Freeway Removal in Detroit

[Detroitnerd]

It might be worth studying these neighborhoods a bit before deciding that removing freeways will solve their problems.

Ah, yes. Just a few more years of study. To confirm what everybody else already knows.

Look at a freeway. What do you see when you look at it? Look carefully and minutely. Stand there for an hour and watch it and formulate in your mind exactly what it is you're looking at and what aesthetic value it has.

You will realize you are looking at something monumentally ugly and wasteful. Ask yourself if you would want your neighborhood near anything like it. Or, if your neighborhood were near one, ask if you'd want it enlarged.

We all know the answer already.

Cities like Vancouver are experiencing growth, rising values, prosperity, and no doomsday traffic jams without any freeways at all. We don't need them.

But, whatever. Keep on "studying" the problem.

[dtowncitylover]

Ah, yes. Just a few more years of study. To confirm what everybody else already knows.

Look at a freeway. What do you see when you look at it? Look carefully and minutely. Stand there for an hour and watch it and formulate in your mind exactly what it is you're looking at and what aesthetic value it has.

You will realize you are looking at something monumentally ugly and wasteful. Ask yourself if you would want your neighborhood near anything like it. Or, if your neighborhood were near one, ask if you'd want it enlarged.

We all know the answer already.

Cities like Vancouver are experiencing growth, rising values, prosperity, and no doomsday traffic jams without any freeways at all. We don't need them.

But, whatever. Keep on "studying" the problem.

LOL Gee, I wish 696 wasn't routed on 10 Mile. It would've been better if it plowed right through Huntington Woods, Berkley, and downtown Royal Oak. My neighborhood would've been well served.

[Detroitnerd]

LOL Gee, I wish 696 wasn't routed on 10 Mile. It would've been better if it plowed right through Huntington Woods, Berkley, and downtown Royal Oak. My neighborhood would've been well served.

That's an excellent case in point. Why, when I-696 was being built, did the route get such resistance from people with money and resources? Why was I-275 never completed? Why didn't the moneyed people of the proposed corridor welcome the prosperity and development the freeway was bound to bring?

We all know the answers. You can bet that anybody who still champions the freeway as the way of the future is just engaging in some increasingly dubious sophistry. The future will look very different from the 20-lane freeways our local planners still feverishly dream of. We should start planning that transition now, instead of when we have to take a crash-course in 21st century realities.

[iheartthed]

That's an excellent case in point. Why, when I-696 was being built, did the route get such resistance from people with money and resources? Why was I-275 never completed? Why didn't the moneyed people of the proposed corridor welcome the prosperity and development the freeway was bound to bring?

We all know the answers. You can bet that anybody who still champions the freeway as the way of the future is just engaging in some increasingly dubious sophistry. The future will look very different from the 20-lane freeways our local planners still feverishly dream of. We should start planning that transition now, instead of when we have to take a crash-course in 21st century realities.

Another example is the resistance put up for extending Northwestern Highway as a freeway through Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield.

[Bham1982]

Another example is the resistance put up for extending Northwestern Highway as a freeway through Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield.

No, that would be an example of NIMBYism. The fact that people are often against development and change in their back yard doesn't mean that the change being proposed is of dubious value.

And obviously the highway got built anyways, just to the west, where there were fewer NIMBYs at the time.

[Scottathew]

No, that would be an example of NIMBYism. The fact that people are often against development and change in their back yard doesn't mean that the change being proposed is of dubious value.

And obviously the highway got built anyways, just to the west, where there were fewer NIMBYs at the time.

As to NIMBYism, sometimes you've got to fight it, and other times you need to be a part of the solution.

I'm involved in our homeowners association and a group of residents were opposing the development of a 15 acre site into 150 condo units. The people opposing it backed up to the 15 acre site, which is currently a large empty grass field that is owned by a hospital.

I was at a meeting with them and asked several homeowners what they wanted to see developed, and they said they wanted nothing developed. I asked them if they had any intentions of buying the site, and they of course said no.

I found it funny that they were unrealistically against any and all development. What did they think there options were? Condos are much better than the 24/7 ambulatory center that was first proposed for the location, as well as apartments. The quality and style of the condos was quite nice. All the parking is in the back of the condo units, making the fronts look like contiguous row-houses. Additional places to live will also help the retail in the area, property values, and the schools.

