Massive I-94, I-75 reconstruction projects on horizon for Metro Detroit

Metro Detroit is edging closer to seeing the green light for two massive, multi-year road constructionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png projects that are expected to cost $2.65 billion. The projects — the reconstruction and widening of a 6.7-mile section of Interstate 94 in Detroit as well as an 18-mile stretch of I-75 in Oakland County — are slated to begin in 2014 and 2015, respectively. They include the reconstruction of I-94 between I-96 and Conner at a cost of about $1.8 billion, and I-75 between Eight Mile and M-59 at a cost of about $850 million.
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ General Assembly is expected to vote today to approve the two plans at its public meeting at the Atheneum Suite Hotel in Greektown. Both are part of $50 billion in road projects in SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan as well as its 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Plan.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2WkxsFjwW

I'm glad to see the I-75 improvement coming. I've studied them at length. Here are some of the improvements coming:

- Addition of 4th lane along the entire stretch, which will act as an HOV lane during rush hour
- Square Lake Road will be modernized to be a right lane exit\right lane entrance with I-75
- Traffic from I-696 to NB I-75 will no longer weave\merge with NB I-75 traffic exiting at 11 Mile
- The WB 12 Mile to SB I-75 loop will be gone, instead WB 12 Mile traffic will turn left and use the same straight ramp the EB 12 Mile uses to access SB 75

Nearly every single bridge along the route will be updated or replaced.

ROW acquisition [[which is rather minimal) will take place in 2014. Construction begins in 2015 and ends in 2018.

It's amazing that we still have not learned that widening highways really doesn't fix traffic problems, and that we have not come up with any plans for 94 that would be less destructive .

This expansion idea is seriously flawed. They basically dusted off an old plan from the 1990s when gas was a dollar a gallon. What's more, many things have been built on the footprint since they designed it, and will have to be acquired, demolished, etc. The removal of bridges will likely prevent development from spilling over from Midtown into New Center, just at a time when many Midtown organizations are extending into New Center [[CCS, WSU, etc.).

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion. Motorists just hop on the expanded freeway and congestion is soon just as bad as it was before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtf1972

It's amazing that we still have not learned that widening highways really doesn't fix traffic problems, and that we have not come up with any plans for 94 that would be less destructive .

---

Putting on my devils advocate hat:

How about we take the freeway away and put all of that congestion and idling trucks on surface streets like Grand Blvd, Warren, or Harper? What will that do for safety, air quality, timely transit, or quality of life in New Center, Midtown, or other neighborhoods? Is this really less destructive? How? What will happen when truck travel increases because of the new bridge crossing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Putting on my devils advocate hat:

How about we take the freeway away and put all of that congestion and idling trucks on surface streets like Grand Blvd, Warren, or Harper? What will that do for safety, air quality, timely transit, or quality of life in New Center, Midtown, or other neighborhoods? Is this really less destructive? How? What will happen when truck travel increases because of the new bridge crossing?

---

That's a bit of a strawman argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that I-94 should be removed. In fact, most agree that it needs to be modernized. But the specific plan that is on the table is too expensive and too damaging to surrounding neighborhoods, including two of the most successful neighborhoods in the city.

On a different note, I actually think the proposed plans for I-75 are a good idea. For most of the route, there wouldn't be many negative impacts on the surroundings, and the new capacity will help people get in and out of Detroit, which should be good for the City [[and Troy and Madison Heights and Auburn Hills as well I suppose).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion. Motorists just hop on the expanded freeway and congestion is soon just as bad as it was before.

---

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

That's a bit of a strawman argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that I-94 should be removed. In fact, most agree that it needs to be modernized. But the specific plan that is on the table is too expensive and too damaging to surrounding neighborhoods, including two of the most successful neighborhoods in the city.

---

Not really a strawman argument. If you don't widen the freeway eventually the traffic will have to go somewhere. It will go to the most logical routes. The extra congestion through those neighborhoods will have a negative impact though air quality, safety, making it harder to cross streets like Warren and Grand Blvd. With the increase of truck traffic expected through the new bridge [[lets just face it we are not spending $4 billion just to p!$$ of Matty) it will have to go somewhere and we will be creating the same problems that Windsor has built a new freeway to solve.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arb...quality-of-li/

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.co...20Mobility.pdf

What many don't understand is that the traffic being generated is being done so not just by Detroiters or suburbanites, it is being generated as a result of improving trade between Canada, the Unitied States and Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

---

Interesting point, but there are a few other things at play:

1. People use the newly widened road when previously they avoided it because they were concerned about traffic. So other roads may lose traffic, but the widened road will be just as congested.

2. New businesses locate along the route because of the new capacity, adding more traffic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although the type of businesses that are locating along I-94 in Midtown are not there because of the freeway. We may see more industrial businesses in other parts of the city/region because of the I-94 expansion, but all Midtown will get is a wider I-94 that is even more clogged with trucks than before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Not really a strawman argument. If you don't widen the freeway eventually the traffic will have to go somewhere. It will go to the most logical routes. The extra congestion through those neighborhoods will have a negative impact though air quality, safety, making it harder to cross streets like Warren and Grand Blvd. With the increase of truck traffic expected through the new bridge [[lets just face it we are not spending $4 billion just to p!$$ of Matty) it will have to go somewhere and we will be creating the same problems that Windsor has built a new freeway to solve.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arb...quality-of-li/

---

Part of the problem with this project is that it doesn't take into account the new bridge [[remember it was designed in the 90s). A lot of the trucks along 94 east of 96 are going to Port Huron because they're trying to avoid congestion at the Ambassador Bridge. With the new bridge, that traffic is going to head down 96 and 75, not up 94 towards Macomb County.

And truckers don't react to congestion by taking surface streets [[many of which they aren't allowed on.) They find other freeway routes instead.

And, personally, I'm not worried about traffic from regular cars in Midtown. There's a lot of excess capacity in the road system there already.

I would prefer to see
1) M-59 connected from M-23 to I-94 [[converting Hall road into a highway);
2) Van Dyke M-53 from Washington to Imlay City [[converting Van Dyke into a highway)
3) Haggerty Connecter from I-96 connected to I-75 in Clarkston pasing through M-59. [[converting haggerty connector, martin parkway, union lake, S. Willaims Lake, Maceday Lake, Nelsey Lake, White Lake, Dixie Highway into a highway)

Tell me why are we widening I-94, because of 15min delays during rush hour?

Makes no sense at all. Take the $800 million dollars and fix the torn up surface streets or something more worthwhile. The construction industry must have SEMCOG in their pocket or something. This seems fishy.

I-96 is being shutdown between Newburgh and Telegraph for an entire year in 2014 as well

http://96fix.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newdetroit

3) Haggerty Connecter from I-96 connected to I-75 in Clarkston pasing through M-59. [[converting haggerty connector, martin parkway, union lake, S. Willaims Lake, Maceday Lake, Nelsey Lake, White Lake, Dixie Highway into a highway)

---

That would be huge. It would take traffic wanting to go north and take it out of the city and instead put it on the edge of the burbs.

My understanding is that I-275 was supposed to reconnect with I-75, but it got canceled out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Interesting point, but there are a few other things at play:

1. People use the newly widened road when previously they avoided it because they were concerned about traffic. So other roads may lose traffic, but the widened road will be just as congested.

2. New businesses locate along the route because of the new capacity, adding more traffic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although the type of businesses that are locating along I-94 in Midtown are not there because of the freeway. We may see more industrial businesses in other parts of the city/region because of the I-94 expansion, but all Midtown will get is a wider I-94 that is even more clogged with trucks than before.

---

So to take it a step further..... new businesses, added pedestrian counts and evolving congestion would also bring about a demand for public transit, would it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

---

But if we are in an area with declining or stagnant population, why the FUCK expand the freeway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artds

I-96 is being shutdown between Newburgh and Telegraph for an entire year in 2014 as well

http://96fix.com/

---

If I'm correct, I-96 between Newburgh and Telegraph was re-surfaced 15-20 years ago. You mean it's wore out again? You would think it would last longer than that unless they used some cheap concrete and asphalt for repairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

That would be huge. It would take traffic wanting to go north and take it out of the city and instead put it on the edge of the burbs.

My understanding is that I-275 was supposed to reconnect with I-75, but it got canceled out.

---

This was planned long ago when I-275 was first planned and was cancelled by the late 70s.
At this point it will hopefully never happen. It would have huge right-of-way acquistion costs, huge environmental impact, massive destruction of wetlands, and lead to an insane amount of sprawl.

I-96 was resurfaced through Livonia in the late 90s, but now is at the point where major reconstruction is necessary. It was just an overlay, which just extends the life but is not a complete fix.

This is a complete rebuilt of the original highway.

For both I-75 and I-94 there are definetely spots that need safety improvements or interchanges to be reconstructed. However I'm not sure an across-the-board widening is necessary for the full length of the sections in questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DTWflyer

I-96 was resurfaced through Livonia in the late 90s, but now is at the point where major reconstruction is necessary. It was just an overlay, which just extends the life but is not a complete fix.

This is a complete rebuilt of the original highway.

---

Thx for the clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Not really a strawman argument. If you don't widen the freeway eventually the traffic will have to go somewhere. It will go to the most logical routes. The extra congestion through those neighborhoods will have a negative impact though air quality, safety, making it harder to cross streets like Warren and Grand Blvd. With the increase of truck traffic expected through the new bridge [[lets just face it we are not spending $4 billion just to p!$$ of Matty) it will have to go somewhere and we will be creating the same problems that Windsor has built a new freeway to solve.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arb...quality-of-li/

http://www.partnershipborderstudy.co...20Mobility.pdf

What many don't understand is that the traffic being generated is being done so not just by Detroiters or suburbanites, it is being generated as a result of improving trade between Canada, the Unitied States and Mexico.

---

Valiant effort to bring facts to the table. But remember that this discussion is about religion. Certain mosques hate the west because of our approach to life. This synagogue worships Kunstler/Jacobs and takes it as a matter of faith that freeways are evil.

You might as well argue for more tarsands oil pipelines bringing petcoke to Detroit at a Sierra Club meeting held at Gary Peters house.

In spite of the above, the high priests of urbanistism here are right about a lot. MDOT's not going to build a pedestrian friendly freeway. They are salivating at billions of federal dollars and will build a momument to highway designs of the 1980 when current MDOT leaders were indoctrinated by the gods of 1950's design. It will be massively stupid and unnecessarily destructive of neighborhoods and will remain a congested mess.

Where I differ, is that congestion is good, and a well-designed freeway to manage trafficflow through our fine city is equally essential to our jobs and economy. Too bad that it'll be built without consideration of its negative effect on urban development in the city.

The protest should not be against the freeway -- it should be against old, stale freeway design of the 50s-80s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TKshreve

So to take it a step further..... new businesses, added pedestrian counts and evolving congestion would also bring about a demand for public transit, would it not?

---

The I-94 expansion won't bring new businesses that bring foot traffic to Midtown. It will bring new industrial businesses in southwest Detroit, Warren, Dearborn, maybe the area around the incinerator, etc. And that's not a bad thing. But we could achieve that same impact with a less expensive improvement project that is less damaging to Midtown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

But if we are in an area with declining or stagnant population, why the FUCK expand the freeway?

---

yes... exactly. that would be the logical conclusion. However as we are in a region of declining and stagnant population, and we apparently ARE building it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

I'm glad to see the I-75 improvement coming. I've studied them at length. Here are some of the improvements coming:

- Addition of 4th lane along the entire stretch, which will act as an HOV lane during rush hour
- Square Lake Road will be modernized to be a right lane exit\right lane entrance with I-75
- Traffic from I-696 to NB I-75 will no longer weave\merge with NB I-75 traffic exiting at 11 Mile
- The WB 12 Mile to SB I-75 loop will be gone, instead WB 12 Mile traffic will turn left and use the same straight ramp the EB 12 Mile uses to access SB 75

Nearly every single bridge along the route will be updated or replaced.

ROW acquisition [[which is rather minimal) will take place in 2014. Construction begins in 2015 and ends in 2018.

---

The cost for I-75 expansion are vastly under-estimated, and that is not including the cost of land acquisition and lawsuits. They are pricing it as if it were one of those rural stretches with the highway at grade and where the state already has the right-of-way for sufficient space to expand. They don't seem to include bridge reconstruction in the estimate, either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

Is that true of an area with a declining or stagnant population? I'm sort of serious.. I mean if we have X amount of commuters in the region and the region is not adding population [[and is actually losing it in various places) ... however we are adding lanes where there is congestion, how does adding a lane NOT reduce congestion?

---

Bailey, the logic of the high priests here is that increasing road capacity induces an increase in road usage. Businesses locate along the freeway. More people get in the habit of using that new, faster road. And this builds on itself until the new, higher capacity roadway is just as 'congested' as the old road.

Look at M-59. I don't live out these in that god-forsaken land of sprawl, but I have seen it over the last decades. Driving from Utica to Gratiot during rush hour remains miserable. A lot more cars move, but perhaps not much faster.

The congregation here believes that if you don't build new freeways, the existing traffic simply finds a diverse route to and through the city. In the old days, streets like Second, Third, and John R were fitted out with timed lights to become very efficient. Why? Because Woodward became congested -- even at its obscene width. The Lodge and Chrysler 'solved' this -- but also took the traffic away from Woodward. One might argue that if this traffic had stayed on Woodward, the streetscape might have remained more viable.

The church also ignores that much of the traffic on our freeways isn't commuters, but it commerce. Trucks. They have an answer for that. More trains.

Also, they ignore that there are a lot of people and trucks simply passing through. Their answer to that is to send them away. They don't understand that traffic and congestion are a normal part of a viable community. Downtown Royal Oak is congested, as is true with Ann Arbor. Why? Because people want to be there. Why? Because other people are there. Its a feedback loop. If you keep your freeways running efficiently, then visitors and commerce will come and congest your world. And you shall truly be joyous unto the lord of commerce. And thou shalt be vilified by those who see in petcoke an environmental disaster, rather than a sign of Detroit's comeback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Valiant effort to bring facts to the table. But remember that this discussion is about religion. Certain mosques hate the west because of our approach to life. This synagogue worships Kunstler/Jacobs and takes it as a matter of faith that freeways are evil.

---

Actually, the opponents of this expansion have marshaled their facts quite intelligently. If anything reeks of policy rooted in mythology, it's when the facts fly in the face of your argument and you simply keep reading the same scripture. [["Expansions fight congestion! Urban freeways don't depress city land value!")

Whatever, man. Live by faith, not by sight! ;)

what happened to the "Bus Rapid Transit" proposal from Snyder? weren't these supposed to take advantage of the freeways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

what happened to the "Bus Rapid Transit" proposal from Snyder? weren't these supposed to take advantage of the freeways?

---

No. They're supposed to run on the major arterials like Woodward, Gratiot, etc. Traffic lights will be timed so they don't have to stop except at stations. That's how the one in Grand Rapids that is being built will work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Besides, as many have pointed out, freeway expansions do not ease congestion.

---

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

what happened to the "Bus Rapid Transit" proposal from Snyder? weren't these supposed to take advantage of the freeways?

---

I suggest you read the whole plan. I am willing to bet that most who comment on the plan have not read it, but are parroting others.

"commitment to the RTA for an additional $6.5 million to study transit development in other high-priority transit corridors including express bus, rail, and bus rapid transit [[e.g., Gratiot Ave. [[M-3) from Detroit to Mt. Clemens; M-59 corridor between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens; and Michigan Ave. [[M-12) from Downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor, including service to Detroit Metropolitan Airport)."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I suggest you read the whole plan. I am willing to bet that most who comment on the plan have not read it, but are parroting others.

"commitment to the RTA for an additional $6.5 million to study transit development in other high-priority transit corridors including express bus, rail, and bus rapid transit [[e.g., Gratiot Ave. [[M-3) from Detroit to Mt. Clemens; M-59 corridor between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens; and Michigan Ave. [[M-12) from Downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor, including service to Detroit Metropolitan Airport)."

---

What are the you quoting there? SEMCOG's regional transportation plan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

---

Strawmen are fun! You can knock them down!

Yes, a freeway is more efficient than a dirt road. But a four lane freeway is not more efficient than a three lane freeway in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Freeway expansions obviously do ease congestion. If I took a 2 lane road, and magically converted it to a 10 lane road, there would clearly be less congestion. People were claiming otherwise in a previous thread because they were misusing the concept of induced congestion.

If this weren't the case, there would be no need for anything but rutted, dirt trails. Why expand a road, if it does nothing for mobility? The Romans should still be using the Appian Way, right?

---

No, it wouldn't necessarily be less congestion. Widening the roads could just entice drivers to use the widened road who would have otherwise taken another route, such as drivers who are just traveling a short distance. So the expanded roadway might simultaneously shave 30 seconds from the trip of a person who is only going 2 miles -- since they get to avoid stop lights on the surface street they would've otherwise taken -- while adding 10 minutes to the commute of someone traveling 20 miles because that person has to share the new lanes with people skipping stoplights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Yes, a freeway is more efficient than a dirt road. But a four lane freeway is not more efficient than a three lane freeway in the long run.

---

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

---

Larger subways and buses don't induce demand just like SUVs don't induce demand. It is network capacity, not vehicle capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

---

He said more efficient. Efficiency means more than just the volume of traffic moved.

My hometown of Houston keeps widening its freeways. The Katy Freeway is now 12 lanes across [[up to 20 lanes in some places), not including service roads [[or feeders, as we call 'em down there). Traffic is still terrible. The more you build, the more cars use it and any increase in flow is negated. Terrible cycle.

http://ronenews92fm.files.wordpress....4/78481939.jpg

Here's the Katy Freeway most of the day, when it isnt' clogged for rush hour:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5209/katy2z.jpg

This was my lovely commute from the suburb where I was raised to downtown. I lived 30ish miles north of city center. It was an hour and a half drive in the morning rush hour. This is I-45; even 8-10 lanes doesn't help.

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/13/26/67...11/628x471.jpg


PLEASE learn from our mistakes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

What are the you quoting there? SEMCOG's regional transportation plan?

