Long stretch of I-96 to close for overhaul in 2014

[Wesley Mouch]

<snip>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.

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.

[SteveJ]

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.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

And the least desirable city would be Vancouver, B.C.

[iheartthed]

If having good freeways were tied to desirability, Kansas City and Detroit would be the most desirable cities in North America.

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.

[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.

[Hermod]

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.

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.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

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.

[SteveJ]

Carry on with your bullying and know it all sarcasm. I actually feel sorry for you. I'll leave it at that.

[Wheels]

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?

[Scottathew]

...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.

Closing the road for a season is bad. Having it reduced by two or three lanes for two seasons is worse.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[stromberg2]

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?

All topics turn into a Detroit is a shithole fight.

Stromberg2

[Scottathew]

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.

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.

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?

Your logic is very, very flawed in this thread.

[cramerro]

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?

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.

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.

[Detroitnerd]

How did it turn into a Detroit is a shit hole fight?

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.

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)

[iheartthed]

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.

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.

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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. ...
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.
...

There is a magic formula: Economics.

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.

[Scottathew]

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.

Well, let's apply this logic to light rail.

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!

[cramerro]

There is a magic formula: Economics.

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.

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.

[cramerro]

Well, let's apply this logic to light rail.

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!

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.

[Hermod]

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.

[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'll tell you: You are better off for 'having we we have'.

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.

[iheartthed]

Well, let's apply this logic to light rail.

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!

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.

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.

[iheartthed]

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.

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.

[cramerro]

I'll tell you: You are better off for 'having we we have'.

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.

... 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.

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.