Long stretch of I-96 to close for overhaul in 2014

[ghettopalmetto]

...no.

It being closed to maintain it.

Using your logic, even if we kept it open, if we're able to close to one lane to do roadwork, then that lane isn't needed. Then when it's time to do road work on the next lane and we need to shut it down, then that one isn't needed.

Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.

And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.

[Scottathew]

Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.

And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.

I'm completely for the expansion [[err... creation) of mass transit, I just don't think you're appraisal is correct.

They're closing it down because the work can be performed faster. Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm completely for the expansion [[err... creation) of mass transit, I just don't think you're appraisal is correct.

They're closing it down because the work can be performed faster. Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.

Regardless of the rationale, or the speed at which the work is completed...

...it still stands that MDOT decided the road network could function with this segment of I-96 effectively removed from the map for one year. Rationalize that however you want.

I have shirts in my closet that I throw away if I go a year without wearing them.

But hey, money is free. Build all the gold-plated roads you want.

[Scottathew]

...it still stands that MDOT decided the road network could function with this segment of I-96 effectively removed from the map for one year. Rationalize that however you want.

Closing the road for a season is bad. Having it reduced by two or three lanes for two seasons is worse.

M-DOT weighed the options, and took the one it felt would have the least impact, because this freeway is important, and having it at a reduced state for two construction seasons is too impactful.

I know you somehow want to twist it into a "we don't need freeways and everyone should move back in from the suburbs" statement, but your assertion is simply false.

M-DOT, in my opinion, is the best run government agency in this state. They have our best interests in mind. That's evidenced over and over again as they battle Matty over the Gateway project, the NITC, and continue to execute projects ontime, on budget, and have implemented strategies capital preventative maintenance.

[ghettopalmetto]

M-DOT weighed the options, and took the one it felt would have the least impact, because this freeway is important, and having it at a reduced state for two construction seasons is too impactful.

I know you somehow want to twist it into a "we don't need freeways and everyone should move back in from the suburbs" statement, but your assertion is simply false.

In fact, this 7-mile segment of I-96 is SO IMPORTANT that the Detroit metropolis can function without it for an entire year. Think about that.

That's a fact. Decided by MDOT, not me. So if you want to bitch, take it up with them, and tell your esteemed MDOT that they're wrong. Because you said so.

[Scottathew]

In fact, this 7-mile segment of I-96 is SO IMPORTANT that the Detroit metropolis can function without it for an entire year. Think about that.

That's a fact. Decided by MDOT, not me. So if you want to bitch, take it up with them, and tell your esteemed MDOT that they're wrong. Because you said so.

Ryan Road between 8 Mile and 9 Mile in Warren got redone a year ago. They shutdown a lane in each direction to complete the work. So I guess, according to your logic, that this road can be converted to a one-lane in each direction road, since we can do without those lanes during construction?

Your logic is very, very flawed in this thread.

[cramerro]

Ryan Road between 8 Mile and 9 Mile in Warren got redone a year ago. They shutdown a lane in each direction to complete the work. So I guess, according to your logic, that this road can be converted to a one-lane in each direction road, since we can do without those lanes during construction?

Your logic is very, very flawed in this thread.

GhettoP has a valid point, and you are over-simplifying it to make yourself sound smart. What defines a "suitable" road, road network, or system is all in the eye of the beholder. If Ryan Road were a street that went though a local commercial district and was fronted with homes and shops and had schools on either side, then YES, you would consider narrowing it down.

There is no magic formula that says you must be able to go from 6 Mile and Haggerty to the Ren Cen in exactly X minutes of less. There are plently of people who EXPECT that they are ENTITLED to make that trip in X minutes. Just because it was built and is fast doesn't mean anything less would mean a breakdown in civilization, and that point is proved by the fact that you can shut down entire stretches and people don't have to go on long-term disability from commuting paralysis.

The Southfield Freeway, the "Gateway" I-75/I-96, how about even the stretch of I-696 that wasn't finished for 15 years?

In an age of declining [[or hopefully steady) population, the whole system of planning for growth and building roads and sewer/water to accomodate that is flipped on its head. It can in many cases make the suburbs vs inner city problem even worse, becaue the housing units kept growing while our population was shirinkin, for a good 4 or 5 years at least.

I'm not advocating for removal of any freeways, but there is a case for changing our thinking when it comes to the road network. Ann Arbor and Lansing have implemented "Road Diets" where a 4- or 5- lane road with tons of extra capacity is re-striped or in some cases reconstructed as a 3-lane cross-section. The extra space you free up can be used for a combination of extra curb lawn, extra sidewalk, bike lanes, on-street parking, or even dedicated transit lanes.

Last example is a [[growing) place like Seattle, where they are tearing down the 'stacked' freeways along the ocean and replacing them with 4-lane boulevards. Capacity is cut by 75%. Guess what? They are assets to the city, businesses, and residents... even though [[gasp!) the traffic through that stretch of town can't go 80. Now, they foolishly aligned thier spending policies to improve transit and access to other modes [[walking/biking) to help reduce/slow growth of traffic demand, but that must be crazy west-coast thinking.

[Wesley Mouch]

<snip>Closing it down for a season has less impact than a longer project would that maintains some open lanes. Because if you closed down a lane or two, the freeway is just as useless as if it is completely closed.

I'd rather have a longer timespan with minimal capacity. There are people who just don't know any way to get around except the freeways. I hope they at least leave the service drives up and running for those souls who might want to venture from boring Livonia to exciting Corktown.

[bailey]

Maintain? No, the entire roadway is being reconstructed.

And yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. If you can close a road outright for damn near a year, and people are still able to get around just fine, then you probably don't need such a road, especially if it's as gold-plated as I-96.

Depends how you define "just fine". If we're simply going to say that the mere presence of detour routes negates the need for an expressway, well, you can also get from Detroit to Florida...or wherever "just fine" without I-75.

[Detroitnerd]

Depends how you define "just fine". If we're simply going to say that the mere presence of alternate routes negates the need for an expressway, well, you can get from Detroit to Florida "just fine" without I-75 too.

I don't think there's a great deal of objection to inter-city freeways, not from urban planners, or even by the environmental crowd. I believe most of the objections are against commuter trunk roads, intra-city freeways, urban expressways etc. For instance, I imagine many of us would be much happier if, in the 1950s, they routed roads around cities, with exits for arterials leading into the cities.

Instead, they rammed them right through with little thought about what this would do to the delicate networks of streets and thoroughfares.

And, no, Hermod: Why it was done doesn't change what it did.