---

YES! It is in there... That is what I am saying people are commenting on what others are commenting on without reading the whole plan!! :[[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

YES! It is in there... That is what I am saying people are commenting on what others are commenting on without reading the whole plan!! :[[

---

I don't think people oppose the entire SEMCOG transportation plan. Just the I-94 [[and in some cases I-75) part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Can you explain this? Because this seems to defy logic.

Obviously 4 lanes of capacity can move more traffic and commerce than 3 lanes of capacity.

Maybe we should run shorter subway trains and smaller buses. Why expand, since we will just induce the same congestion?

---

It's been explained above, but basically when you increase capacity on a road, then more people will use the road, which uses up the excess capacity and means you don't improve efficiency. So we'll spend 2.7 billion dollars, I-94 will be just as congested, and Gratiot, Warren, etc will be even more empty.

For transit, adding capacity also induces demand, but "congestion" manifests as crowded stations, rather than the transit vehicle taking longer to reach its destination. So you get better efficiency. It is also much easier to add capacity to a transit system [[just buy an additional bus or train). And, finally, more people riding transit is a good thing, because it means, among many other things, less cars on the road.

Some, in conclusion, more freeway lanes = the same amount of congestion, plus negative impacts. More transit = less freeway congestion, plus positive impacts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Larger subways and buses don't induce demand just like SUVs don't induce demand. It is network capacity, not vehicle capacity.

---

Ok, then we should build no rail routes or new bus routes, because they will never provide any additional capacity?

Induced congestion is being misused in this thread. The theory doesn't claim that you can't reduce congestion by building more capacity; it just states that traffic will take the most convenient route, so if you expand a roadway it will generate an additional degree of traffic above the current traffic levels.

So, for example, if current traffic volume on I-75 is X, and you add a lane, the new traffic level might be X+.2X. It doesn't mean that the expanded highway will have the exact same congestion as the previous highway.

And you also have to look at the greater traffic context. Much of induced traffic is actually traffic redirected from other arterials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Induced congestion is being misused in this thread. The theory doesn't claim that you can't reduce congestion by building more capacity; it just states that traffic will take the most convenient route, so if you expand a roadway it will generate an additional degree of traffic above the current traffic levels.

---

Hey, Captain Disingenuous. If you "reduce congestion" by "adding capacity" and it then will "generate an additional degree of traffic above the current levels," then you can NEVER reduce congestion by building capacity. And that's exactly what the phenomenon of "induced demand" is all about.

C'mon, Bham. I don't know what ax you're grinding here, but you know better...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

The cost for I-75 expansion are vastly under-estimated, and that is not including the cost of land acquisition and lawsuits. They are pricing it as if it were one of those rural stretches with the highway at grade and where the state already has the right-of-way for sufficient space to expand. They don't seem to include bridge reconstruction in the estimate, either

---

M-DOT is very good at staying on budget.

People [[the nice way of saying YOU) are VASTLY exaggerating ROW acquisition need in the I-75 project. The 4th lane is coming from the sloping areas south of 12 mile, and the grassy median north of it.

The main part that is going to require ROW acquisition is on the east side of NB 75 between 11 Mile and 696 due to the ramp braiding.

I'll tell you what, if the government wants to come in and take my shitty house that's on the service drive, I'd say THANK YOU. Of course not everyone will feel that way, but I don't see a big fight happening.

The government uses the power of eminent domain rather sparingly, and this case is not controversial or completely unexpected.

The only question I would have is how does eminent domain work with a house that's underwater? Do they bail the homeowner out? Or do they somehow remain stuck paying on a loan and no longer have a house. I would hope the government would fully pay off the loan.


As for dispelling the myths about all these houses that will be scooped up, here's the real details:

26 houses
2 businesses
1 church

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...6_420756_7.pdf

Up to four lanes per travel direction [[i.e. an eight lane divided highway), adding lanes makes sense. Beyond eight lanes per travel direction, motorists become too confused and there are serious problems with lane changes. Once you get to four lanes by two directions, if you need more highway capacity, it is better to build a parallel route somewhere.

I am also not convinced that service drives are worth the space they take up. Here is SE Florida, with a square grid like SE Michigan, there are no service drives on I-95 or the turnpike and it seems to work quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Hey, Captain Disingenuous. If you "reduce congestion" by "adding capacity" and it then will "generate an additional degree of traffic above the current levels," then you can NEVER reduce congestion by building capacity. And that's exactly what the phenomenon of "induced demand" is all about.

C'mon, Bham. I don't know what ax you're grinding here, but you know better...

---

Nerdum, you are both right. No need to get upset.

But Nehrdo, you really can't use this 'induced demand' argument against freeways. 'Induced demand' is simply a fact of life. Like gravity. Every resource that gets improved sees induced demand. While you use it to argue against freeway expansion, Woodward Avenue is enjoying and benefitting from induced demand. So did the paths cut through the woods by Native Americans. The induced demand begat dirt roads, paved roads, freeways.

btw, don't we want induced demand? Should only Chicago be busy? Don't we want Detroit to be 'in demand'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

btw, don't we want induced demand? Should only Chicago be busy? Don't we want Detroit to be 'in demand'?

---

The expansion won't induce demand to go TO Detroit,only THROUGH Detroit at the expense of everything around the freeway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

The expansion won't induce demand to go TO Detroit,only THROUGH Detroit at the expense of everything around the freeway.

---

That's what logic would dictate. If people truly wanted to come to Detroit, nothing's stopping them. It's not like I-94 is suddenly shut off from traffic between I-96 to Conner because it's only 3 lanes. Besides, the roads immediately around I-94 wouldn't be heavily underutilized ghost streets during the day if people wanted to be in Detroit.

Detroit already has, so far as I have been able to determine, more lane-miles of free expressway per capita than any major city in the world. And so far it's working out great; so yeah, let's add some more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DTWflyer

This was planned long ago when I-275 was first planned and was cancelled by the late 70s.At this point it will hopefully never happen. It would have huge right-of-way acquistion costs, huge environmental impact, massive destruction of wetlands, and lead to an insane amount of sprawl.

---

Actually, the route of I-275 was originally to be I-75 itself, and the local spur was to come up the route of current I-75 & continue straight past where it makes that abrupt turn at [[the former) Hastings St. I believe it then at some point connected to I-94. Things changed when those in the route of the incomplete I-275 balked at having the freeway plow through.

Expanding the freeways are needed. However, that's not to say that other methods aren't needed too.

Keep in mind that on I-75 that the 4th lane will be an HOV lane during rush hour. This will promote folks to get cars off the road.

Those saying that induced demand is going to eliminate all congestion relief are not being genuine. There most certainly will be induced demand, there will also be some reduction due to the HOV lane. However, adding a lane is going to reduce congestion, for now.

The bottom line is, it's going to move people faster to where they're going. It's going to buy us some time to start working on real regional transit. While I'm not hopeful we will ever really get it done, I do think attitudes are starting to change. Hopefully they change fast enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

The bottom line is, it's going to move people faster to where they're going. It's going to buy us some time to start working on real regional transit. While I'm not hopeful we will ever really get it done, I do think attitudes are starting to change. Hopefully they change fast enough.

---

At a FOUR BILLION dollar price tag. Is that worth it? The state can't even penny a few million for Woodward Light rail yet they spend billions making it a few minutes faster to get through Detroit [[key word through)???

We don't need time to think about regional transit. It is very simple. You start building lines going out from the Downtown connecting to major points in the suburbs. Not freakin' rocket science. No need to reinvent the wheel here people! Throw this kind of money at transit and it will get built... fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtf1972

Actually, the route of I-275 was originally to be I-75 itself, and the local spur was to come up the route of current I-75 & continue straight past where it makes that abrupt turn at [[the former) Hastings St. I believe it then at some point connected to I-94. Things changed when those in the route of the incomplete I-275 balked at having the freeway plow through.

---

The inside Detroit location of the Chrysler, like the Lodge and the Ford, was conceived in Detroit's master freeway plan long before the interstate highway system legislation was passed. By making it a part of the interstate system, Detroit got Uncle Sugar to pay 90% of the cost.

I want to see light rail lines along the freeways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

I want to see light rail lines along the freeways.

---

I'd like to see light rail, I just don't know if it makes the most sense to put it along the freeways.

We really need light rail that isn't at grade, for example a subway through densely populated areas that transitions to elevated rail.

The big thing is that light rail needs to be the FASTER option. I spent some time in Manhattan and going somewhere by car or taxi was slow. If you could get to where you were going using one or two subway lines it was amazingly faster.

I'm moving to Rochester Hills soon and there is amazingly a total lack of any kind of transit, not even buses. It would be nice to see a BRT route run down John R to Woodward and all the way downtown. It could be used for downtown workers as well as a way for people to go downtown for games and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

I want to see light rail lines along the freeways.

---

Light rail on freeways is nuts. Light rail operates as a streetcar. I think what you mean is heavy rail like what Chicago has.

Rail in the middle of freeways is the antithesis of the arguments that many on this thread have espoused. This will make the freeway gap much wider, not narrower! At a minimum you would need to widen the freeway by 50-60 feet additional. Since the stations will be located far from any developable land, and that area is very noisy you will not get TOD [[transit orientated design/ development) spin-offs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

Detroit already has, so far as I have been able to determine, more lane-miles of free expressway per capita than any major city in the world. And so far it's working out great; so yeah, let's add some more.

