Should we get rid of I-375?

**ghettopalmetto** · November-25-13, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Jason

What I would like to see, and it would take some money and some coordination, is for the freeway to be removed and then replaced with underground garages, ready for development on top, like the hudsons site. The hole is already there and both filling it in and excavation can be expensive. At worst there'd be a bunch of very convenient parking. And at best the quality of that area would be greatly improved with walkable developments.

At worst, you stick MDOT with a price tag of $20,000-$30,000 per parking space that nobody uses.

There is empirical evidence of the benefits of freeway removal. This isn't difficult stuff. Get rid of the shit-stain of freeway, build a real street, zone the reclaimed land for mixed-use development, plant some trees. Bing Bang Boom. Next project....

**bailey** · November-25-13, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But decommissioning 375 will put a lot of land back on the tax rolls in the most desired area in all of Detroit right now. For that reason I think 375 is a goner [[and not a moment too soon.)

.."by moment too soon", you mean the 25-30 years it'll take to go from proposal to a plan of action?

I'd like to see it happen. But I don't see it ever happening.

**iheartthed** · November-25-13, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

.."by moment too soon", you mean the 25-30 years it'll take to go from proposal to a plan of action?

I'd like to see it happen. But I don't see it ever happening.

It either has to be rebuilt or decommissioned and they don't have 30 years to do it. They have the same decision that San Francisco had when the Embarcadero collapsed after the earthquake.

**Zaiko** · November-25-13, 10:43 AM

This is a classic Dyes subject. Here are my two cents.

http://www.michigannow.org/2013/11/24/i-375-tear-out/

**bailey** · November-25-13, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It either has to be rebuilt or decommissioned and they don't have 30 years to do it. They have the same decision that San Francisco had when the Embarcadero collapsed after the earthquake.

I don't think there is the same urgency. I mean the committee isn't even coming in with the plan for a plan until late 2014. Then a few years of impact and feasibility studies... then a few years of public meetings and comments....then a few more years to make the final plan... then of course lawsuits [[because someone's ox is going to be gored)... and then maybe it'll get done. Ok, so maybe not 30, but easily 10-15 years.

However, this is Detroit and Michigan ... think of the dumbest idea, double whatever the dumb idea will cost and add 10 years to the implementation.

If past is prologue, what will come of all this discussion and all the studies is additional lanes for 375....because, traffic.

**Hermod** · November-25-13, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

At worst, you stick MDOT with a price tag of $20,000-$30,000 per parking space that nobody uses.

There is empirical evidence of the benefits of freeway removal. This isn't difficult stuff. Get rid of the shit-stain of freeway, build a real street, zone the reclaimed land for mixed-use development, plant some trees. Bing Bang Boom. Next project....

Like Detroit is hurting for vacant land? You will be reclaiming for development essentially the freeway side slope and the service drive on each side of the freeway.

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Like Detroit is hurting for vacant land? You will be reclaiming for development essentially the freeway side slope and the service drive on each side of the freeway.

I'm tickled, young feller. For once, they're going to undo the mistakes your generation saddled us with. And you can sit back and rail against it all you want. It's going to happen. Now you know how the rest of us feel when we're not listened to as projects we disagree with are rammed through.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-25-13, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Like Detroit is hurting for vacant land? You will be reclaiming for development essentially the freeway side slope and the service drive on each side of the freeway.

Hermod, you're smart enough to know that not all vacant land is created equal. This is in a prime location--if it were walkable. There's no reason to spend money for a congested, gold-plated driveway to the Renaissance Center. This is an opportunity to correct a huge mistake of postwar planning.

**Wesley Mouch** · November-25-13, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

...snip...What I would like to see, and it would take some money and some coordination, is for the freeway to be removed and then replaced with underground garages, ready for development on top, like the hudsons site. The hole is already there and both filling it in and excavation can be expensive. At worst there'd be a bunch of very convenient parking. And at best the quality of that area would be greatly improved with walkable developments.

When I first saw this thread, I immediately started estimating how many trucks full of dirt it would take. Where would that dirt come from? Maybe the I94 improvements? You sure don't want to buy dirt from far away, unless some trucking company magnate has MDOT in their pocket. How likely is that?

It never occurred to me to reuse the hole in the ground.

Maybe it wouldn't work, but its creative thinking.

Oh, and about your comment on throughput of surface streets. You're quite right. Don't underestimate a good surface street. This would probably be a wide boulevard with multiple lanes. Yes, it might take RenCen traffice 40 seconds more. But it would be way faster to get to other places along the way. Especially those on the east side of the Chrysler. Less backtracking than now.

**bailey** · November-25-13, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Oh, and about your comment on throughput of surface streets. You're quite right. Don't underestimate a good surface street. This would probably be a wide boulevard with multiple lanes.....

Is this really an improvement? I mean is M-59 "walk able"? Or, for that matter, is Gratiot or Jefferson really "walkable"?

going through all the expense and effort just to make 375 a 6 lane artery road with a nice lawn in the median doesn't make sense to me [[although it seems a very detroit/SeM thing to do). am I missing something?

