The End of Detroit... [Plan to widen I-94, I-75]

[Novine]

"Just go ahead and assume the population of SE Michigan, or the Detroit Metro area, had similar changes."

Why assume? We know the population numbers for the Detroit MSA. The population was essentially flat for 30 years with a decline of 3.5% over the past 10 years. In any case, that doesn't address the question of Detroit, which has seen its population fall by over 50% from its peak. Yet, we're supposed to believe that "population growth" accounts for congestion on freeways in the CoD. Bizarre.

[GP For Life]

"Just go ahead and assume the population of SE Michigan, or the Detroit Metro area, had similar changes."

Why assume? We know the population numbers for the Detroit MSA. The population was essentially flat for 30 years with a decline of 3.5% over the past 10 years.

Do you have a source for that? I am inclined to believe you, but I ask because I was looking for that particular information.

In any case, that doesn't address the question of Detroit, which has seen its population fall by over 50% from its peak. Yet, we're supposed to believe that "population growth" accounts for congestion on freeways in the CoD. Bizarre.

What's bizarre is the fact that you don't understand that the populations didn't just die, it moved to the suburbs.

In any event, I would find it very bizarre that the main population center in Michigan didn't experience any of the growth that the sourced information I provided indicated.

[313WX]

Do you have a source for that? I am inclined to believe you, but I ask because I was looking for that particular information.

1970	4,307,470		14.5%
1980	4,353,365		1.1%
1990	4,382,299		0.7%
2000	4,452,557		1.6%
2010	4,296,250		−3.5%
Est. 2012	4,292,060

[Novine]

"What's bizarre is the fact that you don't understand that the populations didn't just die, it moved to the suburbs."

It moved to the suburbs. It's not in the city. Why is MDOT widening freeways in the city to accomodate congestion for a freeway built for a city with over two times the population as today. Bizarre.

[GP For Life]

"What's bizarre is the fact that you don't understand that the populations didn't just die, it moved to the suburbs."

It moved to the suburbs. It's not in the city. Why is MDOT widening freeways in the city to accomodate congestion for a freeway built for a city with over two times the population as today. Bizarre.

The city is still, bizarrely, in the middle of everything.

One point I'd like to make too, is that in the next 20 years cars are going to be driving themselves. All this debate is probably moot.

[GP For Life]

1970	4,307,470		14.5%
1980	4,353,365		1.1%
1990	4,382,299		0.7%
2000	4,452,557		1.6%
2010	4,296,250		−3.5%
Est. 2012	4,292,060

Thanks. When I cite this, should I just put "mysterious data table from an internet forum"?

[313WX]

Thanks. When I cite this, should I just put "mysterious data table from an internet forum"?

It's US Census data.

[iheartthed]

3. There is also no known direct relationship between roadway capacity and wealth of a region. If there were, I would expect housing prices in Kansas City to far outpace those in San Francisco, as an example.

For what it's worth:

This is fascinating. Using data from the FHWA, the esteemed Patrick Kennedy at Network blog Walkable Dallas Fort Worth has cobbled together a list of the American cities with the highest number of estimated highway lane miles per capita.See if you notice any similarities [[this is per 1,000 people):

1. Kansas City – 1.262
2. St Louis – 1.070
3. Houston – .822
4. Cleveland – .816
5. Columbus – .779
6. San Antonio – .759
7. Jacksonville – .745
8. Providence – .742
9. Pittsburgh – .731
10. Baltimore – .724
11. DFW – .719

“It’s like a who’s who of decaying or soon to decay cities,” says Kennedy.
Now let’s look at Kennedy’s list of the ten cities with the least highway miles per capita:

1. Chicago
2. Tampa/St.Pete – wouldn’t want too many octogenarians out on the road anyway.
3. Miami – surprising. No worries, MIA will rectify this as soon as they expand I-95 to 40 lanes [[this was really once an idea).
4. NYC/Newark
5. Portland
6. Sacramento
7. Phoenix
8. LA
9. Philly
10. DC

It’s not a perfect sync, and the data is rough around the edges, but in general the cities in the second group seem to be faring much better than the first group.

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

It's not a purely scientific analysis, but it's hard to ignore that the first list is well represented by cities with struggling urban centers compared to the second list.

[Novine]

"The city is still, bizarrely, in the middle of everything. "

And yet it's not. The middle of the Metro MSA is probably around Pontiac. As some know, Detroit's unusual for having its core city on the periphery of the MSA.