---

You need to visit MSP. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=msp&hl...=m&hq=msp&z=11

In the 16 county metro area, there are 3.3 million.

For comparison, Metro Detroit.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Detroi...higan&t=m&z=11

Its seven county metro area is just shy of 5 million.

Current list of miles of freeway per caps.
http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/20/ci...-who-of-decay/

This list shows metro Detroit as being between ultra eco Portland and uber dense Boston.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

You need to visit MSP. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=msp&hl...=m&hq=msp&z=11

In the 16 county metro area, there are 3.3 million.

For comparison, Metro Detroit.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Detroi...higan&t=m&z=11

Its seven county metro area is just shy of 5 million.

Current list of miles of freeway per caps.
http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/20/ci...-who-of-decay/

This list shows metro Detroit as being between ultra eco Portland and uber dense Boston.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm

---

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to Detroit per se, the City with it's sub-700K population, not the metro region with its many millions. Obviously if you include the vast unbuilt expanses of northwest Oakland County and so on, it's a lot different. I'm making a city-to-city comparison here, not a region-to-region comparison. The region isn't, overall, quite as "broken" as the City. But thanks for the refs.

And then looking at the source of the data is this killer: "They have good data on highway miles, but only estimated lane miles unfortunately. Still that is the critical one."

OK, here's some data to start with, then let's see where the facts take us. By my calculations there are 395 lane-miles of expressway in the City proper. [[I know how many lanes each segment of freeway is, with a few short exceptions, and it's easy to measure the distances.) If I'm wrong, and someone has a precise number, let me know.

The census bureau estimates the 2012 population at 701,475. So based on that, Detroit has 56.31 lane-miles of expressway per 100K population. [[And that's before any further expansion.)

If you can find a major city that beats that, let me know. "Major city" is to avoid situations like Pleasant Ridge. Let's say anything over 250K population counts for this purpose. I'd be happy to be wrong here, but doubt that I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

If you can find a major city that beats that, let me know. "Major city" is to avoid situations like Pleasant Ridge. Let's say anything over 250K population counts for this purpose. I'd be happy to be wrong here, but doubt that I am.

---

profscott: In my readings, the only city with more lane-miles per resident than Detroit is Kansas City.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

OK, here's some data to start with, then let's see where the facts take us. By my calculations there are 395 lane-miles of expressway in the City proper. [[I know how many lanes each segment of freeway is, with a few short exceptions, and it's easy to measure the distances.) If I'm wrong, and someone has a precise number, let me know.

The census bureau estimates the 2012 population at 701,475. So based on that, Detroit has 56.31 lane-miles of expressway per 100K population. [[And that's before any further expansion.)

If you can find a major city that beats that, let me know. "Major city" is to avoid situations like Pleasant Ridge. Let's say anything over 250K population counts for this purpose. I'd be happy to be wrong here, but doubt that I am.

---

Sort of a side question but, why do we care about city proper only? Aren't most of the expansions happening outside the city?

and if we do, wouldn't we need to look at daytime population. I mean you're not counting 10s of thousands[[?) of commuters coming into Detroit, to the CBD, MidTown, etc... in that number right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Putting on my devils advocate hat:

How about we take the freeway away and put all of that congestion and idling trucks on surface streets like Grand Blvd, Warren, or Harper? What will that do for safety, air quality, timely transit, or quality of life in New Center, Midtown, or other neighborhoods? Is this really less destructive? How? What will happen when truck travel increases because of the new bridge crossing?

---

How about just spending half of the money on repaving I94 and I75 and use the rest on laying tracks on Woodward, Gratiot, Michigan, and Grand River for the light rail. Air pollution would not be a problem as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

Aren't most of the expansions happening outside the city?

---

No. Most of the expansions are on I-94 in the city limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to Detroit per se, the City with it's sub-700K population, not the metro region with its many millions. Obviously if you include the vast unbuilt expanses of northwest Oakland County and so on, it's a lot different. I'm making a city-to-city comparison here, not a region-to-region comparison. The region isn't, overall, quite as "broken" as the City. But thanks for the refs.

---

I was wondering about that.

So this is a fascinating but irrelevant statistic. Any idea where the Detroit SMSA sits in comparison to other cities. I would think we'd be slightly above average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

No. Most of the expansions are on I-94 in the city limits.

---

I only see that they are widening 7 miles of 94 where as they are doing 18 miles of I75 and all that 96 work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

I only see that they are widening 7 miles of 94 where as they are doing 18 miles of I75 and all that 96 work.

---

Yeah but the cost of the 94 widening is 2.7 billion because it is more thorough than the 75 widening [[1 billion price tag).

