Freeway Removal in Detroit

[Hermod]

If you're gonna spend billions on I94, make it count. Do all the work there, and kill the Fisher/I-75 that really cuts downtown apart.

I agree that 94 cutting through where it does is an atrocity. But one atrocity is better than two.

Detroit was built on a radial route design and all of the commercial horse car and electric trolley development by DUR and its predecessor companies was on the radial roads. Getting crosstown was a bitch. Hazen Pingree got some crosstown streetcars [[later bought by DUR) but they weren't optimal. When the auto came along, crosstown traffic was a real problem leading to the Davison Expressway development and later to the priority given to the Edsel Ford Expressway [[I-94).

[Detroitnerd]

This is different than simply removing freeways. New York does have freeways and sprawl across three states. There are freeways that can take you from White Plains to Manhattan. Most of the fastest growing cities in the US are more freeway centric.

That's right. Lots of places have freeways. But New York is one of those unusual cities that has an alternative arrangement: heavy investment in fixed-route mass transit. It provides a countervailing force that challenges sprawl and entropy. In other words: It provides a strong center.

Where is that strong center in Cleveland or Detroit?

Again, other advocates of rapid transit have said it time and again: "We want a choice. We don't want to HAVE to drive everywhere. If we're going to live in a city, we want some of the amenities of living in a city, namely, driving when we choose to."

And the urban design corollary to that is that we shouldn't have bent over backward over the last 50 years to ensure that downtown is completely surrounded by freeway. Maybe we can start replacing some of the street grid we lost to that overexuberance.

Of course, you can bet dollars to donuts they'll botch the job.

[Buttons]

That's right. Lots of places have freeways. But New York is one of those unusual cities that has an alternative arrangement: heavy investment in fixed-route mass transit. It provides a countervailing force that challenges sprawl and entropy. In other words: It provides a strong center.

Where is that strong center in Cleveland or Detroit?

Again, other advocates of rapid transit have said it time and again: "We want a choice. We don't want to HAVE to drive everywhere. If we're going to live in a city, we want some of the amenities of living in a city, namely, driving when we choose to."

And the urban design corollary to that is that we shouldn't have bent over backward over the last 50 years to ensure that downtown is completely surrounded by freeway. Maybe we can start replacing some of the street grid we lost to that overexuberance.

Of course, you can bet dollars to donuts they'll botch the job.

Manhattan is almost circled by freeways. I'm not against mass transit. Despite New York's mass transit, only about 50% of the population use it to commute to work. That is nearly 20% higher than the next closest city. Tearing out freeways is only going to make things worse. I can see removing 375 but freeways are still essential.

[Detroitnerd]

Manhattan is almost circled by freeways. I'm not against mass transit. Despite New York's mass transit, only about 50% of the population use it to commute to work. That is nearly 20% higher than the next closest city. Tearing out freeways is only going to make things worse. I can see removing 375 but freeways are still essential.

I'm not saying New York doesn't have freeways. I'm saying it has invested billions and billions of dollars in heavy, fixed-route rapid transit. When you asked what sets Cleveland and Detroit apart, being as they are at the bottom of the list of jobs in proximity to the people who need them, I pointed out that there is no real countervailing force to sprawl that develops surrounding farms and turns cities into ghettos. New York has a strong countervailing force that prevents the city from emptying out. So there ya go.

Limited access highways, which is what we're really talking about when we talk about freeways, are good modes for transportation between cities. The real crux here is that several generations of planners felt the need to hack through cities and build them in dense areas. And we're finding out that they're not so effective there, and cause a great deal of problems that were never anticipated.

Anxious about freeway removal? Take a look at some of the projects that have been done. Almost every time a freeway was removed, officials declared it was madness, that there would be a traffic snarl that would choke business and create endless delays. And yet, when the freeways were removed, people simply found other routes to take. Isn't that interesting? Here's a good website that documents several freeway removals, and the way the areas were redeveloped into parks and put back on the city tax rolls.

http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-demolit...ver-1548314937

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm not saying New York doesn't have freeways. I'm saying it has invested billions and billions of dollars in heavy, fixed-route rapid transit. ...

Wasn't the major early investment in NYC subways mostly private money, not government? Thus, it wasn't really NYC that invested.

[Buttons]

I'm not saying New York doesn't have freeways. I'm saying it has invested billions and billions of dollars in heavy, fixed-route rapid transit. When you asked what sets Cleveland and Detroit apart, being as they are at the bottom of the list of jobs in proximity to the people who need them, I pointed out that there is no real countervailing force to sprawl that develops surrounding farms and turns cities into ghettos. New York has a strong countervailing force that prevents the city from emptying out. So there ya go.

Limited access highways, which is what we're really talking about when we talk about freeways, are good modes for transportation between cities. The real crux here is that several generations of planners felt the need to hack through cities and build them in dense areas. And we're finding out that they're not so effective there, and cause a great deal of problems that were never anticipated.

Anxious about freeway removal? Take a look at some of the projects that have been done. Almost every time a freeway was removed, officials declared it was madness, that there would be a traffic snarl that would choke business and create endless delays. And yet, when the freeways were removed, people simply found other routes to take. Isn't that interesting? Here's a good website that documents several freeway removals, and the way the areas were redeveloped into parks and put back on the city tax rolls.

http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-demolit...ver-1548314937

Detroit never was and never will be New York. These developers hacked through neighborhoods in every major city in America. Half of those aren't even in the US.

[Detroitnerd]

Wasn't the major early investment in NYC subways mostly private money, not government? Thus, it wasn't really NYC that invested.

Yes, before the 1900s, and even into the 1930s, private entities [[with government leases and contracts) did much of the work now done by the public sector. But it was the public that paid out the money to buy these private efforts [[often at deep discounts) when they couldn't turn a profit anymore. So if a city had to bond out to buy a private system [[like Detroit did in 1921 to buy the Detroit United Railway), it still represents a significant public investment.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroit never was and never will be New York.

Nobody is saying Detroit is or will be New York. But if Detroit hopes to be a dense, walkable, appealing city in the future, it will need more than one mode of transportation -- the private vehicle -- with no other choices for those who make it their home.

These developers hacked through neighborhoods in every major city in America.

You may be confused. It wasn't the developers who hacked through neighborhoods, it was the highway planners. It was a bonanza for developers when freeways poured out into the beet fields of Troy. And, generally, the dense urban places where planners hacked through didn't fare very well. One of the most famous highway-builders, Robert Moses, described this when he said, "You can draw any kind of picture you want on a clean slate and indulge your every whim in the wilderness in laying out a New Delhi, Canberra, or Brasilia, but when you operate in an overbuilt metropolis, you have to hack your way with a meat ax." Unfortunately for Moses, most people regard hacking away at cities as with meat axes as a less than shining achievement.

Half of those aren't even in the US.

So? Is there something fundamentally different about the United States that makes freeing up land for development different? The fact is, the decommissioning of freeways in U.S. cities has shown success, without the doomsday traffic jams that were predicted by the "experts."

But if you would like to read exclusively about U.S. prospects for freeway removal. here's another link:

http://www.uctc.net/papers/763.pdf

That is, if you're interested in challenging your preconceptions about things.

[Bham1982]

So? Is there something fundamentally different about the United States that makes freeing up land for development different? The fact is, the decommissioning of freeways in U.S. cities has shown success, without the doomsday traffic jams that were predicted by the "experts."

Yes, the difference is that the U.S., excepting NYC, is almost entirely dominated by autos, and so auto-based mobility is essentially the only game in town. Transit is almost irrelevant to transportation planning [[though I do agree there should be some transit as there will always be households unable to use vehicles for financial or disability reasons).

Here's the Census data-
Between 2006 and 2010, the data show, the percentage of Americans driving to work alone rose from 76.0 percent to 76.6 percent. During the same period, the number of Americans taking public transportation rose just a tenth of a percentage point – but declined last year to 4.9 percent, down from 5.0 percent in 2009.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/285517-new...-is-different/

[Hermod]

the areas were redeveloped into parks and put back on the city tax rolls.

I was not under the impression that city parks contributed to the city tax rolls.

[Scottathew]

I'm with DetroitNerd, I'd like to start exploring options that involve mass transit. We're auto-oriented here because that what we implemented, an auto-oriented infrastructure.

I-375 is a slam-dunk for removal, it makes too much sense.

I would say the next step, before any more freeway removals, would be to heavily invest in mass-transit. Woodward is the obvious example to start on. Make work on Woodward from Pontiac to the river. Watch all the economic activity spur. All the communities along the line will see land values rise, especially for areas close to stations.

After that, then we can start to look at removing freeways that are redundant to this route. For example, I-75 from I-94 to the lodge.

We still need freeways, we just don't need as many of them, but first we mass transit in place before we can start taking away cars.

[Buttons]

Removing any part of 75 would be a disaster. With the new Canadian bridge going up, we would literally be building a bridge to nowhere.

[Scottathew]

Removing any part of 75 would be a disaster. With the new Canadian bridge going up, we would literally be building a bridge to nowhere.

That's not true. There would still be a freeway at both end of the bridge. The parts people have described removing are redundant parts. The big challenge is putting in the mass-transit options before removing the freeways.

Some people still won't choose mass transit until the freeways are reduced.

[Bham1982]

Some people still won't choose mass transit until the freeways are reduced.

People won't choose mass transit until you make it virtually impossible to drive. Until then, it's a fool's errand in the U.S. context.

Mass transit, outside of NYC, is overwhelmingly poor, non-choice riders. NYC is the exception because it's the one U.S. city where a car is more trouble than its worth, even if costs aren't a factor.

Removing freeways in Metro Detroit won't do a thing for transit ridership, because the riders aren't choice riders in the first place, and freeways play almost no role in their mobility.

[Gpwrangler]

Some people still won't choose mass transit until the freeways are reduced.

People who drive are not going to choose transit in its current state. Removing freeways will just move the traffic around. People need to get to their jobs, need to be able to go in at 4:30 am to finish a project, or get home after staying til midnight to get a machine running at the plant. It's great for those who can set their watch by their job, but won't work for many of us.

[Wheels]

That's not true. There would still be a freeway at both end of the bridge. The parts people have described removing are redundant parts. The big challenge is putting in the mass-transit options before removing the freeways.

Some people still won't choose mass transit until the freeways are reduced.

Can you please explain what mass transit has to do with moving truck traffic?

[Wesley Mouch]

People won't choose mass transit until you make it virtually impossible to drive. Until then, it's a fool's errand in the U.S. context.

Mass transit, outside of NYC, is overwhelmingly poor, non-choice riders. NYC is the exception because it's the one U.S. city where a car is more trouble than its worth, even if costs aren't a factor.

Removing freeways in Metro Detroit won't do a thing for transit ridership, because the riders aren't choice riders in the first place, and freeways play almost no role in their mobility.

I've ridden mass transit in most American cities. Most recently in LA and Atlanta and St. Louis. I did not find ridership to be 'overwhelmingly poor'. Working class perhaps, but not poor.

[Bham1982]

I've ridden mass transit in most American cities. Most recently in LA and Atlanta and St. Louis. I did not find ridership to be 'overwhelmingly poor'. Working class perhaps, but not poor.

And that's why we have the Census to actually do this work for us. Census shows that riders are disproportionately poor and non-choice.

How were you were able to ascertain household incomes by simply riding a bus or train? That makes no sense.

[ghettopalmetto]

And that's why we have the Census to actually do this work for us. Census shows that riders are disproportionately poor and non-choice.

How were you were able to ascertain household incomes by simply riding a bus or train? That makes no sense.

When your transit "system" is as half-assed as DDOT and SMART, *of course* it's going to be the means of last resort. If you go to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, DC--you know, cities that consciously *invest money in transit*--you'll find people of all stripes riding transit. But you won't learn that if you spend all your time tooling around cosmopolitan Birmingham, Michigan cooped-up in your car.

[Wesley Mouch]

And that's why we have the Census to actually do this work for us. Census shows that riders are disproportionately poor and non-choice.

How were you were able to ascertain household incomes by simply riding a bus or train? That makes no sense.

Bring on the data. I've quite curious.

As to my super-discrimination-skills, my methods will remain secret.

[Scottathew]

When your transit "system" is as half-assed as DDOT and SMART, *of course* it's going to be the means of last resort. If you go to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, DC--you know, cities that consciously *invest money in transit*--you'll find people of all stripes riding transit. But you won't learn that if you spend all your time tooling around cosmopolitan Birmingham, Michigan cooped-up in your car.

You make a good point, up until you attack him for being from Birmingham. Let's stick to debating the topics.

[Detroitnerd]

You make a good point, up until you attack him for being from Birmingham. Let's stick to debating the topics.

In all honesty, Bham has earned the privilege of being attacked for his absolute, effete, blinkered, antagonistic, snobbish Birminghamism.

[Scottathew]

Can you please explain what mass transit has to do with moving truck traffic?

Sure! Hopefully this won't sound condescending.

Cars and trucks both use the same roads. The roads are designed to accommodate both types of vehicles.

Trucks move goods.

Cars move people.

If our region invests heavily in mass transit, and people started favoring using mass transit instead of cars, then less people would use cars.

If less people use cars, then that means that less people are using freeways and streets, or at the very least using them more efficiently.

When there is less demand for our road network, then it doesn't need to be so robust and wide.


So, mass transit means less cars, less cars means the need for less freeways. We can get rid of some the redundant freeways, while still providing freeways for trucks to move goods. Many of the freeways in Detroit are very redundant, the trucks don't need that kind of redundancy because their goals are more long term, and the convenience of I-96 vs I-94 doesn't matter as long as it can get them to Chicago and beyond.

[ghettopalmetto]

You make a good point, up until you attack him for being from Birmingham. Let's stick to debating the topics.

As Detroitnerd alluded, it's not that he's from Birmingham. It's that he thinks Birmingham is the end-all-be-all ever-loving shit of the earth, and that any other way of being is simply wrong. The guy isn't interested in serious discussion.

[Hypestyles]

I wonder what does Detroit's new land planning czar think about issues like highway removal/reduction..