit that so badly needs to shrink it's the freeways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
... the difference is that you can't do everything right. There are financial and political constraints. So you have to find a balance and bring everything up to the highest standards possible. Our policies and spending history has focused all of our transportation spending on highways... again you say good transportation helps, but good highways along are not good transportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
The connection that I did not spell out so clearly is that throughout the good times and bad in Detroit's "highway age," we have never had a lot of congestion. This is not a recent development. At some point you have to wonder what connection there is between having a poor transportation system [[meaning we over-built highways and didn't fund anything else) and the inability to attract or even retain young professionals and growing industries.
I'm not against light rail. I'm actually for it. I'm for a light rail system on Woodward, Gratiot, and Michigan extending out to Pontiac, Mt. Clemens, and Ann Arbor.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
However, what I'm against is people making statements like, "WOW, if they shut down I-96 for maintenance, then we don't need it!"
Yes, we need light rail, I'm for it. And also, yes, we need freeways too.
Fair enuf.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
Our inability to grasp non-auto transportation has harmed us.
[[Let me note that before the great exodus driven by school bussing [[in my opinion and experience) and by the deindustrialization policies of our leaders [[both parties) there was congestion in Detroit. I remember many days of jammed traffic on Grand River heading downtown prior to I-96.
That's funny, I was thinking back to the transit heyday and who used it and how far they went. The lack of the concentrated manufacturing job centers of the past [[and establishment of suburban office nodes) plays a huge role in how difficult it is to provide transit service to our region. What were tens of thousands of jobs on tens of acres are hundreds of jobs on hundreds or thousands of acres... times, they change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
The problem was that the manufacturing and office facilities in Detroit became functionally obsolete in the 1940s. It was impossible to economically assemble enough land to improve them. Land was available outside Detroit and the proliferation of the automobile and heavy truck made it possible to exploit that empty and inexpensive land.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
And the enshrinement of "home rule" and city-hostile policies in Lansing made it impossible for the city to grow and harness that new development to pay for refitting the urban core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod