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

[DetroitPlanner]

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.

Interesting that you loving the D so much you blame it for its own problems while ignoring the impact that automation and an international marketplace has had on the economic conditions of our home.

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

An even better metric is VMT per-capita, which normalizes for population change:

"Miles traveled by vehicle per capita in the United States has dropped for the eighth year in a row. According to the Federal Highway Administration, per capita vehicle-miles traveled decreased by 0.4 percent in 2012. While vehicle-miles traveled per person reached an all-time high in 2004, it has declined each year following — for a total decrease of 7.5 percent. "

http://www.motherearthnews.com/green...#axzz2o2aamNsB

The only reason VMT would increase in the Detroit area, with its flat population growth over the past 40 years, is because sprawling development has necessitated longer car trips to accomplish tasks incidental to daily life.

[DetroitPlanner]

You can talk about population or VMT all you want but the fact is that I-94 is congested for hours every day, not just during the peak hours, but during non-peak as well. Much of this congestion is not because of cars, but because of trucks carrying the goods that we make to markets across N America [[meaning jobs for Detroiters). Geometric improvements can reduce the congestion leading to improvements for the regional economy and local air-quality [[cars not moving waste fuel and also emit more pollutants).

For I-75, the impact on air quality will be even greater because the additional lane will be available only to carpoolers as well as buses. This will also mean less of a demand for parking spaces downtown which will lead to less parking needed in the CBD.

[Detroitnerd]

Six months after this multibillion-dollar boondoggle is done in twenty frickin' years, the freeway will ... be congested. Then we can call for another round of multibillion-dollar expansion that will tie up the freeway for another 30 years.

"When you seek to solve a problem by deepening and expanding the problem, you can tell a deep-seated process is at work." -Lewis Mumford

[DetroitPlanner]

Six months after this multibillion-dollar boondoggle is done in twenty frickin' years, the freeway will ... be congested. Then we can call for another round of multibillion-dollar expansion that will tie up the freeway for another 30 years.

"When you seek to solve a problem by deepening and expanding the problem, you can tell a deep-seated process is at work." -Lewis Mumford

B.S. Latent demand argument. If this was true then Harper, Warren and Grand Blvd would be full of congestion right now. It ain't there.

[Detroitnerd]

B.S. Latent demand argument. If this was true then Harper, Warren and Grand Blvd would be full of congestion right now. It ain't there.

No, it's called induced demand. So, you know, on this topic, you totally don't know what you're talking about.

Why you ever put "planner" in your handle is a complete mystery to many of us on this forum who call you on your nonsensical and retrograde views.

[Bham1982]

No, it's called induced demand. So, you know, on this topic, you totally don't know what you're talking about.

Why you ever put "planner" in your handle is a complete mystery to many of us on this forum who call you on your nonsensical and retrograde views.

I have taken graduate-level courses on the general subject [[including with Vukan Vuchic, a leading scholar on the topic) and this whole thread is the most absurd and contradictory interpretation of induced demand imaginable.

The theory, as promoted by DYes, appears to be "all road capacity improvements are useless as they do nothing for congestion". So a dirt road has the same utility as a 40-lane highway.

And, of course, the corollary of "increased highway usage post-improvements is a sign of the lack of need for such improvements, but in the case of transit, no such rules apply".

[Wesley Mouch]

I have taken graduate-level courses on the general subject [[including with Vukan Vuchic, a leading scholar on the topic) and this whole thread is the most absurd and contradictory interpretation of induced demand imaginable.

The theory, as promoted by DYes, appears to be "all road capacity improvements are useless as they do nothing for congestion". So a dirt road has the same utility as a 40-lane highway.

And, of course, the corollary of "increased highway usage post-improvements is a sign of the lack of need for such improvements, but in the case of transit, no such rules apply".

You apparently didn't take the 'group think' course. If you had, they would have wired your brain to believe the most popular theory in your peer group. Please report to the medical lab immediately. Make sure you shave your head first.

I am NOT a proponent of freeways uber alles, but they are an important part of our present transportation mix that is delivering good and workers that create wealth. People here swoon on about making Detroit a paradise of progressive thinking, and then they opposed basic improvements to freeways because Kuntzler et. al. sold them on the induced demand argument. It sounds so good, too. And there's truth to it.

Look at M59. The expansion induced demand there IMO. The result is congestion at many times -- but what the brainwashed here ignore is that in spite of the congestion, the economic activity has increased as well. That is the goal. Economic activity. Jobs. Commerce. Trade.

Bring it all on. Congestion and all.

[ghettopalmetto]

Bham1982 may have taken a class with the esteemed Professor Vukic, but apparently it wasn't his public transportation systems course, which is his area of expertise.

I've taken a "transportation" course too, and I can tell you that roadway engineering is plug-and-chug. Take traffic counts. Compare to theoretical capacity. Plug, chug. Recommend adding lanes. It's garbage-in, garbage-out engineering. Any engineer worth his P.E. licensure knows that changing FACTS may produce a different conclusion, and must reassess his findings in the face of these changed FACTS. To do otherwise removes any pretense of objectivity.

I am NOT a proponent of freeways uber alles, but they are an important part of our present transportation mix that is delivering good and workers that create wealth.

So how is it, then, that Detroit is one of the poorest large cities in the United States? Am I just not seeing all the wealth that the existing freeways have created?

People here swoon on about making Detroit a paradise of progressive thinking, and then they opposed basic improvements to freeways because Kuntzler et. al. sold them on the induced demand argument. It sounds so good, too. And there's truth to it.

A $4 billion expansion project is NOT a "basic improvement".

Look at M59. The expansion induced demand there IMO. The result is congestion at many times -- but what the brainwashed here ignore is that in spite of the congestion, the economic activity has increased as well. That is the goal. Economic activity. Jobs. Commerce. Trade.

The economic activity and congestion on M-59 have merely been DISPLACED from inner ring suburbs, just as it was previously DISPLACED from downtown Detroit. You're not creating wealth--you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[DetroitPlanner]

No, it's called induced demand. So, you know, on this topic, you totally don't know what you're talking about.

Why you ever put "planner" in your handle is a complete mystery to many of us on this forum who call you on your nonsensical and retrograde views.

Once again I call BS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand Look it up. It is the same dammed thing. Most professionals use latent as induced is more the pull of the market, not the actual traffic.
http://americandreamcoalition.org/hi...tentdemand.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Latent-Demand-.../dp/B0010SGW26
http://www.planetizen.com/node/63198
http://www.worldbank.org/transport/r...s/apbinduc.pdf
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/e...veddemand.html
http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org...cusm_cnu18.pdf

Lets look at induced/latent demand and this corridor.

Your assumption is "If they build it, they will come". All transportation modes with increased capacity will lead to evenually being filled to the brim again aligns with your arguement. Suppose I want to build a BRT from farms of Western Canton Township to Novi and Ten Mile Road. The transportation model says that it will be a dog. Common sense says it will be a dog, but induced/latent demand theories tell me I should go ahead and approve this.

Should I be shocked if this project is a dog? Hmm Induced/Latent demand says that if we build something, soon we will have it filled to capacity! Pretty dumb eh? Lets be honest and look at attractors [[destinations) and begining points [[origins). We know that I-94 is congested now. We want more jobs in the City right? We want others to buy the goods made here as it leads to spin offs. We know that NAFTA has expanded our market quite a bit and we no longer have the amount of freight on rail. We know that Detroit is a key point linking Mexico, USA, and Canada. We also know that we have people here making parts that get used all over the NAFTA area. Now we want to compete for as many of the jobs that are going through our City and our region right?

In order for induced demand to work along this stretch of I-94 you would need to have lots of traffic on Warren, Harper, and Grand Blvd. This is simply not the case. All of the traffic on those roads are heading to destinations on those roads and few eventually end up on this segment of I-94 currently.

Face it you don't like it because you don't understand it. You're like a child who does not like broccoli so you whine hoping that mommy won't make it for you anymore. The problem is, you don't know whats good for you or your neighbors.

[ghettopalmetto]

Lets look at induced/latent demand and this corridor.

Your assumption is "If they build it, they will come". All transportation modes with increased capacity will lead to evenually being filled to the brim again aligns with your arguement. Suppose I want to build a BRT from farms of Western Canton Township to Novi and Ten Mile Road. The transportation model says that it will be a dog. Common sense says it will be a dog, but induced/latent demand theories tell me I should go ahead and approve this.

