Freeway Removal in Detroit

[313WX]

Good riddance to GM. The auto companies have caused so much heartache for the city. Just let them evaporate like they are already doing naturally. They have most of their workers up in Warren already anyway.

Why don't you tell the millions upon millions of people who depend on GM for an income how you really feel about them?

[Gpwrangler]

Why don't you tell the millions upon millions of people who depend on GM for an income how you really feel about them?

Probably doesn't get out much. Maybe doesn't drive a car either.

[313WX]

I wonder what effect the dismantling of I375/I75 from the river to Eight Mile would have on the continuing presence of GM in the Ren Cen?

Well, suburbanites would be forced to drive IN the crime ridden, poverty-stricken neighborhoods instead of bypassing them like they do now.

So yeah, that idea won't fly.

[Scottathew]

Professor, fascinating link! What a great project for Rochester, NY. I would imagine many of the nearby residential properties will see a drastic increase in property value.

[Hermod]

Removal of the Chrysler and Lodge spurs are probably doable. I don' think the feds will let you screw round with 75 and 94 as through highways though.

[Hermod]

When they replace a bridge over 75 or 94, possibly make the bridge wider so that the retail strip in the crossing streets can be uninterrupted by the freeway. Not much you can do about the major freeway interchanges.

[Buttons]

The jobs would just move out of state to cities that provide freeways. Every city in America has freeways that take them out of downtown. How come Detroit and Cleveland is effected more than any other city?

[Detroitnerd]

The jobs would just move out of state to cities that provide freeways. Every city in America has freeways that take them out of downtown. How come Detroit and Cleveland is effected more than any other city?

Fixed-route mass transit promises continual investment. Rockefeller Center is there because below it is a hole in the ground from which 100,000 people an hour can emerge. They are able to fill the towers with workers, the shops with employees, and ensure a steady stream of customers all day long. Literally, 2 million people travel underneath the building on trains all day long.

You simply cannot move that intact to White Plains, N.Y. The amount of investment in Rockefeller Center and all the other buildings along the transit line prohibits easily removing that investment to another place. Therefore, the transit service remains a commitment and the businesses remain committed to the neighborhood along the line.

In Cleveland and Detroit, we've ripped up all our fixed-route transit, and have simply let developers build where it's most profitable to them, allowing developers to direct our regional planning entirely. They build on green fields far from the city, the jobs move there, more developers build more subdivisions in the proximity, and then the demands of the traffic force the state and regional agencies to shell out money to upgrade the roads. But it doesn't matter. Because 10, 15, 20 years down the line the development will have moved on to the next green field where more profits can be made. And the only thing that could have stopped this -- fixed-route transit -- was considered an outdated and silly idea.

[Buttons]

Fixed-route mass transit promises continual investment. Rockefeller Center is there because below it is a hole in the ground from which 100,000 people an hour can emerge. They are able to fill the towers with workers, the shops with employees, and ensure a steady stream of customers all day long. Literally, 2 million people travel underneath the building on trains all day long.

You simply cannot move that intact to White Plains, N.Y. The amount of investment in Rockefeller Center and all the other buildings along the transit line prohibits easily removing that investment to another place. Therefore, the transit service remains a commitment and the businesses remain committed to the neighborhood along the line.

In Cleveland and Detroit, we've ripped up all our fixed-route transit, and have simply let developers build where it's most profitable to them, allowing developers to direct our regional planning entirely. They build on green fields far from the city, the jobs move there, more developers build more subdivisions in the proximity, and then the demands of the traffic force the state and regional agencies to shell out money to upgrade the roads. But it doesn't matter. Because 10, 15, 20 years down the line the development will have moved on to the next green field where more profits can be made. And the only thing that could have stopped this -- fixed-route transit -- was considered an outdated and silly idea.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

Nice try, but here's what we really want to happen.

1) More mass transit means Detroit becomes more vital.

2) More vitality results in increased demand for Detroit, and more traffic.

3) Mass transit fills to capacity and riders demonstrate against the State for withholding funds,

4) Freeway use goes up because Detroit's the place to be, and drivers recall state legislators who refuse to spend the excess income tax revenue money created by Detroit's increased economy on roads.

[Hypestyles]

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

[Hermod]

Use of public transit for commuting

Such transit must be safe, convenient, and not too much longer than auto commuting.
Such transit must also have extended hours for when you have to be in the office early or have to work late.

[canuck]

In Los Angeles, the purple and red lines are the only two subway lines per se, so there are two sub lines and the rest are metrorail surface lines according to Wikipedia.

And, as Inestine used to say, two lines are better than one.

[Bham1982]

In Los Angeles, the purple and red lines are the only two subway lines per se, so there are two sub lines and the rest are metrorail surface lines according to Wikipedia.

And, as Inestine used to say, two lines are better than one.

That's one line. The current line goes to Hollywood, and then has an additional two stops dead-end. The Purple Line is a proposed line.

LA has 20 million people and one subway line. It's easily the most auto-dependent megacity on earth. There isn't another world city more associated with car culture.

[Bham1982]

In Los Angeles, the purple and red lines are the only two subway lines per se, so there are two sub lines and the rest are metrorail surface lines according to Wikipedia.

And, as Inestine used to say, two lines are better than one.

That's one line. And that one line has low ridership.The current line goes to Hollywood, and then has an additional two stops dead-end. The Purple Line is a proposed line.

LA has 20 million people and one subway line. It's easily the most auto-dependent megacity on earth. There isn't another world city more associated with car culture.

The remainder of LA's transit is overwhelmingly just buses. There are some light rail lines [[with low ridership) and a few commuter rail lines [[with ridiculously low ridership), but the system is overwhelmingly bus-oriented, with the busiest transit routes mostly buses.