Was 96 through Livonia part of this as well? I thought that was a previous plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Yeah but the cost of the 94 widening is 2.7 billion because it is more thorough than the 75 widening [[1 billion price tag).

Was 96 through Livonia part of this as well? I thought that was a previous plan.

---

ah. I was thinking in distances being widened and lane miles of capacity , not dollars. Also, the 94 work is a lot of bridge replacement and exit/entrance fixes too...right? I mean widen or not, the bridges are getting replaces and the entrances are getting fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

ah. I was thinking in distances being widened and lane miles of capacity , not dollars. Also, the 94 work is a lot of bridge replacement and exit/entrance fixes too...right? I mean widen or not, the bridges are getting replaces and the entrances are getting fixed.

---

Yeah and almost everyone agrees that needs to get done. The problem is that MDOT managed to do that for the entire lengths of both the Southfield and the Lodge for about 10% of what the I-94 project will cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newdetroit

I would prefer to see
1) M-59 connected from M-23 to I-94 [[converting Hall road into a highway);
2) Van Dyke M-53 from Washington to Imlay City [[converting Van Dyke into a highway)
3) Haggerty Connecter from I-96 connected to I-75 in Clarkston pasing through M-59. [[converting haggerty connector, martin parkway, union lake, S. Willaims Lake, Maceday Lake, Nelsey Lake, White Lake, Dixie Highway into a highway)

---

There is no way at all that any of these things are going to happen. Especially #3, where exactly are you going to put an expressway in Oakland County in that area? That area is already developed and I'm sure residents in that area would be against it like they were when it was originally planned to go through there.

To think the only major city without light rail or streetcar and we lost the opportunity to creating wider barriers to developement. We nees to fire every public official in SE Michigan

Talking about religion and freeways, I actually have a solution. All of you remember the Jewish Community battling with 696 freeway going through Oak Park. Well, they ended up building a park on top of the overpass to keep the community from being separated. So, why not have I-94 [[between I-75 and the lodge) be a tunnel like 696 in Oak Park and New Center and Midtown could be connected like it never was before?????????????????????????????????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newdetroit

Talking about religion and freeways, I actually have a solution. All of you remember the Jewish Community battling with 696 freeway going through Oak Park. Well, they ended up building a park on top of the overpass to keep the community from being separated. So, why not have I-94 [[between I-75 and the lodge) be a tunnel like 696 in Oak Park and New Center and Midtown could be connected like it never was before?????????????????????????????????????????

---

That is a splendid idea. You would have to have ventilation breaks [[Oak Park's deal is not one, long, continuous park, but a few of them spaced fairly close together) but it would certainly work aesthetically. It would add some cost to the preojct but it's worth considering. Any MDOT folks reading these posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

I only see that they are widening 7 miles of 94 where as they are doing 18 miles of I75 and all that 96 work.

---

I don't see how I-75 is only 1 billion. Adding another lane in both directions for 18 miles and reconstructing the whole freeway and replacing all the bridges. Not to mention all the land you have to acquire for the extra lanes. That can't be cheap in Oakland County.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliffy

I don't see how I-75 is only 1 billion. Adding another lane in both directions for 18 miles and reconstructing the whole freeway and replacing all the bridges. Not to mention all the land you have to acquire for the extra lanes. That can't be cheap in Oakland County.

---

Do the I-75 bidges need to be replaced? Often interstates have future expansion built into them by installing wider bridges during initial construction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

OK, here's some data to start with, then let's see where the facts take us. By my calculations there are 395 lane-miles of expressway in the City proper. [[I know how many lanes each segment of freeway is, with a few short exceptions, and it's easy to measure the distances.) If I'm wrong, and someone has a precise number, let me know.

The census bureau estimates the 2012 population at 701,475. So based on that, Detroit has 56.31 lane-miles of expressway per 100K population. [[And that's before any further expansion.)

If you can find a major city that beats that, let me know. "Major city" is to avoid situations like Pleasant Ridge. Let's say anything over 250K population counts for this purpose. I'd be happy to be wrong here, but doubt that I am.

---

I'm curious what the source of your data is. By my estimate, there are just over 550 lane miles of freeway in the city. That includes mainline interstates, freeways, connectors, and ramps. It does not include service drives. [[Michigan has pretty fine-grained data for roads that are eligible for federal aid. It is all linked to the Michigan Geographic Framework, so you can pull things out by community.)

When you use national datasets, like HPMS, you run into sampling issues. It is very easy to pull out data by MSA; but much harder to pull data out by community/FIPS/MCD, or whatever your smallest geography is.

You could buy data from TeleAtlas, etc., but they charge an arm and a leg.