Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[Hermod]

No.

The reason the bridges don't figure into the plan is because the cut would be widened so drastically that pedestrian bridges would be very expensive to build. [[And also because MDOT's planners never thought they were very important anyway.)

Anyway, I know it's not a serious question. Just Old Man Hermod trying to start trouble at the pickle barrel.

We are going to four lanes which is 48 feet plus a 4 foot inside shoulder and an 8 foot outside shoulder which is a sixty foot maximum clear span from one pier to another with two people abreast at four foot intervals or thirty people at, say, 180 pounds, which is 5400 pounds of live weight. Not much of a beam required for a sixty foot span at that weight. It is pretty cheap when considering the total cost of the widening.

[Detroitnerd]

We are going to four lanes which is 48 feet plus a 4 foot inside shoulder and an 8 foot outside shoulder which is a sixty foot maximum clear span from one pier to another with two people abreast at four foot intervals or thirty people at, say, 180 pounds, which is 5400 pounds of live weight. Not much of a beam required for a sixty foot span at that weight. It is pretty cheap when considering the total cost of the widening.

Well, I guess that goes to show just how important pedestrian crossings are to MDOT.

In fairness, not all of them are pedestrian-only. The Third Street bridge, which is vehicular, is slated to go away. I don't have it in front of me, but I think other vehicular bridges slated for removal include Cass, Second and Ferry. Not sure how the engineering numbers translate into budgetary numbers, but I'm guessing the prevailing attitude at MDOT is, "Fuck 'em."

Really, this plan wasn't created recently. It's an old plan from the 1990s they just dusted off and decided to implement, even though stuff has been built in the path of it since it was done. Well, now I'm just ranting.

[DetroitPlanner]

Well, I guess that goes to show just how important pedestrian crossings are to MDOT.

In fairness, not all of them are pedestrian-only. The Third Street bridge, which is vehicular, is slated to go away. I don't have it in front of me, but I think other vehicular bridges slated for removal include Cass, Second and Ferry. Not sure how the engineering numbers translate into budgetary numbers, but I'm guessing the prevailing attitude at MDOT is, "Fuck 'em."

Really, this plan wasn't created recently. It's an old plan from the 1990s they just dusted off and decided to implement, even though stuff has been built in the path of it since it was done. Well, now I'm just ranting.

See figures 13.2 - 13.5 that compare before and after.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,...2105--,00.html

While some bridges are being removed keep in mind that others are being added along service drives. For peds living in the McCoy apartments that may be taking classes at the Law School the new overlay will be a more direct route than taking the ped bridges across I-94, through Matthai, over the Lodge across Third then North.

Will things be different? Yes. I do however feel that those against the project are overstating the negative impacts and ignoring the positive ones.
In addition the City has always been a partner in this. I have no idea why you think MDOT has done this in a vacuum and is jamming it down everyone throghts. The City sees this as a way to get more jobs on the empty east side.

[professorscott]

The City sees this as a way to get more jobs on the empty east side.

Yes, because as everyone knows, jobs left the City because there aren't enough lanes on the expressways.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, because as everyone knows, jobs left the City because there aren't enough lanes on the expressways.

Ha! Instead of posting paragraphs, I think you did better in one sentence. Clearly, the establishment is grasping at straws to explain why we need this thing.

[Detroitnerd]

See figures 13.2 - 13.5 that compare before and after.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,...2105--,00.html

Yup, I've seen that, DP. It pretty much shows the land as it looked in 1995 or so, before the gleaming school was built, which will have to now be partly demolished. Before the other school was put there, which will now have speeding service drive traffic zooming past where kids will walk. It shows a plan drawn up in 1995 and with materials made in 1995, and they're STILL USING THOSE MATERIALS TO SELL THE PLAN? I mean, shit... that should be a fucking embarrassment to MDOT, but they don't give a shit enough to even update the plan to show the buildings they're going to demolish? Ugh...

While some bridges are being removed keep in mind that others are being added along service drives. For peds living in the McCoy apartments that may be taking classes at the Law School the new overlay will be a more direct route than taking the ped bridges across I-94, through Matthai, over the Lodge across Third then North.

That is cold comfort to the people living and owning homes on Fourth Street who've relied on the Third Street bridge to get them to Wayne State and the rest of the neighborhood. You know darn well that if you cut off a community in, say, Berkley, from the heart of the downtown district, they'd raise holy hell, and MDOT shouldn't be surprised this is what's happening right now.

Will things be different? Yes. I do however feel that those against the project are overstating the negative impacts and ignoring the positive ones.

Sure you do, because you don't know them and this project doesn't affect your quality of life at all. Yet, in a sense, I do agree that this project won't affect them that much because ... it's just not going to happen. Sorry. The genie is out of the bottle in Midtown, and MDOT is not going to be able to accomplish this in the face of a mid-city area that has money and political power. And with Duggan coming out against this abortion, I think you can safely kiss it bye-bye. The bridge rehabs will happen, yes, but the widening, I predict, will not.

In addition the City has always been a partner in this. I have no idea why you think MDOT has done this in a vacuum and is jamming it down everyone throghts. The City sees this as a way to get more jobs on the empty east side.

Now we're listening to the solons in Detroit city government, are we? Jesus, DP, I could provide a laundry list of all the obscenely ridiculous and wasteful bullshit the city of Detroit has been "on board with," including but not limited to the incinerator, taking out bonds to demolish Poletown, doing risky credit swaps, putting the retirement fund into shaky-ass bullshit, handing out tax abatements like candy while the budget goes into the red, and the fact that this unit of government is "on board with" this is supposed to SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT? Come on. If that's the best you can do ...

[ghettopalmetto]

We are going to four lanes which is 48 feet plus a 4 foot inside shoulder and an 8 foot outside shoulder which is a sixty foot maximum clear span from one pier to another with two people abreast at four foot intervals or thirty people at, say, 180 pounds, which is 5400 pounds of live weight. Not much of a beam required for a sixty foot span at that weight. It is pretty cheap when considering the total cost of the widening.

Yeah, 60 foot beams...those are cheap and easy. No big whoop. Just do some mathematical guesswork, post it on the internet, and all is good.

I mean, it's not like steel costs money or anything. I heard they recycle steel now, so maybe we can take some girders from an empty factory.

[Hermod]

Yeah, 60 foot beams...those are cheap and easy. No big whoop. Just do some mathematical guesswork, post it on the internet, and all is good.

I mean, it's not like steel costs money or anything. I heard they recycle steel now, so maybe we can take some girders from an empty factory.

It costs money. Nothing is free. It will cost one hell of a lot less to put up half a dozen or even a dozen pedestrian bridges than to replace one of the vehicular bridges they are removing. The live load on the pedestrian bridges isn't that much, you are pretty much designing around the dead load.

[ghettopalmetto]

It costs money. Nothing is free. It will cost one hell of a lot less to put up half a dozen or even a dozen pedestrian bridges than to replace one of the vehicular bridges they are removing. The live load on the pedestrian bridges isn't that much, you are pretty much designing around the dead load.

You know what costs even less? Not proceeding with the damned widening project in the first place. How's that for Value Engineering?

For a pedestrian bridge, you're looking at a live load of 100 psf [[equivalent to the self-weight of an 8" thick concrete slab). That's not my GUESS--that is the minimum requirement of ASCE-7.

Never mind that, at a 60-foot span, you have serious serviceability considerations [[deflections, vibrations). So go ahead--"pretty much" design around the dead load, and see how many people die. Engineering is a freaking piece of cake, right?

[RO_Resident]

It costs money. Nothing is free. It will cost one hell of a lot less to put up half a dozen or even a dozen pedestrian bridges than to replace one of the vehicular bridges they are removing. The live load on the pedestrian bridges isn't that much, you are pretty much designing around the dead load.

No, not really.

Bridges have huge costs for mobilization, abutments, and piers. The average cost of building a pedestrian bridge is typically 50 to 70 percent higher per square foot of deck area compared to the 'standard' bridge.

Bridges, in general, are expensive to build and maintain. Pedestrian bridges are surprisingly expensive to build.

[professorscott]

Bridges, in general, are expensive to build and maintain. Pedestrian bridges are surprisingly expensive to build.

I think, in the context of the overall project, pedestrian bridges aren't a major factor in the total expense, but the detail misses the larger and more important point.

You can design a city for people, or you can design it for cars. There does not seem to be any excellent "balance point" at which a city functions well for both people and cars. Detroit has gone full tilt, for a hundred and more years, in the "designing city for cars" direction. So there are lots of cars in Detroit - a great many, at any given time, simply driving through it - but there are only a bit more than a third as many people as there used to be.

And yet, here we are, deciding that what Detroit needs is to be a better city for cars than it already is. Astonishing. I would think, if you have touched the hot stove and hurt your hand enough times, eventually you would stop doing that. But I'd be wrong.

[Detroitnerd]

I think, in the context of the overall project, pedestrian bridges aren't a major factor in the total expense, but the detail misses the larger and more important point.

You can design a city for people, or you can design it for cars. There does not seem to be any excellent "balance point" at which a city functions well for both people and cars. Detroit has gone full tilt, for a hundred and more years, in the "designing city for cars" direction. So there are lots of cars in Detroit - a great many, at any given time, simply driving through it - but there are only a bit more than a third as many people as there used to be.

And yet, here we are, deciding that what Detroit needs is to be a better city for cars than it already is. Astonishing. I would think, if you have touched the hot stove and hurt your hand enough times, eventually you would stop doing that. But I'd be wrong.

"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

[Wesley Mouch]

I think, in the context of the overall project, pedestrian bridges aren't a major factor in the total expense, but the detail misses the larger and more important point.

You can design a city for people, or you can design it for cars. There does not seem to be any excellent "balance point" at which a city functions well for both people and cars. Detroit has gone full tilt, for a hundred and more years, in the "designing city for cars" direction. So there are lots of cars in Detroit - a great many, at any given time, simply driving through it - but there are only a bit more than a third as many people as there used to be.

And yet, here we are, deciding that what Detroit needs is to be a better city for cars than it already is. Astonishing. I would think, if you have touched the hot stove and hurt your hand enough times, eventually you would stop doing that. But I'd be wrong.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We did focus too much on automobiles. We need to include pedestrians and public transit in our future. That doesn't mean we should stop maintenance and improvements to roads.

Moderation in all things.

[Detroitnerd]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We did focus too much on automobiles. We need to include pedestrians and public transit in our future. That doesn't mean we should stop maintenance and improvements to roads.

Moderation in all things.

Nobody is saying stop maintenance to roads. What many are saying is that the "improvement" is unnecessary, expensive and, contrary to your first sentence, diametrically opposed to the mobility of pedestrians and cyclists.

You know what I hate these days more than anything else? Glibness. What you posted is precisely the kind of glib nonsense that infuriates me. You propose "moderation" even as you apparently line up behind a plan costing hundreds of millions of dollars that would mean some rather extreme changes.

Like, whatever, I'm going to say one thing and totally mean another and expect everybody to take me very seriously...

Pfftttt...