**professorscott** · November-25-13, 12:48 PM

This is a very interesting topic. I would just add that, as I have previously surmised, [[and nobody has provided any data with which to contradict) I believe Detroit has by far the most lane-miles of expressway per capita of any major city in the world. I can't imagine motorists' lives would be impacted in any shockingly negative way by having to exit the freeway system a few blocks sooner.

By the way, all the expressways certainly have had an impact on the City's decline. Precisely how much can't be measured, but the large scale removal of neighborhoods while the population was already in steep decline had a clear and definite impact. Just consider the Jeffries freeway, which tore up all of the houses and businesses along the Schoolcraft corridor in an exceptionally wide right-of-way. Look at all the businesses still operating along Davison Avenue between Livernois and the Lodge, and imagine all that being destroyed if the State had implemented its original plan for the Davison-Mound freeway.

When you build cities to move cars in and out, what you get are cars moving in and out. When you build cities for people to live in, you get people living in them. These are direct and intended effects, it isn't rocket science. What you do depends on what effect you want.

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Is this really an improvement? I mean is M-59 "walk able"? Or, for that matter, is Gratiot or Jefferson really "walkable"?

going through all the expense and effort just to make 375 a 6 lane artery road with a nice lawn in the median doesn't make sense to me [[although it seems a very detroit/SeM thing to do). am I missing something?

Actually, taking out the service drives and ramps, sloping edges and other features, a boulevarded Hastings would probably have plenty of room for redevelopment. They had to take out a block-and-a-half at least to build the thing. Given its proximity to downtown, that land could really take off and be developed into multi-use stuff if zoned properly. [[And if they can keep Blue Cross from gobbling up much of it!)

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

This is a very interesting topic. I would just add that, as I have previously surmised, [[and nobody has provided any data with which to contradict) I believe Detroit has by far the most lane-miles of expressway per capita of any major city in the world.

I think Kansas City has the most.

As for the rest of the post, yes.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-25-13, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I think Kansas City has the most.

As for the rest of the post, yes.

MPS St Paul has a ton of them too, but this is more of a region than a city.

Truth be told that when you consider how big Detroit is, it really does not have a lot of lane miles on the freeway. This is due to how wide roads like Gratiot, Michigan, Fort, Jefferson, and Grand River are.

Better try a different argument or metric.

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 01:13 PM

This isn't scholarly, I don't think, but interesting nonetheless.

http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/20/ci...-who-of-decay/

**iheartthed** · November-25-13, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

This isn't scholarly, I don't think, but interesting nonetheless.

http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/20/ci...-who-of-decay/

I wonder how Detroit didn't make that list. Hard to believe that Baltimore has more freeway miles per capita than Detroit...

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 01:29 PM

I think it comes down to the way Detroit is still so insanely ... populated!

**DetroitPlanner** · November-25-13, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wonder how Detroit didn't make that list. Hard to believe that Baltimore has more freeway miles per capita than Detroit...

This link is for Highway Miles, not freeway. While all freeways are highways, a lot of other roads are counted as Highways too. Most roads on the arterial system can be classified as highways. For example: Schaefer Highway. There are also State Highways like M-5, US-12, M-1, M-3, M-53 that do not have any freeway miles associated with them in Detroit.

**Danny** · November-25-13, 02:15 PM

Get rid of I-375, NO WAY. Since lots of suburbanites coming to Detroit to work, shop, eat and play be means of regional growth, Getting out of Detroit by using the Lodge or I-75 would cause severe traffic problems. That plan is dead in the water!

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 02:17 PM

Why not demolish everything in between I-75 and the Lodge and create a SUPERFREEWAY? That way, people will FLY downtown and traffic will never be a problem again!

**Danny** · November-25-13, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Why not demolish everything in between I-75 and the Lodge and create a SUPERFREEWAY? That way, people will FLY downtown and traffic will never be a problem again!

That won't be available until the year 2278.

**Hermod** · November-25-13, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I'm tickled, young feller. For once, they're going to undo the mistakes your generation saddled us with. And you can sit back and rail against it all you want. It's going to happen. Now you know how the rest of us feel when we're not listened to as projects we disagree with are rammed through.

I won't "rail against it" as Detroit and MDOT can do as they wish. I just doubt the idea that such a vast number of well-heeled investors are just waiting in the wings for 395 to be a surface street. Another idea like the magic choo-choo to sprinkle fairy dust on the city.

**Hermod** · November-25-13, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

This isn't scholarly, I don't think, but interesting nonetheless.

http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/20/ci...-who-of-decay/

Some really great statistical studies along those lines

1. Correlation between density of population in Detroit and percentage of Roman Catholics in the population.
2. Inverse correlation between crime rate in Detroit and percentage of Lutherans in the population.
3. Inverse correlation between percentage of insured cars on the road and the density of population in Detroit.

Have fun with mathematics.

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

I won't "rail against it" as Detroit and MDOT can do as they wish.

Har-de-har-har. That's funny. You're funny today.

**Detroitnerd** · November-25-13, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Some really great statistical studies along those lines

1. Correlation between density of population in Detroit and percentage of Roman Catholics in the population.
2. Inverse correlation between crime rate in Detroit and percentage of Lutherans in the population.
3. Inverse correlation between percentage of insured cars on the road and the density of population in Detroit.

Have fun with mathematics.

Reminds me of this segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw