Massive I-94, I-75 reconstruction projects on horizon for Metro Detroit

[oo7plyr]

Metro Detroit is edging closer to seeing the green light for two massive, multi-year road construction projects that are expected to cost $2.65 billion. The projects — the reconstruction and widening of a 6.7-mile section of Interstate 94 in Detroit as well as an 18-mile stretch of I-75 in Oakland County — are slated to begin in 2014 and 2015, respectively. They include the reconstruction of I-94 between I-96 and Conner at a cost of about $1.8 billion, and I-75 between Eight Mile and M-59 at a cost of about $850 million.
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ General Assembly is expected to vote today to approve the two plans at its public meeting at the Atheneum Suite Hotel in Greektown. Both are part of $50 billion in road projects in SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan as well as its 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Plan.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2WkxsFjwW

[Scottathew]

I'm glad to see the I-75 improvement coming. I've studied them at length. Here are some of the improvements coming:

- Addition of 4th lane along the entire stretch, which will act as an HOV lane during rush hour
- Square Lake Road will be modernized to be a right lane exit\right lane entrance with I-75
- Traffic from I-696 to NB I-75 will no longer weave\merge with NB I-75 traffic exiting at 11 Mile
- The WB 12 Mile to SB I-75 loop will be gone, instead WB 12 Mile traffic will turn left and use the same straight ramp the EB 12 Mile uses to access SB 75

Nearly every single bridge along the route will be updated or replaced.

ROW acquisition [[which is rather minimal) will take place in 2014. Construction begins in 2015 and ends in 2018.

[rb336]

I'm glad to see the I-75 improvement coming. I've studied them at length. Here are some of the improvements coming:

- Addition of 4th lane along the entire stretch, which will act as an HOV lane during rush hour
- Square Lake Road will be modernized to be a right lane exit\right lane entrance with I-75
- Traffic from I-696 to NB I-75 will no longer weave\merge with NB I-75 traffic exiting at 11 Mile
- The WB 12 Mile to SB I-75 loop will be gone, instead WB 12 Mile traffic will turn left and use the same straight ramp the EB 12 Mile uses to access SB 75

Nearly every single bridge along the route will be updated or replaced.

ROW acquisition [[which is rather minimal) will take place in 2014. Construction begins in 2015 and ends in 2018.

The cost for I-75 expansion are vastly under-estimated, and that is not including the cost of land acquisition and lawsuits. They are pricing it as if it were one of those rural stretches with the highway at grade and where the state already has the right-of-way for sufficient space to expand. They don't seem to include bridge reconstruction in the estimate, either

[Scottathew]

The cost for I-75 expansion are vastly under-estimated, and that is not including the cost of land acquisition and lawsuits. They are pricing it as if it were one of those rural stretches with the highway at grade and where the state already has the right-of-way for sufficient space to expand. They don't seem to include bridge reconstruction in the estimate, either

M-DOT is very good at staying on budget.

People [[the nice way of saying YOU) are VASTLY exaggerating ROW acquisition need in the I-75 project. The 4th lane is coming from the sloping areas south of 12 mile, and the grassy median north of it.

The main part that is going to require ROW acquisition is on the east side of NB 75 between 11 Mile and 696 due to the ramp braiding.

I'll tell you what, if the government wants to come in and take my shitty house that's on the service drive, I'd say THANK YOU. Of course not everyone will feel that way, but I don't see a big fight happening.

The government uses the power of eminent domain rather sparingly, and this case is not controversial or completely unexpected.

The only question I would have is how does eminent domain work with a house that's underwater? Do they bail the homeowner out? Or do they somehow remain stuck paying on a loan and no longer have a house. I would hope the government would fully pay off the loan.


As for dispelling the myths about all these houses that will be scooped up, here's the real details:

26 houses
2 businesses
1 church

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...6_420756_7.pdf

[jtf1972]

It's amazing that we still have not learned that widening highways really doesn't fix traffic problems, and that we have not come up with any plans for 94 that would be less destructive .

[Detroitnerd]

This expansion idea is seriously flawed. They basically dusted off an old plan from the 1990s when gas was a dollar a gallon. What's more, many things have been built on the footprint since they designed it, and will have to be acquired, demolished, etc. The removal of bridges will likely prevent development from spilling over from Midtown into New Center, just at a time when many Midtown organizations are extending into New Center [[CCS, WSU, etc.).

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion. Motorists just hop on the expanded freeway and congestion is soon just as bad as it was before.

[bailey]

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion. Motorists just hop on the expanded freeway and congestion is soon just as bad as it was before.

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

[Khorasaurus]

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

Interesting point, but there are a few other things at play:

1. People use the newly widened road when previously they avoided it because they were concerned about traffic. So other roads may lose traffic, but the widened road will be just as congested.

2. New businesses locate along the route because of the new capacity, adding more traffic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although the type of businesses that are locating along I-94 in Midtown are not there because of the freeway. We may see more industrial businesses in other parts of the city/region because of the I-94 expansion, but all Midtown will get is a wider I-94 that is even more clogged with trucks than before.