That's a straw man argument. Transit fails miserably when it is implemented in areas that are not walkable and pedestrian-friendly. This thread is about freeways, i.e. driving. There is no latent demand for transit when you have a government agency willing to lay pavement willy-nilly across the metropolis at no cost to the user.

Should I be shocked if this project is a dog? Hmm Induced/Latent demand says that if we build something, soon we will have it filled to capacity! Pretty dumb eh? Lets be honest and look at attractors [[destinations) and begining points [[origins).

Well, I think I-275, I-696 and M-59 illustrate this concept pretty well, even before the "attractors" were constructed, wouldn't you say?

We know that I-94 is congested now. We want more jobs in the City right? We want others to buy the goods made here as it leads to spin offs. We know that NAFTA has expanded our market quite a bit and we no longer have the amount of freight on rail. We know that Detroit is a key point linking Mexico, USA, and Canada. We also know that we have people here making parts that get used all over the NAFTA area. Now we want to compete for as many of the jobs that are going through our City and our region right?

Except the I-94 expansion was hatched well before the second bridge was conceived. And even MDOT has not acknowledged "International Trade" as the purpose of the widening. Instead, they cite "Congestion Relief"...even as Vehicle Miles Travelled has decreased since 2004.

It reasons that, as I've stated multiple times, if the widening is conducted to facilitate International Trade, then why is the Fisher Freeway not being widened to allow increased truck traffic en route from Canada to Ohio? Especially since the Fisher has a direct connection to the border, and um, I-94 does not. Is I-96 being widened from the bridge to I-94 to handle all this increased International Trade you foresee? If not, then there's going to be one hell of a bottleneck in the network, isn't there? If the widened I-94 and I-75 are to handle increased truck traffic, then let's see MDOT designate the brand-new lanes as "Truck Only" lanes. Sound like a reasonable idea?

In order for induced demand to work along this stretch of I-94 you would need to have lots of traffic on Warren, Harper, and Grand Blvd. This is simply not the case. All of the traffic on those roads are heading to destinations on those roads and few eventually end up on this segment of I-94 currently.

This is not how it works in real life. What has happened in the past is this: I-96 is constructed, Grand River loses traffic. I-94 is constructed, Michigan Avenue loses traffic. I-75 and the Lodge are constructed, Woodward loses traffic. Those main surface roads operate well below capacity. Adding lanes to the freeways, thus encouraging more traffic on the freeways, will tend to make the surface roads even *more* underutilized. This is an inefficient allocation of assets, as you are creating more pavement to shift traffic from the "slow" roadways to the [[theoretically) "fast" roadways. Those vehicles taken off the main roadways represent commerce to local businesses along the route that are now sped through town at 70 mph. All you have to do is drive along Grand River to see all the great "economic development" that takes place after a freeway "improvement".

It was once thought by engineers that the construction of I-75 would permanently solve all of Detroit's traffic congestion problems. If that hasn't worked, why will more of the same work? While those engineers may have been wrong, they had every reason to believe their models were correct. We now know that those models were very incorrect. We're the stupid ones for refusing to acknowledge empirical data and learn the lessons of the past 60 years.

[canuck]

You apparently didn't take the 'group think' course. If you had, they would have wired your brain to believe the most popular theory in your peer group. Please report to the medical lab immediately. Make sure you shave your head first.

I am NOT a proponent of freeways uber alles, but they are an important part of our present transportation mix that is delivering good and workers that create wealth. People here swoon on about making Detroit a paradise of progressive thinking, and then they opposed basic improvements to freeways because Kuntzler et. al. sold them on the induced demand argument. It sounds so good, too. And there's truth to it.

Look at M59. The expansion induced demand there IMO. The result is congestion at many times -- but what the brainwashed here ignore is that in spite of the congestion, the economic activity has increased as well. That is the goal. Economic activity. Jobs. Commerce. Trade.

Bring it all on. Congestion and all.

You may be right; but for a lot of others on this forum, a streetcar is a choo choo train to nowhere and that is where the End of the Line for Detroit is.

If the ideal of personal mobility by car is restored due to new technologies that make mass transit redundant, then there is a case to be made for evermore expansive highways. Flying on airliners is a form of mass transit too, and apart from the obvious jetsetting clichés, your business traveler until recently still felt packed like a sardine on most flights.