[Hermod]

"The city is still, bizarrely, in the middle of everything. "

And yet it's not. The middle of the Metro MSA is probably around Pontiac. As some know, Detroit's unusual for having its core city on the periphery of the MSA.

I believe the geographic center is close to the intersection of Big Beaver and Crooks Road. Great place for the government center complex of the new city of "Greater Detroit"

[DetroitPlanner]

I believe the geographic center is close to the intersection of Big Beaver and Crooks Road. Great place for the government center complex of the new city of "Greater Detroit"

You must not get south or west much. I would put it about Rosedale Park or Old Redford.

The MSA is product of convenient geography. Washtenaw has a lot more interaction with Wayne County than Lapeer does. Essex County is ignored by the Census bureau as well.

While it is true Detroit's population has shrank, its importance to trade has grown over the same period of time. In addition, other modes to move freight around [[rail) has been abandoned at an alarming rate. This abandonment has created some opportunity for rail trails like the Dequindre Cut or Paint Creek trail, but has also put added importance on freeways for the movement of goods.

[ghettopalmetto]

While it is true Detroit's population has shrank, its importance to trade has grown over the same period of time. In addition, other modes to move freight around [[rail) has been abandoned at an alarming rate. This abandonment has created some opportunity for rail trails like the Dequindre Cut or Paint Creek trail, but has also put added importance on freeways for the movement of goods.

So why does I-94 need more than twice as many lanes as the Ohio Turnpike? And if the widening is to accommodate increased international trade [[something not acknowledged in the MDOT studies of the 1990s), then why isn't I-94 being widened all the way to Port Huron?

[Gistok]

So why does I-94 need more than twice as many lanes as the Ohio Turnpike? And if the widening is to accommodate increased international trade [[something not acknowledged in the MDOT studies of the 1990s), then why isn't I-94 being widened all the way to Port Huron?

Some of your arguments and questions show a lack of understanding due to you not living here... but I-94 isn't widened to Port Huron for a good reason... any truck traffic coming from the west would just as soon rather skip the freeway congestion of Detroit altogether... and take I-69 past Lansing and Flint to Port Huron [[where both I-69 and I-94 merge and end) and cross over to Canada and take the 402 Freeway, rather than the slower route into Detroit and cross over to Canada and take the 401 Freeway.

All the truck traffic coming north from Ohio takes the Detroit route to Canada, and would avoid taking an extra hour to travel [[via I-94) to Port Huron. So the Detroit and Port Huron crossings into Canada basically cover different customers.

I would question any study of the 1990s MDOT that don't take into consideration the effect of the implementation of NAFTA and the completion of I-69.

[ghettopalmetto]

Some of your arguments and questions show a lack of understanding due to you not living here... but I-94 isn't widened to Port Huron for a good reason... any truck traffic coming from the west would just as soon rather skip the freeway congestion of Detroit altogether... and take I-69 past Lansing and Flint to Port Huron [[where both I-69 and I-94 merge and end) and cross over to Canada and take the 402 Freeway, rather than the slower route into Detroit and cross over to Canada and take the 401 Freeway.

All the truck traffic coming north from Ohio takes the Detroit route to Canada, and would avoid taking an extra hour to travel [[via I-94) to Port Huron. So the Detroit and Port Huron crossings into Canada basically cover different customers.

I would question any study of the 1990s MDOT that don't take into consideration the effect of the implementation of NAFTA and the completion of I-69.

I understand these concepts perfectly fine. What I don't understand is why the justification for these projects keeps changing. One day, it's Congestion Relief. The next day, it's Increased International Trade. The next, we're supposed to believe that these widenings will lead to increased investment in Detroit. In any case, it's not clear why this decision has been made based on outdated, incorrect data. Empirical evidence doesn't suggest that this $4 billion investment will address any of these.

And now that you raise the point, why isn't the Fisher Freeway being widened to accommodate a presumed increase in truck traffic from industrialized Northern Ohio through Detroit and into Canada? And how is the segment of I-75 in Oakland County, but not within the City of Detroit, related to International Trade?

I question any study commissioned by MDOT on principle, because no matter what a study finds, the recommendation is *always* to widen the roadway. As far as government agencies go, they're a one-trick pony, and it's really a hallmark of piss-poor engineering.

[Brian1979]

"The city is still, bizarrely, in the middle of everything. "

And yet it's not. The middle of the Metro MSA is probably around Pontiac. As some know, Detroit's unusual for having its core city on the periphery of the MSA.