[TKshreve]

Interesting point, but there are a few other things at play:

1. People use the newly widened road when previously they avoided it because they were concerned about traffic. So other roads may lose traffic, but the widened road will be just as congested.

2. New businesses locate along the route because of the new capacity, adding more traffic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although the type of businesses that are locating along I-94 in Midtown are not there because of the freeway. We may see more industrial businesses in other parts of the city/region because of the I-94 expansion, but all Midtown will get is a wider I-94 that is even more clogged with trucks than before.

So to take it a step further..... new businesses, added pedestrian counts and evolving congestion would also bring about a demand for public transit, would it not?

[Detroitnerd]

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

But if we are in an area with declining or stagnant population, why the FUCK expand the freeway?

[bailey]

But if we are in an area with declining or stagnant population, why the FUCK expand the freeway?

yes... exactly. that would be the logical conclusion. However as we are in a region of declining and stagnant population, and we apparently ARE building it...

[Wesley Mouch]

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

Bailey, the logic of the high priests here is that increasing road capacity induces an increase in road usage. Businesses locate along the freeway. More people get in the habit of using that new, faster road. And this builds on itself until the new, higher capacity roadway is just as 'congested' as the old road.

Look at M-59. I don't live out these in that god-forsaken land of sprawl, but I have seen it over the last decades. Driving from Utica to Gratiot during rush hour remains miserable. A lot more cars move, but perhaps not much faster.

The congregation here believes that if you don't build new freeways, the existing traffic simply finds a diverse route to and through the city. In the old days, streets like Second, Third, and John R were fitted out with timed lights to become very efficient. Why? Because Woodward became congested -- even at its obscene width. The Lodge and Chrysler 'solved' this -- but also took the traffic away from Woodward. One might argue that if this traffic had stayed on Woodward, the streetscape might have remained more viable.

The church also ignores that much of the traffic on our freeways isn't commuters, but it commerce. Trucks. They have an answer for that. More trains.

Also, they ignore that there are a lot of people and trucks simply passing through. Their answer to that is to send them away. They don't understand that traffic and congestion are a normal part of a viable community. Downtown Royal Oak is congested, as is true with Ann Arbor. Why? Because people want to be there. Why? Because other people are there. Its a feedback loop. If you keep your freeways running efficiently, then visitors and commerce will come and congest your world. And you shall truly be joyous unto the lord of commerce. And thou shalt be vilified by those who see in petcoke an environmental disaster, rather than a sign of Detroit's comeback.

[Bham1982]

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion.

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

[Khorasaurus]

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

Strawmen are fun! You can knock them down!

Yes, a freeway is more efficient than a dirt road. But a four lane freeway is not more efficient than a three lane freeway in the long run.

[Bham1982]

Yes, a freeway is more efficient than a dirt road. But a four lane freeway is not more efficient than a three lane freeway in the long run.

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

[iheartthed]

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

No, it wouldn't necessarily be less congestion. Widening the roads could just entice drivers to use the widened road who would have otherwise taken another route, such as drivers who are just traveling a short distance. So the expanded roadway might simultaneously shave 30 seconds from the trip of a person who is only going 2 miles -- since they get to avoid stop lights on the surface street they would've otherwise taken -- while adding 10 minutes to the commute of someone traveling 20 miles because that person has to share the new lanes with people skipping stoplights.

[DetroitPlanner]

It's amazing that we still have not learned that widening highways really doesn't fix traffic problems, and that we have not come up with any plans for 94 that would be less destructive .

Putting on my devils advocate hat:

How about we take the freeway away and put all of that congestion and idling trucks on surface streets like Grand Blvd, Warren, or Harper? What will that do for safety, air quality, timely transit, or quality of life in New Center, Midtown, or other neighborhoods? Is this really less destructive? How? What will happen when truck travel increases because of the new bridge crossing?

[Khorasaurus]

Putting on my devils advocate hat:

How about we take the freeway away and put all of that congestion and idling trucks on surface streets like Grand Blvd, Warren, or Harper? What will that do for safety, air quality, timely transit, or quality of life in New Center, Midtown, or other neighborhoods? Is this really less destructive? How? What will happen when truck travel increases because of the new bridge crossing?

That's a bit of a strawman argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that I-94 should be removed. In fact, most agree that it needs to be modernized. But the specific plan that is on the table is too expensive and too damaging to surrounding neighborhoods, including two of the most successful neighborhoods in the city.

On a different note, I actually think the proposed plans for I-75 are a good idea. For most of the route, there wouldn't be many negative impacts on the surroundings, and the new capacity will help people get in and out of Detroit, which should be good for the City [[and Troy and Madison Heights and Auburn Hills as well I suppose).

[DetroitPlanner]

That's a bit of a strawman argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that I-94 should be removed. In fact, most agree that it needs to be modernized. But the specific plan that is on the table is too expensive and too damaging to surrounding neighborhoods, including two of the most successful neighborhoods in the city.