Instead of fighting the development, I worked with the developers to try to get the best outcome for homeowners. Then I went to work with M-DOT and the city of Rochester Hills to get traffic issues on their radar and possible solutions in motion.

I was able to talk some sense into some of homeowners in my sub and they worked with the developer to have a three-row tree line put in between their backyards and the development, as well as having some long-standing drainage issues resolved that are caused by elevation differences.


For those of you interested in I-696 placement, there was a thread I created about it here: http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...ould-Have-Been

[Wesley Mouch]

Cities like Vancouver are experiencing growth, rising values, prosperity, and no doomsday traffic jams without any freeways at all. We don't need them.

DN, I can see from that statement that you've never driven around Vancouver.

1) There are freeways [[#1, #99, #91, #91A) , but you're right that they don't pass through downtown and only graze the actual City. But they have freeways.

2) Congestion in Vancouver is severe. They have a 100% traffic information commercial radio station. Forbes click-bait lists it as #2 in north America behind LA: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ehmk45jhdg/2-vancouver/ Or see Business Insider, also #2 in their list: http://www.businessinsider.com/20-no...ic-2013-1?op=1

Next time I get out there, I'll call you when I'm stuck in surface street traffic like I was last time.

[Detroitnerd]

DN, I can see from that statement that you've never driven around Vancouver.

1) There are freeways [[#1, #99, #91, #91A) , but you're right that they don't pass through downtown and only graze the actual City. But they have freeways.

2) Congestion in Vancouver is severe. They have a 100% traffic information commercial radio station. Forbes click-bait lists it as #2 in north America behind LA: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ehmk45jhdg/2-vancouver/ Or see Business Insider, also #2 in their list: http://www.businessinsider.com/20-no...ic-2013-1?op=1

Next time I get out there, I'll call you when I'm stuck in surface street traffic like I was last time.

It's been a while since I've been in Vancouver. But would having freeways running through Vancouver really do anything to ease congestion?

Auto traffic is simple: If you're willing to put up with the commute, you do. If you are not willing to put up with the commute, you don't. You live nearer work, or cycle, or carpool, or take mass transit. And you flip on the radio in the morning and decide which you're going to do. Accident on the turnpike? Take the train. Otherwise drive.

I met a fair amount of Hudson River Valley residents who worked in Manhattan and made the call around 8 a.m. which they were going to do.

Manhattan, of course, is always congested. Should we have taken Robert Moses' advice and bisected and trisected it with freeways?

I think a lot of people incorrectly think it's a choice between freeways and congestion. Not so. You can [[and so often do) have both.

The problem isn't congestion. That's a normal sign of success for many American cities. The problem is deciding to radically remake the city to try to accommodate more and more cars. That is something Vancouver proper chose not to do and it seems to be working very well for them.

For another example closer to home, look at Ann Arbor.

[Junjie]

DN, I can see from that statement that you've never driven around Vancouver.

1) There are freeways [[#1, #99, #91, #91A) , but you're right that they don't pass through downtown and only graze the actual City. But they have freeways.

2) Congestion in Vancouver is severe. They have a 100% traffic information commercial radio station. Forbes click-bait lists it as #2 in north America behind LA: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ehmk45jhdg/2-vancouver/ Or see Business Insider, also #2 in their list: http://www.businessinsider.com/20-no...ic-2013-1?op=1

Next time I get out there, I'll call you when I'm stuck in surface street traffic like I was last time.

Congestion is always going to be severe if your city is healthy. High land values -> dense buildings -> too many people per sq. mile for "one person, one car" to physically fit and leave room for free-flowing traffic. The question is the tradeoff between the costs of additional freeways + parking [[construction, maintenance, aesthetic, land use) and the marginal reduction in congestion - "marginal" in the economic sense of the word. Vancouver, and a few other cities in North America like Washington, decided to trade the costs of more congestion for not tearing up their CBD and proximate neighborhoods. It also goes without saying that they have much better public transit alternatives than Detroit. Overall, this seems to have worked out pretty well for those cities compared to Detroit's strategy.

Edit: Ninja'd by DN... but this tradeoff is worth emphasizing twice I figure.

[Bham1982]

Congestion is always going to be severe if your city is healthy. High land values -> dense buildings -> too many people per sq. mile for "one person, one car" to physically fit and leave room for free-flowing traffic. The question is the tradeoff between the costs of additional freeways + parking [[construction, maintenance, aesthetic, land use) and the marginal reduction in congestion - "marginal" in the economic sense of the word.

No, obviously that isn't the question. Detroit is already built out. We aren't starting from scratch.

The question is whether, in a region completely reliant on the automobile, a municipality would have any economic interest in limiting auto access. The obvious answer is no.

And when that municipality is possibly the most distressed of any in the developed world, the blindingly obvious answer is hell no.

Vancouver, and a few other cities in North America like Washington, decided to trade the costs of more congestion for not tearing up their CBD and proximate neighborhoods.

Who cares? Detroit didn't. What does a foreign city, and the US capital, have to do with Michigan anyways? Why not bring up Paris and Hong Kong while you're at it?

Until you invent a time machine and go back and poison Henry Ford, you have to realize you live in autotopia. Move to Denmark or somewhere if you fetishize non-auto mobility [[though even there most people own and use cars, so you're bound to be disappointed).

As long as the auto industry is HQ in the region, and as long as the Midwest has tons of wide open spaces, Detroit will be a region ruled by the automobile. It's inherent in the DNA, and the reason Detroit grew to be a major city in the first place. Complaining about it makes as much sense as moving to Siberia and bitching about the cold.

[Junjie]

No, obviously that isn't the question. Detroit is already built out. We aren't starting from scratch.

The question is whether, in a region completely reliant on the automobile, a municipality would have any economic interest in limiting auto access. The obvious answer is no.

And when that municipality is possibly the most distressed of any in the developed world, the blindingly obvious answer is hell no.

...

Until you invent a time machine and go back and poison Henry Ford, you have to realize you live in autotopia. Move to Denmark or somewhere if you fetishize non-auto mobility [[though even there most people own and use cars, so you're bound to be disappointed).

As long as the auto industry is HQ in the region, and as long as the Midwest has tons of wide open spaces, Detroit will be a region ruled by the automobile. It's inherent in the DNA, and the reason Detroit grew to be a major city in the first place. Complaining about it makes as much sense as moving to Siberia and bitching about the cold.

Where does all of your antagonism come from? You make a lot of fair points on this board, but seem to go out of your way to try to piss people off. What's the point, really?

I don't hate cars. I own one. I just drove it through downtown DC, actually, after using 395 to get there from out near the Beltway. I'm sure you didn't, but if you had read the entire thread and thus my post on page 1, you'd see I explicitly made the point that based on existing traffic volumes there was little argument for removing any freeway in Detroit other than probably the 375 spur, and that freeways can hardly be blamed for the city's collapse. So drop the shtick about how anyone who has a point you don't like is a pinko commie who only rides the bus or whatever.

First of all, I was speaking to a point about congestion, not "auto access." Second, my basic point is correct whether you like it or not. Building more freeways in order to allow freer traffic flow has inherent tradeoffs in terms of space required, cost, etc. Sorry if this offends you. I don't see a way around it.

Somehow, you got from there to a strawman idea that I think Detroit should "limit auto access." I don't think that at all. What I think is that there's a tradeoff between the level of auto congestion reduction and the vitality of the city all those cars are moving through. Successful cities accept high congestion, across the board, because those cities are desirable precisely for being filled with things that aren't freeways and parking lots. Detroit can be perfectly willing to maintain the already vast auto access which it has built out. Great. But in my opinion, it shouldn't view present or future congestion as a problem to be solved solely by building further auto infrastructure given the costs for the few [[slow) growth areas of the city.

Of course, that assumes some level of growth. If things peter out, then it hardly matters. Detroit has more than enough road capacity as is. [We should note that this whole discussion assumes people without cars don't exist or matter at all, when of course they comprise hundreds of thousands of individuals whose economic struggles are a major drain on the region. But that's a separate issue.]

"Who cares? Detroit didn't. What does a foreign city, and the US capital, have to do with Michigan anyways? Why not bring up Paris and Hong Kong while you're at it?"

I didn't bring up Paris and Hong Kong because they aren't comparable in any way to Detroit. Washington and Vancouver, on the other hand, have city populations very close to Detroit's and Washington's metro population is also comparable [[Vancouver's is significantly smaller). You're right that Canada is a foreign country - please explain what bearing this has on the relative costs of additional freeway construction. Do Canadians not need parking spots or what?