[Hermod]

You may be right; but for a lot of others on this forum, a streetcar is a choo choo train to nowhere and that is where the End of the Line for Detroit is.

If the ideal of personal mobility by car is restored due to new technologies that make mass transit redundant, then there is a case to be made for evermore expansive highways. Flying on airliners is a form of mass transit too, and apart from the obvious jetsetting clichés, your business traveler until recently still felt packed like a sardine on most flights.

But Detroitnerd has already told us that his choo choo will be sleek modern cars with comfortable sets, wifi, and elegant stations. The Detroit lumpen proletariat will be so awed by the atmosphere on the cars that they will behave with impeccable decorum.

Attachment 22279

Attachment 22280

Attachment 22281

[iheartthed]

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.

When was the Van Wyck widened?

[DetroitPlanner]

When was the Van Wyck widened?

If you google it you can find out all sorts of stuff about it.

[Novine]

Funny how you insist that induced demand won't occur because of lack of traffic on adjoining roadways. But induced demand isn't about existing traffic, it's about new traffic generated due to increased capacity and the induced traffic may not even exist today. To quote from Wikipedia as it was listed first.


"Induced traffic occurs when new automobile trips are generated. This can occur when people choose to travel by car instead of public transport, or decide to travel when they otherwise would not have."

That's one of the key reasons why road expansions almost never reduce congestion over the long-term. Detroit may be the lone exception. The freeway builders got their way over the years, destroying and bisecting swaths of the city and facilitating the suburban exodus of people and jobs. If you destroy enough of the urban form, eventually your road widenings will result in less congestion.

[That Great Guy]

Funny how you insist that induced demand won't occur because of lack of traffic on adjoining roadways. But induced demand isn't about existing traffic, it's about new traffic generated due to increased capacity and the induced traffic may not even exist today. To quote from Wikipedia as it was listed first.


"Induced traffic occurs when new automobile trips are generated. This can occur when people choose to travel by car instead of public transport, or decide to travel when they otherwise would not have."

That's one of the key reasons why road expansions almost never reduce congestion over the long-term. Detroit may be the lone exception. The freeway builders got their way over the years, destroying and bisecting swaths of the city and facilitating the suburban exodus of people and jobs. If you destroy enough of the urban form, eventually your road widenings will result in less congestion.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...RO08/312020125

I posted this because IF I'm going to agree to paying more taxes, then I do not want these freeways in their present form. They come at the cost of public bus service reductions and forced transportation tax increases.

[KOMPOST]

I have taken graduate-level courses on the general subject [[including with Vukan Vuchic, a leading scholar on the topic) and this whole thread is the most absurd and contradictory interpretation of induced demand imaginable.

The theory, as promoted by DYes, appears to be "all road capacity improvements are useless as they do nothing for congestion". So a dirt road has the same utility as a 40-lane highway.

And, of course, the corollary of "increased highway usage post-improvements is a sign of the lack of need for such improvements, but in the case of transit, no such rules apply".

I didn't extract that message from opponents of this expansion at all.
In fact, I believe I read a few actually agree with IMPROVEMENTS of I-94.
It seems you have resorted to outright dishonesty in this argument. Any reason why?
Just an objective observation.

[Wesley Mouch]

...To quote from Wikipedia as it was listed first.

"Induced traffic occurs when new automobile trips are generated. This can occur when people choose to travel by car instead of public transport, or decide to travel when they otherwise would not have."

I'm a fan of Wikipedia, but I may have to submit to them on this one. I agree with what they've said, but I think induced demand also results from shifting not just WHEN they otherwise would not have but also WHERE they otherwise would have have. Traffic isn't static -- and the existence of better roads also pulls people to new destinations.

That's one of the key reasons why road expansions almost never reduce congestion over the long-term. Detroit may be the lone exception. The freeway builders got their way over the years, destroying and bisecting swaths of the city and facilitating the suburban exodus of people and jobs. If you destroy enough of the urban form, eventually your road widenings will result in less congestion.

I once heard someone way the every place in the world has the expression 'If you don't like our weather, wait 10 minutes, and it'll change'. Likewise, I believe every city's new urbanists think that their city is the only place where freeway building destroyed their city. Same for sprawl. It was pretty much universal in American cities. Or for that matter Canadian. Look at Toronto. I remember the 401 through Toronto has not being much different than through London. Its no longer 2 or 3 lanes. Its now about 50 or 80 lanes each way. Did this 'induce' demand?

