What if all the freeways within the city limits were turned into boulevards?

[EL Jimbo]

Detroit needs to focus on retaining the businesses and population that it still has...as well as attracting new ones... I don't think removing freeways will help in that regard.

And that, in my opinion, is where you are wrong.

[j to the jeremy]

Yeah for sure, we need human-scale development on existing streets, not more trenches leading to hypothetical casinos and modernist office blocks.

[iheartthed]

Ummm... that decision was already made for us 50 years ago... and no one has the money to change it anytime soon... especially since... on I-94 for example... EVERY SINGLE road overpass over I-94 [[east of Conner and west of I-96) has already been rebuilt in the last 10 years or so... with the Conner to I-96 portion either due for replacement or widening in case of a wider I-94 is approved.

Let's put this into perspecitive... hundreds of millions of Fed/State dollars have been spent rebuilding our aging freeway system in Detroit. So removal discussions make for an interesting... but otherwise pointless discussion.

Detroit needs to focus on retaining the businesses and population that it still has...as well as attracting new ones... I don't think removing freeways will help in that regard.

I disagree with you as well. All you're really saying to me is that Detroit is still focusing the design of its environment for cars and passersby rather than for the people and businesses who operate in the city... Well, more specifically MDOT is making these decisions. One day Detroit will realize, as nearly every other city has reversed/mitigated declines and losses of population, is that cities need people more than they need cars.

[Augustiner]

Excellent post. For the record I'm not suggesting we replace the exact same traffic volumes. As I've mentioned, There are currently several underutilized corridors that could handle the excess from the current freeway corridors losing capacity. The point I was making is that these massive right-of-ways that the existing freeways take up could easily accommodate an adequate amount of traffic to handle gridlock, transit, bike lanes, and sidewalk to create interesting opportunities to build the very unique environment you were mentioning.

I like the boulevard idea for some of the expressways; I think the Lodge and the Chrysler would be particularly well-suited to something like that, mostly because they actually ran them right down the middle of existing surface streets. I'm a little confused about how it would work in the case of the Jeffries or the Fisher, where you have a very wide parallel surface street right next to the expressway. It seems like converting that expressway to a surface street would give you two very wide arterial surface streets a half-block away from each other with a strip of commercial buildings in between, and I'm not sure that's ever been done before so I don't know how it would turn out.

[canuck]

Saw this interesting thing on planetizen and it made me wonder, what if we got rid of all the freeways East of 275 and south of 696 and turned them into boulevards? Do you think we would have gridlock? could it work? Would this be in the best interest of the city?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/48878

You should quit initiating new threads El Jimbo. Few seem to care about freeways vs boulevards in Detroit obviously. Only 4 pages in two days. Better luck next time though...

[EMG]

Would it also be in the best interest of the city to bring back horses and buggy-whips?

This is the age of the freeway, and has been for over 50 years, and the environmentalists are just going to have to get over it, already!

If anything, more boulevards need to be turned into freeways. Finishing up the original plan for Mound would be a good start.

[EL Jimbo]

I like the boulevard idea for some of the expressways; I think the Lodge and the Chrysler would be particularly well-suited to something like that, mostly because they actually ran them right down the middle of existing surface streets. I'm a little confused about how it would work in the case of the Jeffries or the Fisher, where you have a very wide parallel surface street right next to the expressway. It seems like converting that expressway to a surface street would give you two very wide arterial surface streets a half-block away from each other with a strip of commercial buildings in between, and I'm not sure that's ever been done before so I don't know how it would turn out.

There would be some issues of parallel routes, but I don't think it is major. The Jeffries parallels Grand River for approximately 3 miles with about 200 feet between them and the Fisher parallels Fort for 2.4 miles with about 300 feet between them. Other than that, there are some pretty sizable gaps between the two routes.

As far as those areas, it would be interesting. However, with that much access to major corridors on both sides of the block, perhaps those would be great spots to zone for high density uses that could be anchor developments for those neighborhoods. It would be an interesting question

[EL Jimbo]

Would it also be in the best interest of the city to bring back horses and buggy-whips?

This is the age of the freeway, and has been for over 50 years, and the environmentalists are just going to have to get over it, already!

If anything, more boulevards need to be turned into freeways. Finishing up the original plan for Mound would be a good start.

PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm. If so...hilarious.

[EMG]

PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm. If so...hilarious.

Ok, honest answer: I'd best describe it as "half and half."

I am, seriously, a proponent of freeways - I'm the type that would go miles out of my way to take a freeway route rather than a surface street - and this is not an indictment of neighborhoods I'm trying to avoid or anything like that, but simply a personal preference for freeway rather than surface street driving. I hate red lights and what is referred to as "high-impedence driving" with a passion. Seriously, psychologically, I'd rather be moving a constant 15 mph in rush hour traffic than waiting around at one red light after another even if the total commute time wound up in a draw.

I also [[seriously) hate using public transportation/"mass transit" - in every experience I've had with it it's been unreliable, unpredictable, and time-consuming. So as a personal matter I am dead set for one and against the other side of this argument. I would definitely see any move to actually close freeways and replace them with more high-red-light surface streets literally as stupid and unthinkable as throwing away my washing machine and investing in a washboard.

But, yes, I do deliberately dramatically overemphasize at times 'cause I just love to tick people off for the fun of it! And I do like to add humor where possible as well. Glad you enjoyed it!

[Augustiner]

Ok, honest answer: I'd best describe it as "half and half."

I am, seriously, a proponent of freeways - I'm the type that would go miles out of my way to take a freeway route rather than a surface street - and this is not an indictment of neighborhoods I'm trying to avoid or anything like that, but simply a personal preference for freeway rather than surface street driving. I hate red lights and what is referred to as "high-impedence driving" with a passion. Seriously, psychologically, I'd rather be moving a constant 15 mph in rush hour traffic than waiting around at one red light after another even if the total commute time wound up in a draw.

I also [[seriously) hate using public transportation/"mass transit" - in every experience I've had with it it's been unreliable, unpredictable, and time-consuming. So as a personal matter I am dead set for one and against the other side of this argument. I would definitely see any move to actually close freeways and replace them with more high-red-light surface streets literally as stupid and unthinkable as throwing away my washing machine and investing in a washboard.

But, yes, I do deliberately dramatically overemphasize at times 'cause I just love to tick people off for the fun of it! And I do like to add humor where possible as well. Glad you enjoyed it!

I'm not sure how your personal driving preferences are relevant to this thread, unless you think the reason the city of Detroit exists is to make your personal driving experience as pleasurable as possible.

[mwilbert]

Perhaps he thinks his personal driving preferences are not unique. He's probably right about that. I don't think those preferences are compatible with city life, but lots of people don't want to live in cities, and there are lots of places that aren't cities, so I don't see a problem.

[Augustiner]

Perhaps he thinks his personal driving preferences are not unique. He's probably right about that. I don't think those preferences are compatible with city life, but lots of people don't want to live in cities, and there are lots of places that aren't cities, so I don't see a problem.

Well, this thread is specifically about Detroit. If someone would like to put forth an argument that Detroit isn't a city, I'd be interested to hear it.

[Gistok]

I got a good chuckle out of EMGs comments. Heck I chose to live near the I-94/i-696 interchange for a reason... so that downtown, Southfield and Royal Oak are only a 20 minute ride away.

Do I feel guilty... well a little bit... but life is too short to be stuck in traffic... and I will say this... the freeways aren't what is killing Detroit... if they were, other cities would be in the same boat.

Detroit has other issues besides freeways that are slowly sucking the life force out of it....

[EL Jimbo]

I got a good chuckle out of EMGs comments. Heck I chose to live near the I-94/i-696 interchange for a reason... so that downtown, Southfield and Royal Oak are only a 20 minute ride away.

Do I feel guilty... well a little bit... but life is too short to be stuck in traffic... and I will say this... the freeways aren't what is killing Detroit... if they were, other cities would be in the same boat.

Detroit has other issues besides freeways that are slowly sucking the life force out of it....

No other city, other than perhaps LA has invested so densely in freeway development. LA has a lot of other things going for it so that growth has continued. That means that while they have a lot of freeways, they also have a lot of surface street traffic that supports businesses. That isn't the case in Detroit.

At a minimum, Detroit has a severe overcapacity of freeways. The ease of moving in and out of the city has devastated commercial corridors in the city because nobody drives them. For example, Woodward avenue [[the supposed "main street" of Detroit) only get 20,000 vehicles a day driving by total. Yet to the left and right of it, you have the Lodge and the Chrysler carrying 140,000 vehicle each! How much lost business do you think that represents? You talk about slowly sucking the life force, is it any surprise that the decline of Detroit began right around the time the freeways were built? I just can't see how you don't think freeways are part of what's killing Detroit when the evidence has been bitch slapping people in the face for the last 50 years.

Maybe all the freeways don't need to go, but if you think freeways aren't an issue, compare a map of Detroit to a map of Chicago. Notice how much fewer freeway there is in Chicago, which is larger than Detroit. Perhaps that is a contributing factor as to why Chicago has managed to hold itself together while Detroit has suffered so greatly.

If you want another example, look at Vancouver, a city of over 500,000 people without a freeway in its city limits. Let's see, they just hosted the Olympics and is always high on the list of the worlds most livable cities. How can they possibly survive without their freeways?

As far as "life is to short to sit in traffic", as I think I've pointed out unequivocally, Detroit doesn't need its freeways to handle its traffic. Moving to boulevards would leave plenty of capacity left over so that nobody is sitting in traffic. The only difference is that you might have to stop at a light or two [[although proper signal timing could make it that you wouldn't) and instead of driving 70, you'd have to drive 45. Oh the humanity!

[gnome]

jimbo, I believe one reason few folks use Woodward is due to poorly timed traffic lights.

Vancover is unique in that a pretty nice mountain and a few islands are involved. You might want to reconsider using strawmen to support your point of view. You might also want to reveal your employment within mdot, as that may explain your desire for job security through rebuilding every motorway in the region.

just sayin

[Hermod]

Maybe all the freeways don't need to go, but if you think freeways aren't an issue, compare a map of Detroit to a map of Chicago. Notice how much fewer freeway there is in Chicago, which is larger than Detroit. Perhaps that is a contributing factor as to why Chicago has managed to hold itself together while Detroit has suffered so greatly.

1. Chicago always had massive amounts of commuter rail plus the Chicago interurban systems lasted thrity to forty years longer than the Detroit interurban systems. Detroit never had what could be called real commuter rail except for the GTW Detroit-Pontiac service.

2. Before Detroit conceived and designed the freeway system, Detroit had massive gridlock. In 1961, I used to commute down Gratiot from 7-mile to downtown. Some days, i rode the bus and some days, I drove. There was always a massive tangle getting through the Connors and Harper intersections. Some times you would wait two or three cycles to get through the Connors light and again at the Harper light. Getting cross town was always a bitch.

[iheartthed]

1. Chicago always had massive amounts of commuter rail plus the Chicago interurban systems lasted thrity to forty years longer than the Detroit interurban systems. Detroit never had what could be called real commuter rail except for the GTW Detroit-Pontiac service.

2. Before Detroit conceived and designed the freeway system, Detroit had massive gridlock. In 1961, I used to commute down Gratiot from 7-mile to downtown. Some days, i rode the bus and some days, I drove. There was always a massive tangle getting through the Connors and Harper intersections. Some times you would wait two or three cycles to get through the Connors light and again at the Harper light. Getting cross town was always a bitch.

So what you're saying is that Detroit should've invested more into commuter rail systems and less into freeways? Because clearly the freeway system was not a growth investment......

[Bham1982]

At a minimum, Detroit has a severe overcapacity of freeways. The ease of moving in and out of the city has devastated commercial corridors in the city because nobody drives them. For example, Woodward avenue [[the supposed "main street" of Detroit) only get 20,000 vehicles a day driving by total. Yet to the left and right of it, you have the Lodge and the Chrysler carrying 140,000 vehicle each! How much lost business do you think that represents?

The commercial strips in Detroit are largely dead because almost all the people have left the neighborhoods, and the remaining folks don't have much money. IMO it has little to do with freeways.

The Lower East Side of Detroit has no freeways, but the commercial strips are some of the most devastated in the city. Northwest and Southwest Detroit are both Freeway Central, yet they have the most vibrant commercial strips in the city.

And I thought everyone on this thread was talking about Jane Jacobs and how suburban visitors and their cars were destroying the city. Why are folks now suddenly concerned about increasing car traffic counts, thinking that this could somehow revitalize retail spaaces that were built pre-automobile age?

[DetroitPlanner]

No other city, other than perhaps LA has invested so densely in freeway development. LA has a lot of other things going for it so that growth has continued. That means that while they have a lot of freeways, they also have a lot of surface street traffic that supports businesses. That isn't the case in Detroit.

Minneapolis/St. Paul has way more freeway lane miles per capita than any metro I have ever seen, yet they are seen as a growth City. Even more locally Grand Rapids is widening freeways though the town, again many on this board see Grand Rapids as being successful.

Many folks see a lot more opprtunity in MPS STP or GR than in Chicago.

Freeways are not the cause of every issue that Detroit has. Freeways did not cause the massive movement of jobs from our region to places overseas or down south. Poor land use decisions and a 'me first' attitude among the many layers of government in this region also does not help.

If this was 120 years ago would you be complaining that horse drawn trolleys are causing sprawl? That the train is a bad thing due to pollution or that the Erie Canal should never been built?

Would you be happy if DTW was never expanded so all we could get were tiny planes and congested conditions at DET or DTW?

[Hermod]

So what you're saying is that Detroit should've invested more into commuter rail systems and less into freeways? Because clearly the freeway system was not a growth investment......

Chicago didn't invest in commuter rail. The railroads invested in commuter rail and the interurbans in electric traction. This was done back when commuter rail and interurbans made economic sense. When it came time for the city to pick up the losing service, the legacy system was already in place. Detroit didn't begin its geographic expansion and need for commuter rail until after the railroads realized it was a loser. As a result, Detroit had no legacy system to take over.