I seem to remember you making this bizarre argument before - nothing can ever be compared to Detroit, which is a wholly unique special flower on the face of the earth with nothing to learn from anyplace else. That's bullshit. Some places have made good decisions about their transportation networks. Detroit made poor ones. But those decisions are made and remade over time as we rebuild, don't rebuild, expand, don't expand, etc. Given what we've got, I think you're right - it would be a negative to do something really radical like tear out all of 94 or 75 through the city. But taking reductions in auto congestion as the be-all and end-all of transportation planning hasn't done Detroit much good over the past few decades, and it should be looked at skeptically as we decide how much to invest in rebuilding or expanding the existing freeway network.

[Bham1982]

Successful cities accept high congestion, across the board, because those cities are desirable precisely for being filled with things that aren't freeways and parking lots.

No, this is your bias showing. There are successful cities that are totally auto-oriented [[Houston is the current population and job growth leader in the U.S.; LA is the population and job growth leader in the U.S. over the last century) and failed cities that are heavily transit oriented [[Athens, Naples, anywhere in Russia outside of Moscow/St. Petersburg; hell even in the U.S. Baltimore, Philly and others are relatively transit oriented and relatively failed in a sense).

Texas, dominated by sprawltopias Houston and Dallas, is the growth king in the U.S. while Illinois, dominated by relatively transit-oriented Chicago, has the worst economy and worst population loss in the U.S.

Detroit can be perfectly willing to maintain the already vast auto access which it has built out. Great. But in my opinion, it shouldn't view present or future congestion as a problem to be solved solely by building further auto infrastructure given the costs for the few [[slow) growth areas of the city.

There is no "further auto infrastructure" planned for Detroit. There hasn't been jack built in 40 years in Detroit. We're only talking maintenance/upgrading of existing infrastructure.

I didn't bring up Paris and Hong Kong because they aren't comparable in any way to Detroit. Washington and Vancouver, on the other hand, have city populations very close to Detroit's and Washington's metro population is also comparable [[Vancouver's is significantly smaller).

City population has absolutely nothing to do with transit orientation. City population is a useless metric anyways. Metro population is key and neither DC nor Vancouver have a similar metro population.

DC, as the capitol of the most powerful country in global history, with 400,000 federal workers and contractors basically forced to take transit, and Vancouver, a half-Asian apartment city in a foreign country, where a shack costs a million bucks, have absolutely nothing to do with Detroit.

You're right that Canada is a foreign country - please explain what bearing this has on the relative costs of additional freeway construction. Do Canadians not need parking spots or what?

No, they don't need parking spots, to the same extent. Cars cost more, transit costs less, incomes are lower, housing costs are higher. Obviously Canada will be less auto oriented. Vancouver is extreme in all these aspects [[low salary, high housing price, expensive driving, cheap transit). Nothing Canadian cities like Calgary have higher transit orientation than almost all U.S. cities outside of NYC.

I seem to remember you making this bizarre argument before - nothing can ever be compared to Detroit, which is a wholly unique special flower on the face of the earth with nothing to learn from anyplace else. That's bullshit.

Nope, I never made such an argument. More nonsense.

Plenty of places can be compared to Detroit. Indy, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Kansas City. Let's talk about cities that have some remote connection to Detroit. All of these cities are auto oriented [[some even moreso than Detroit). None of these cities are tearing up auto infrastructure.

[ghettopalmetto]

No, this is your bias showing. There are successful cities that are totally auto-oriented [[Houston is the current population and job growth leader in the U.S.; LA is the population and job growth leader in the U.S. over the last century) and failed cities that are heavily transit oriented [[Athens, Naples, anywhere in Russia outside of Moscow/St. Petersburg; hell even in the U.S. Baltimore, Philly and others are relatively transit oriented and relatively failed in a sense).

This is an overly simplistic analysis, and you know it. You might want to mention, however, that Los Angeles has built an incredible amount of subway and light rail lines in the past 20 years.

Texas, dominated by sprawltopias Houston and Dallas, is the growth king in the U.S. while Illinois, dominated by relatively transit-oriented Chicago, has the worst economy and worst population loss in the U.S.