Not really a strawman argument. If you don't widen the freeway eventually the traffic will have to go somewhere. It will go to the most logical routes. The extra congestion through those neighborhoods will have a negative impact though air quality, safety, making it harder to cross streets like Warren and Grand Blvd. With the increase of truck traffic expected through the new bridge [[lets just face it we are not spending $4 billion just to p!$$ of Matty) it will have to go somewhere and we will be creating the same problems that Windsor has built a new freeway to solve.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arb...quality-of-li/

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.co...20Mobility.pdf

What many don't understand is that the traffic being generated is being done so not just by Detroiters or suburbanites, it is being generated as a result of improving trade between Canada, the Unitied States and Mexico.

[Khorasaurus]

Not really a strawman argument. If you don't widen the freeway eventually the traffic will have to go somewhere. It will go to the most logical routes. The extra congestion through those neighborhoods will have a negative impact though air quality, safety, making it harder to cross streets like Warren and Grand Blvd. With the increase of truck traffic expected through the new bridge [[lets just face it we are not spending $4 billion just to p!$$ of Matty) it will have to go somewhere and we will be creating the same problems that Windsor has built a new freeway to solve.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arb...quality-of-li/

Part of the problem with this project is that it doesn't take into account the new bridge [[remember it was designed in the 90s). A lot of the trucks along 94 east of 96 are going to Port Huron because they're trying to avoid congestion at the Ambassador Bridge. With the new bridge, that traffic is going to head down 96 and 75, not up 94 towards Macomb County.

And truckers don't react to congestion by taking surface streets [[many of which they aren't allowed on.) They find other freeway routes instead.

And, personally, I'm not worried about traffic from regular cars in Midtown. There's a lot of excess capacity in the road system there already.

[Wesley Mouch]

Not really a strawman argument. If you don't widen the freeway eventually the traffic will have to go somewhere. It will go to the most logical routes. The extra congestion through those neighborhoods will have a negative impact though air quality, safety, making it harder to cross streets like Warren and Grand Blvd. With the increase of truck traffic expected through the new bridge [[lets just face it we are not spending $4 billion just to p!$$ of Matty) it will have to go somewhere and we will be creating the same problems that Windsor has built a new freeway to solve.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arb...quality-of-li/

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.co...20Mobility.pdf

What many don't understand is that the traffic being generated is being done so not just by Detroiters or suburbanites, it is being generated as a result of improving trade between Canada, the Unitied States and Mexico.

Valiant effort to bring facts to the table. But remember that this discussion is about religion. Certain mosques hate the west because of our approach to life. This synagogue worships Kunstler/Jacobs and takes it as a matter of faith that freeways are evil.

You might as well argue for more tarsands oil pipelines bringing petcoke to Detroit at a Sierra Club meeting held at Gary Peters house.

In spite of the above, the high priests of urbanistism here are right about a lot. MDOT's not going to build a pedestrian friendly freeway. They are salivating at billions of federal dollars and will build a momument to highway designs of the 1980 when current MDOT leaders were indoctrinated by the gods of 1950's design. It will be massively stupid and unnecessarily destructive of neighborhoods and will remain a congested mess.

Where I differ, is that congestion is good, and a well-designed freeway to manage trafficflow through our fine city is equally essential to our jobs and economy. Too bad that it'll be built without consideration of its negative effect on urban development in the city.

The protest should not be against the freeway -- it should be against old, stale freeway design of the 50s-80s.

[stasu1213]

Putting on my devils advocate hat:

How about we take the freeway away and put all of that congestion and idling trucks on surface streets like Grand Blvd, Warren, or Harper? What will that do for safety, air quality, timely transit, or quality of life in New Center, Midtown, or other neighborhoods? Is this really less destructive? How? What will happen when truck travel increases because of the new bridge crossing?

How about just spending half of the money on repaving I94 and I75 and use the rest on laying tracks on Woodward, Gratiot, Michigan, and Grand River for the light rail. Air pollution would not be a problem as well

[4V4DMD]

Tell me why are we widening I-94, because of 15min delays during rush hour?

Makes no sense at all. Take the $800 million dollars and fix the torn up surface streets or something more worthwhile. The construction industry must have SEMCOG in their pocket or something. This seems fishy.

[Newdetroit]

I would prefer to see
1) M-59 connected from M-23 to I-94 [[converting Hall road into a highway);
2) Van Dyke M-53 from Washington to Imlay City [[converting Van Dyke into a highway)
3) Haggerty Connecter from I-96 connected to I-75 in Clarkston pasing through M-59. [[converting haggerty connector, martin parkway, union lake, S. Willaims Lake, Maceday Lake, Nelsey Lake, White Lake, Dixie Highway into a highway)

[Scottathew]

3) Haggerty Connecter from I-96 connected to I-75 in Clarkston pasing through M-59. [[converting haggerty connector, martin parkway, union lake, S. Willaims Lake, Maceday Lake, Nelsey Lake, White Lake, Dixie Highway into a highway)

That would be huge. It would take traffic wanting to go north and take it out of the city and instead put it on the edge of the burbs.

My understanding is that I-275 was supposed to reconnect with I-75, but it got canceled out.