If you are talking geographic center I doubt it's Pontiac, it'd be more like Ferndale or somewheres near there.

[Brian1979]

Coming from Chicago to Toronto my GPS even tells me to take I-69 through Lansing, Flint and Port Huron instead of taking I-94 through Detroit and I would take that way every time if I had to make that trip.

[Detroitnerd]

I question any study commissioned by MDOT on principle, because no matter what a study finds, the recommendation is *always* to widen the roadway. As far as government agencies go, they're a one-trick pony, and it's really a hallmark of piss-poor engineering.

MDOT studies. Hahahaha. The same MDOT whose study determined that Michigan's extra-heavy trucks do not do any extra damage to Michigan's roads. ...

[Bham1982]

For what it's worth:

It's not a purely scientific analysis, but it's hard to ignore that the first list is well represented by cities with struggling urban centers compared to the second list.

Houston, the biggest boomtown in the U.S., is on List 1, and Chicago, second worst population loss in U.S., heads List 2. What am I missing?

And no one is talking about new freeways. We're talking about fixing existing freeways, which they do in every metro area, from NYC to SF.

[ghettopalmetto]

And no one is talking about new freeways. We're talking about fixing existing freeways, which they do in every metro area, from NYC to SF.

No one is arguing against safety improvements, bridge repairs, and resurfacing of the existing roadways. So I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion.

What people *are* arguing against is the creation of new, unnecessary, expensive-to-maintain pavement and the demolition of bridges that connect Detroit's neighborhoods on either side of I-94.

[Bham1982]

No one is arguing against safety improvements, bridge repairs, and resurfacing of the existing roadways. So I'm not sure how you're drawing this conclusion.

What people *are* arguing against is the creation of new, unnecessary, expensive-to-maintain pavement and the demolition of bridges that connect Detroit's neighborhoods on either side of I-94.

The former [[capacity improvements) are done in all U.S. metros. Even in NYC, the Van Wyck Expressway had capacity added when it was recently renovated.

And the latter can probably be resolved through community negotiations. It's reasonable to think that neighborhoods which have lost 95% of their population and pedestrians do not need as many crossings as 60 years ago.

[iheartthed]

Houston, the biggest boomtown in the U.S., is on List 1, and Chicago, second worst population loss in U.S., heads List 2. What am I missing?

You might be missing a little bit of foresight. Detroit was once the biggest boomtown in the U.S. too. It didn't handle it well after that growth spigot abruptly shut off due to bad planning decisions.

And no one is talking about new freeways. We're talking about fixing existing freeways, which they do in every metro area, from NYC to SF.

You're talking about adding freeway lanes. They don't do that in NYC, and I assume not in SF either.

[Bham1982]

You might be missing a little bit of foresight. Detroit was once the biggest boomtown in the U.S. too. It didn't handle it well after that growth spigot abruptly shut off due to bad planning decisions.

I can't predict the future. The point is that the "sprawl cities" list has generally kicked the ass of the "density cities" list. There are a few exceptions, like NYC and SF.

You're talking about adding freeway lanes. They don't do that in NYC, and I assume not in SF either.

They absolutely do add lanes in NYC, SF, and other places. They do it all the time. The Van Wyck was just widened in parts.

[Novine]

Let's see if I can think of any differences between NYC, SF and Detroit....urban centers, no, that's not it....lack of transit...well, that's one difference....oh wait, I know - population growth! SF has seen population growth every decade since 1980. Same with NYC! Detroit - it's lost over 50% of its population since its historic high in the 1950s. But we need to expand the freeways to add capacity because, well, because we can!

[Detroitnerd]

They absolutely do add lanes in NYC, SF, and other places! They do it all the time! The Van Wyck was just widened in parts! LALALALALALALALA!!!

[Bham1982]

Let's see if I can think of any differences between NYC, SF and Detroit....urban centers, no, that's not it....lack of transit...well, that's one difference....oh wait, I know - population growth! SF has seen population growth every decade since 1980. Same with NYC! Detroit - it's lost over 50% of its population since its historic high in the 1950s. But we need to expand the freeways to add capacity because, well, because we can!

Detroit's population is flat, not declining. Specific city boundaries are irrelevant to actual regional population, which has been flat at 5 million or so for a while.

Vehicle miles traveled have grown considerably, though. Vehicle miles traveled is a better metric than population to measure road capacity needs.