Oil. Oil. Oil. You couldn't pay me enough to live in Houston...regardless of "growth", that place is an ugly-as-sin cesspool.

There is no "further auto infrastructure" planned for Detroit. There hasn't been jack built in 40 years in Detroit. We're only talking maintenance/upgrading of existing infrastructure.

So widening of I-75 doesn't count as "further auto infrastructure"? Widening of I-94 doesn't count as "further auto infrastructure"? A new bridge to Canada doesn't count as "further auto infrastructure"?

Plenty of places can be compared to Detroit. Indy, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Kansas City. Let's talk about cities that have some remote connection to Detroit. All of these cities are auto oriented [[some even moreso than Detroit). None of these cities are tearing up auto infrastructure.

Cleveland is actually downgrading the West Shoreway to a 35 mph boulevard. In addition, they're putting bike lanes and trails all over the city, and upgrading transit service on busy corridors. No proposals for 18-lane freeways, despite its location as a crossroads for East Coast-to-Chicago truck traffic.

[Junjie]

No, this is your bias showing. There are successful cities that are totally auto-oriented [[Houston is the current population and job growth leader in the U.S.; LA is the population and job growth leader in the U.S. over the last century) and failed cities that are heavily transit oriented [[Athens, Naples, anywhere in Russia outside of Moscow/St. Petersburg; hell even in the U.S. Baltimore, Philly and others are relatively transit oriented and relatively failed in a sense).

Do you even read the posts or do you just see words and then decide they must say what your preexisting bias wants them to say? I wrote that "Successful cities accept high congestion, across the board, because those cities are desirable precisely for being filled with things that aren't freeways and parking lots." Houston and LA are definitely both successful cities. I'll let you work out whether Houston and LA also have high congestion for yourself.

Texas, dominated by sprawltopias Houston and Dallas, is the growth king in the U.S. while Illinois, dominated by relatively transit-oriented Chicago, has the worst economy and worst population loss in the U.S.

If only I had ever argued that auto-dependency leads to economic collapse and transit-dependency leads to wealth and success.

There is no "further auto infrastructure" planned for Detroit. There hasn't been jack built in 40 years in Detroit. We're only talking maintenance/upgrading of existing infrastructure.

If $4 billion dollars of freeway expansion don't count as new auto infrastructure, I don't know what does.

City population has absolutely nothing to do with transit orientation. City population is a useless metric anyways. Metro population is key and neither DC nor Vancouver have a similar metro population.

Not sure what your point is here. Vancouver's metro is about 2.3 million, Detroit is about 4.2 million, DC is about 5.8 million. Cities both smaller and larger than Detroit show that different mixes of transportation seem to have a more salutary effect on the CBD.

DC, as the capitol of the most powerful country in global history, with 400,000 federal workers and contractors basically forced to take transit, and Vancouver, a half-Asian apartment city in a foreign country, where a shack costs a million bucks, have absolutely nothing to do with Detroit.

"Forced" - you did know that Federal workers receive $245 to pay for parking each month but only $130 per month to pay for transit, right? As to Vancouver, neither ethnicity nor real estate prices would seem to have much to do with what effect freeways have on city cores that I can see.

No, they don't need parking spots, to the same extent. Cars cost more, transit costs less, incomes are lower, housing costs are higher. Obviously Canada will be less auto oriented. Vancouver is extreme in all these aspects [[low salary, high housing price, expensive driving, cheap transit). Nothing Canadian cities like Calgary have higher transit orientation than almost all U.S. cities outside of NYC.

Right. Yes. But these are policy outcomes, not acts of God. My point was that if Vancouver had decided not to build cheap transit, to provide lots of parking, and to run freeways straight into downtown, its downtown would probably look somewhat more like Detroit's and somewhat less like it does. This is so basic and obvious I don't even know what we're arguing.

Nope, I never made such an argument. More nonsense.

Plenty of places can be compared to Detroit. Indy, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Kansas City. Let's talk about cities that have some remote connection to Detroit. All of these cities are auto oriented [[some even moreso than Detroit). None of these cities are tearing up auto infrastructure.

I certainly apologize if I was remembering someone else, and am happy to make those comparisons. What lessons would you draw for improving Detroit's transportation system going forward on the basis of those cities?

[ghettopalmetto]

No, obviously that isn't the question. Detroit is already built out. We aren't starting from scratch.

The question is whether, in a region completely reliant on the automobile, a municipality would have any economic interest in limiting auto access. The obvious answer is no.

You assume a paradigm that is static and permanent. What if:

"Detroit is already built out. We aren't starting from scratch. The question is whether, in a region completely reliant on the streetcars, a municipality would have any economic interest in increasing auto access." --1940s Detroit

But no, we know that didn't happen. Deliberate efforts were made to hollow out Detroit with freeways. Likewise, deliberate efforts can be made to reduce reliance on automobiles and reduce the resulting inefficiencies in the regional economy. To do so just requires people who aren't scared.

[Bham1982]

You assume a paradigm that is static and permanent. What if:

"Detroit is already built out. We aren't starting from scratch. The question is whether, in a region completely reliant on the streetcars, a municipality would have any economic interest in increasing auto access." --1940s Detroit

That is a ridiculous analogy, because auto usage and demand was soaring in the 1940's, like no time in history. In contrast, current transit usage and demand has essentially never been lower.

If Detroit never built freeways back then, I would guess that the region would be even more screwed up than now. It would be the only U.S. city without widespread auto-based mobility, and the auto and logistics industry would have to relocate.

[ghettopalmetto]

That is a ridiculous analogy, because auto usage and demand was soaring in the 1940's, like no time in history. In contrast, current transit usage and demand has essentially never been lower.

Auto usage would have never increased if the State hadn't built so many "free" roads. Think about it.

You might want to check your figures on transit usage and demand, because you couldn't be more wrong. Eh, who am I kidding? You're just going to keep making shit up to "confirm" your already-held opinion anyway.

If Detroit never built freeways back then, I would guess that the region would be even more screwed up than now. It would be the only U.S. city without widespread auto-based mobility, and the auto and logistics industry would have to relocate.

So now that the auto industry employs fewer people than before WWII, we *must* widen the freeways!!! Wheeeeeeeeee! God forbid Detroit eliminates I-375, without which the auto industry would surely fail.

You'll sure-as-shit weasel any old crap to justify your love of the status quo, won't you?

[T.Low]

DN, I can see from that statement that you've never driven around Vancouver.

1) There are freeways [[#1, #99, #91, #91A) , but you're right that they don't pass through downtown and only graze the actual City. But they have freeways.

2) Congestion in Vancouver is severe. They have a 100% traffic information commercial radio station. Forbes click-bait lists it as #2 in north America behind LA: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ehmk45jhdg/2-vancouver/ Or see Business Insider, also #2 in their list: http://www.businessinsider.com/20-no...ic-2013-1?op=1

Next time I get out there, I'll call you when I'm stuck in surface street traffic like I was last time.

You sir, are absolutely correct regarding Vancouver. I hate Vancouver traffic when we go to Whistler, etc.

[Gpwrangler]

Ah, yes. Just a few more years of study. To confirm what everybody else already knows.

Look at a freeway. What do you see when you look at it? Look carefully and minutely. Stand there for an hour and watch it and formulate in your mind exactly what it is you're looking at and what aesthetic value it has.

You will realize you are looking at something monumentally ugly and wasteful. Ask yourself if you would want your neighborhood near anything like it. Or, if your neighborhood were near one, ask if you'd want it enlarged.

We all know the answer already.

Cities like Vancouver are experiencing growth, rising values, prosperity, and no doomsday traffic jams without any freeways at all. We don't need them.

But, whatever. Keep on "studying" the problem.

I look at the freeway every day when I get on at Cadieux. Thousands of commuters use it every day to get to work. It usually works quite well. It's not a park or bicycle path but this ain't Vancouver. I need to get to my job and so do my neighbors, and Mack or Jefferson to macomb county won't work. I asked my company to move my plant to Detroit but they said no.

People are free to live and work where they want. The freeway's been there since the 30s. It didn't destroy Detroit. Abandoning freeway that cost millions to build makes as much sense as turning rail infrastructure into bicycle paths.

My my first house was near the freeway. Not paradise but all I could afford. Lived there for years. Studied it plenty, thank you.

[iheartthed]

People are free to live and work where they want. The freeway's been there since the 30s. It didn't destroy Detroit. Abandoning freeway that cost millions to build makes as much sense as turning rail infrastructure into bicycle paths.

I think what people are arguing for is to restore the street grid instead of rebuilding the freeways once they reach the end of their useful lives. Most of [[if not all of) Detroit's freeways will need to be rebuilt within the next decade or so [[especially the ones that run through the core0. Strategically choosing which should not be rebuilt will kill 2 birds with one stone: 1) save taxpayer money [[last time I checked, Michigan was having some issues with funding road maintenance), and 2) restoring the street grid destroyed to create the obsolete freeways.

I personally think the decision should be a no-brainer. One thing I think we all can agree is that the freeways were built for a traffic congestion scenario which has not been a concern in Detroit for a very long time. For that reason alone it makes no sense to continue maintaining that infrastructure.

[mwilbert]

I think what people are arguing for is to restore the street grid instead of rebuilding the freeways once they reach the end of their useful lives. Most of [[if not all of) Detroit's freeways will need to be rebuilt within the next decade or so [[especially the ones that run through the core0. Strategically choosing which should not be rebuilt will kill 2 birds with one stone: 1) save taxpayer money [[last time I checked, Michigan was having some issues with funding road maintenance), and 2) restoring the street grid destroyed to create the obsolete freeways.

I personally think the decision should be a no-brainer. One thing I think we all can agree is that the freeways were built for a traffic congestion scenario which has not been a concern in Detroit for a very long time. For that reason alone it makes no sense to continue maintaining that infrastructure.

I don't think all freeways are the same. It seems to me that both of the freeway spurs south of I-75 are doing more harm than good, and since the eastern one apparently needs to be reconstructed anyway, I would prefer it not be reconstructed as a freeway. But [[for instance) I-75 and I-94 aren't really candidates for removal. It is one thing to say that the city would have been better off had fewer freeways been built through it, which I think is probably true, but that doesn't imply that means removing them now would be a good idea.

[iheartthed]

I don't think all freeways are the same. It seems to me that both of the freeway spurs south of I-75 are doing more harm than good, and since the eastern one apparently needs to be reconstructed anyway, I would prefer it not be reconstructed as a freeway. But [[for instance) I-75 and I-94 aren't really candidates for removal. It is one thing to say that the city would have been better off had fewer freeways been built through it, which I think is probably true, but that doesn't imply that means removing them now would be a good idea.

I cannot really think of any freeway that if removed would make the city a worse place to be. And the only good arguments I can make for keeping even the freeways that seem useful [[Southfield Fwy, some combination of I-94/I-75) is that it makes it easy for cars to get through the city, which I don't think is a compelling interest of the city itself. Vibrant cities aren't that way because they are easy to pass through, but exactly the opposite.

[iheartthed]

I cannot really think of any freeway that if removed would make the city a worse place to be. And the only good arguments I can make for keeping even the freeways that seem useful [[Southfield Fwy, some combination of I-94/I-75) is that it makes it easy for cars to get through the city, which I don't think is a compelling interest of the city itself. Vibrant cities aren't that way because they are easy to pass through, but exactly the opposite.

After a little thought I'm going to backtrack slightly on this one. I think the removal of I-75 through southwest Detroit would probably be a bad idea due to it being a feeder for the bridge[[s) into Ontario. Otherwise, I don't think it would have a detrimental affect to remove the Fisher east of the Ambassador Bridge and remove entirely the Chrysler portions of I-75 within the city limits.

[MicrosoftFan]

I look at the freeway every day when I get on at Cadieux. Thousands of commuters use it every day to get to work. It usually works quite well. It's not a park or bicycle path but this ain't Vancouver. I need to get to my job and so do my neighbors, and Mack or Jefferson to macomb county won't work. I asked my company to move my plant to Detroit but they said no.

People are free to live and work where they want. The freeway's been there since the 30s. It didn't destroy Detroit. Abandoning freeway that cost millions to build makes as much sense as turning rail infrastructure into bicycle paths.

My my first house was near the freeway. Not paradise but all I could afford. Lived there for years. Studied it plenty, thank you.

No freeways in Detroit were around in the 30s. They were built from the 40s to the 70s.

[Gpwrangler]

No freeways in Detroit were around in the 30s. They were built from the 40s to the 70s.

Remaining post still valid. Freeway was there before most of us. Work on streetlights and crime then we can get everyone on bicycles and move all the work back to the city. I'm keeping my Harley.