[Cliffy]

I didn't extract that message from opponents of this expansion at all.
In fact, I believe I read a few actually agree with IMPROVEMENTS of I-94.
It seems you have resorted to outright dishonesty in this argument. Any reason why?
Just an objective observation.

No, he's right. The people on this board with this messed up concept of induced demand think that an alley can carry the same capacity as 696. They don't realize numerous things like how fucking dangerous I-94 is with those left turn lanes [[Try going from I-75 to I-94 to M-10 and see how fun and safe that is), the fact the geometrics absolutely blow on I-94, the fact that the fhwa is going to pay 90% of the project, the fact that the east side of Detroit along I-94 looks worse than Chernobyl, etc... These people remind me of those tea party people. Going the opposite way of progress.

[Wesley Mouch]

...So how is it, then, that Detroit is one of the poorest large cities in the United States? Am I just not seeing all the wealth that the existing freeways have created?

Palmo, there are some other factors too. Freeways may be necessary, but they are not sufficient. Wealth is the result of many good decisions. Not just this one. We made too many bad decisions -- like putting all our eggs in the auto industry. And supporting council candidates who played the race card when they should have engaged their brains and led. But you know all that.

A $4 billion expansion project is NOT a "basic improvement".

Why not? It is improving things. Its hardly a new freeway. I suppose we could spar on basic -- but I think we can agree that we'll get more than we need here. But I'm in favor of basic. MDOT will probably go a little too far.

The economic activity and congestion on M-59 have merely been DISPLACED from inner ring suburbs, just as it was previously DISPLACED from downtown Detroit. You're not creating wealth--you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Your point is correct. We should have had better financial iceberg spotters.

There's no doubt Hall Road has economic activity. Whether we could have obtained the same activity in the inner rings is a valid discussion. I lean towards your idea on this. But in the general case, the Hall Roads of the world do not always cannibalize their core cities/inner ring suburbs. I've been in terribly congested suburban Chicago suburbs with great roads and massive investment. There, the city survived.

I think the difference is how Detroit did not spot icebergs as well.

[iheartthed]

If you google it you can find out all sorts of stuff about it.

Actually, I did google it and did not see it come up in any major media source. I also watch the NY local news every morning and have never heard anything mentioned about a widening project on the Van Wyck. The only thing I do see are little neighborhood periodicals making mention of some $150M project on the Van Wyck... And if we're trying to compare that to what they're doing on I-94... C'mon man. You're talking apples to olives.

[Detroitnerd]

Face it you don't like it because you don't understand it. You're like a child who does not like broccoli so you whine hoping that mommy won't make it for you anymore. The problem is, you don't know whats good for you or your neighbors.

Ha! No, I know it all too well. I've lived in actual functioning cities and relied upon mass transit for my commutes 99 percent of the time. In fact, I see more than a little projection in your final-paragraph jab there. Might it be we're aware what you and others need and you're the kid who wants Mommy to serve you more jellybeans for breakfast, lunch and dinner? Hmmm?

[rb336]

There's no doubt Hall Road has economic activity. Whether we could have obtained the same activity in the inner rings is a valid discussion. I lean towards your idea on this. But in the general case, the Hall Roads of the world do not always cannibalize their core cities/inner ring suburbs. I've been in terribly congested suburban Chicago suburbs with great roads and massive investment. There, the city survived.

I think the difference is how Detroit did not spot icebergs as well.

Chicago is almost like three cities - the business district/loop area, the northern neighborhoods and the south side. the first two are functioning quite well - that is where the money is. The south side is a whole different kettle of fish that is, in many ways, in worse shape than a lot of Detroit

[Bham1982]

I didn't extract that message from opponents of this expansion at all.
In fact, I believe I read a few actually agree with IMPROVEMENTS of I-94.
It seems you have resorted to outright dishonesty in this argument. Any reason why?
Just an objective observation.

This definitely does not sound like an "objective observation" to me.

Can you cite one of these opponents in this thread, who apparently are not against freeway expansions per se, but only for I-75 and I-94? So they will support widenings of I-275 and I-696?

I have not read one such comment on this thread.