When Detroit designed and built the expressways, there were 1.8 million people in the city and they were needed to get rid of gridlock.

Notice how the Lodge parallels Woodward. That was to take the pressure off of Woodward. The Lodge did not kill the stores on Woodward. Commuters on a gridlocked street do not say "oh, there is an amusing little boutique, I think I will stop and shop awhile". When you are slogging through gridlock, you want to just get to work or get home and terminate the misery.

[iheartthed]

Chicago didn't invest in commuter rail. The railroads invested in commuter rail and the interurbans in electric traction. This was done back when commuter rail and interurbans made economic sense. When it came time for the city to pick up the losing service, the legacy system was already in place. Detroit didn't begin its geographic expansion and need for commuter rail until after the railroads realized it was a loser. As a result, Detroit had no legacy system to take over.

When Detroit designed and built the expressways, there were 1.8 million people in the city and they were needed to get rid of gridlock.

Notice how the Lodge parallels Woodward. That was to take the pressure off of Woodward. The Lodge did not kill the stores on Woodward. Commuters on a gridlocked street do not say "oh, there is an amusing little boutique, I think I will stop and shop awhile". When you are slogging through gridlock, you want to just get to work or get home and terminate the misery.

How Chicago got their system is irrelevant to whether Detroit should have spent its money building its own.

[EL Jimbo]

jimbo, I believe one reason few folks use Woodward is due to poorly timed traffic lights.

Vancover is unique in that a pretty nice mountain and a few islands are involved. You might want to reconsider using strawmen to support your point of view. You might also want to reveal your employment within mdot, as that may explain your desire for job security through rebuilding every motorway in the region.

just sayin

If I worked for MDOT I'd have job security regardless. Work has to be done on roads one way or another. Drive the roads around this state. There are plenty of bad roads to provide PLENTY of job security for MDOT staff. My point is that if we are going to continue to do road work [[like the Billion dollar plus project of modernizing I-94 that is currently planned for a few years from now), why not do the RIGHT roads.

Also, in regards to Vancouver, the point still remains that Vancouver, a city of somewhat similar size, manages to thrive without freeways.

Lastly, signals can be re-timed.

[mwilbert]

Well, this thread is specifically about Detroit. If someone would like to put forth an argument that Detroit isn't a city, I'd be interested to hear it.

Detroit is a city, but it has lots of suburbs where you are in no danger of being on public transport. The point I was apparently not making clearly is that people who don't like driving on surface streets and taking public transit have many options available to them, even in the Detroit area. It should both be recognized that these people exist, but that it probably isn't necessary or even possible for cities to maximize their convenience. That doesn't mean I think removing all the freeways in Detroit would be a good idea.

[EL Jimbo]

1. Chicago always had massive amounts of commuter rail plus the Chicago interurban systems lasted thrity to forty years longer than the Detroit interurban systems. Detroit never had what could be called real commuter rail except for the GTW Detroit-Pontiac service.

2. Before Detroit conceived and designed the freeway system, Detroit had massive gridlock. In 1961, I used to commute down Gratiot from 7-mile to downtown. Some days, i rode the bus and some days, I drove. There was always a massive tangle getting through the Connors and Harper intersections. Some times you would wait two or three cycles to get through the Connors light and again at the Harper light. Getting cross town was always a bitch.

In regards to #2. I'm not saying that back in the 50s and 60s new major corridors weren't needed. They were because the existing major streets couldn't handle the traffic by themselves just like they wouldn't be able to handle them today. My point is that the freeways were never, and still aren't needed today. The problem could have been solved by building more major surface streets like boulevards and I think some unanticipated problems from freeways could be solved by converting them to boulevards.

[Brian1979]

I never understood why the traffic lights are so poorly timed. I live in Saginaw and there are lights here that are a joke the way they are timed. I remember when I was in NYC and driving down one of the north-south arteries in Manhattan all the lights would go green at the same exact time, all would go yellow at the same exact time and all would go red at the same exact time. You could drive through about 5 or 6 lights before you had to stop for one. I think I remember at one time someone telling me how to time the lights going down Woodward from Bloomfield Hills to 9 Mile, you have to go a certain speed and I can't remember what that speed is now. If you can get down Woodward from BH to 9 in Ferndale without hitting a light then you have no problem, but after 8 Mile is where it really gets bad with the poorly timed lights, I've sat at lights in HP and lights in Detroit and wondered why I had to sit at every single traffic light between 8 Mile and downtown.

Turning the expressways in the inner city into boulevards wouldn't work, I don't see the problem the expressways present in the first place.