Printable View
We get so caught up sometimes on the subject of building freeways, I thought perhaps I'd raise the topic of "freeway removal." Could this be a net benefit for Detroit? For its suburbs? It may sound outrageous on this forum, but I found a pretty good website that gives an overview of the potential economic benefits.
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...edReduced.html
After perusing that, I thought it doesn't sound like so much crazy talk after all.
I think removal of I-375 and the portion of the Lodge south of I-94 could do wonders for downtown Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
But we'll never see it happen, because the doomsday prophecy of "eternal gridlock" will triumph over reason.
Good proposals. Ideally, the retained freeways would girdle the dense area, not drive right through it. I'd also add that I-75 is routed too close to downtown, and the concrete canyon around the CBD hurts it. Why did they do that? To protect the CBD in case of a riot? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
That is an interesting concept that could certainly bring benefits to certain locations on certain parts of freeways. On a larger scale, though, I am not entirely sure how this would play out [[or how the author of the article thinks it would).
Would there be no freeways within cities but between cities? If so, I do not think that would necessarily reduce sprawl. In fact, it could increase sprawl, as businesses currently located in central cities could relocate to areas with better freeway access. This would be especially true in a city like Detroit that has such poor public transportation, and less true in cities that already rely heavily on public transportation.
Also, while the author discusses potentially benefits from such an approach, he does not discuss the costs. Without freeways in urban areas, delivery of goods and services in central cities would become more costly and inefficient, raising prices for those consumers even more than they already are. In this respect, that would make the areas that remain near freeways even more comparably desirable than before, possibly encouraging greater sprawl outside central cities.
While this is thought-provoking, I am not convinced that it would be practical or desirable on a large-scale. I think that removing freeways would work best in small amounts, in particular areas in which a freeway is stunting urban development.
The alignment of the freeways was established in the late 1950s before the Watts riot kicked off the 60s orgy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
If you were to pull up the Lodge and the Chrysler south of 8-mile and the Fisher east of Telegraph, you could guarantee the total abandonment of the CBD.
,
When I asked this question several months ago people here thought I was bat shit crazy for it.
Well, it's not an objective essay, that much is certain! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
There's an interesting little story in the book Asphalt Nation. It's about Eisenhower driving downtown in some mid-sized Midwestern city [[can't recall which one) and he's held up by traffic. So he asks the driver what the hold-up is. They tell him they're building the freeway through the city and the construction is behind the snarl. Eisenhower is surprised, because he thought the interstate system was going to bypass cities, not run through them. [[And this is the guy who signed the legislation creating interstates!)Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
And that may be what freeways are best at: Facilitating city-to-city travel. Some writers, such as Lewis Mumford, joke that they'd rather see intercity roads that adjoined cities instead of trying to drive them right through the delicate tissue of an old city.
As for the scenario of "businesses currently located in central cities could relocate to areas with better freeway access," you could argue that that's what happened after the freeways were built. Urban freeways like I-94 aren't very good at what they do: Trunk road for people passing through, for people crossing town, for people changing from freeway to freeway, yet built in the 1950s to narrow specifications, prohibitively expensive to enlarge, and surrounded by small parcels that don't fit well with freeway-oriented development. So why develop your supercenter or office tower downtown when there are acres of greenfield in the boonies with bigger parcels? That's been the prevailing trend here for a generation.
Another way of thinking about transportation is that different tools in the transportation toolbox are suited for different jobs. Want to have a good system for moving goods and people point-to-point between cities? Build good intercity roads. Want to appeal to cosmopolitan types? Put everything within walking distance so little travel is necessary. Want to move large quantities of people into one place without building massive roads and parking structures? Light rail or subways work well.
Instead, we put every demand upon roads and vehicles because that's all we have in our tranportation toolbox. For a generation, our mantra has been "prosperity follows new pavement."
Well, maybe. But as some of the freeway removal advocates point out, when they've removed freeways some of the predictions were dire: Traffic snarls, disinvestment, etc. But, actually, what happened wasn't as bad as had been predicted. Alternatively, lots of the claims in the old days that freeways would help downtowns turned out to be of doubtful verity.Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
Now, if we were to dig through that transportation toolbox, we might find other forms of transportation that work better for moving large quantities of people downtown without knocking half of it down for roads and parking.
Maybe we could try removing those little spurs that block off downtown first. See what happens. Heck, since we're talking about taking whole areas of the city off the grid, it might not be such a radical experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
I was kind of joking, but, yes, the chronology would seem to rule it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
That's not necessarily what I was proposing, but an interesting scenario nonetheless. We've made roads and vehicles bear every burden in town, so removing freeways would essentially be removing all high-speed transportation. But what if that weren't the case? What if we had other systems to pick up that slack? If so, we might one day see a city surrounded by roads and park-and-rides. That doesn't sound so bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
It's early days yet. There's plenty of time for people to say I'm bat-shit crazy. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
The good folks of Washington, DC did not want the interstate and its through traffic running through the middle of the city. The solution was a beltway which would route the through traffic [[south to northwest, south to northeast, and vice-versa) around the city through rural Virginia and Maryland. Every beltway exit has become a city into itself. In 1956, Tyson's Corner in Virginia was a country crossroads with two gas stations and a general store. Today, Tyson's Corner has more square feet of office space [[occupied) than Miami-Dade County. A similar situation [[though not of that magnitude) exists at all of the other beltway exits. The Beltway has boecome the "main street" of the area and they are talking of building an "outer beltway" to route traffic around the area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
And some of us still do. :) http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=3756Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
For what its worth, here is a map showing daily usage rates on Detroit's major roads:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/detmetro_19640_7.pdf
Today, Tyson's Corner is also one of the biggest traffic clusterfucks on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
And if Maryland and Virginia think that an outer beltway is going to do anything other than waste money, they need to pull their heads out of the ass of the 1950s and visit Houston.
I think this is the "Edge City" effect, where a beltway meets a spoke road and spawns freeway-oriented development. But I should point out that these places are in deep trouble these days. They are trying, at great cost, to try to retrofit Tyson's Corners to today's growing demand for walkable environments. Whether it will be a success or an ungainly hybrid is anybody's guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Troy is a similar environment to Tyson's Corners and it's in trouble too. They used to get all the development they wanted, and even turned down a number of development deals over the years. But last year, they resorted to tax breaks to keep Kelly Services in town. The move toward a transit center is a good one. But for Americans, the argument that a freeway is a "main street" and a mall is "downtown" doesn't hold as much water as it used to, and that is part of the problem these places face.
Some people, though, don't care about or need "main streets" or "downtowns." That Joel Garreau guy couldn't praise "Edge Cities" enough. [[It's kind of weird to read his book today, as he wrote it at the zenith of car culture.) He seems proud that "no cities of the old style were built after 1915, the year the millionth Model T came off the line." But, to my mind, what he's saying is that "no new downtowns were built after 1915." As a nation, have we lost the ability to create downtowns? To me, that's a little scary.
I think we have. When we do try to replicate a downtown or town center, we end up with these gaudy, overcommercialized "lifestyle centers", which is really just a mall with a different spatial arrangement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
We need wholesale zoning changes if we want to get anywhere.
Remember that Washington DC metro area has a problem the Houston and Detroit do not have. There is major north-south car and truck traffic passing THROUGH the area with no stopping there. It is also a major junction where the northbound traffic from Florida and the southeast [[I-95 all the way) and the Atlanta area [[I-85 to I-95) either go north east on I-95 to New York, New Jersey, and New England [[I-95) or go northwest to Breezewood and the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
They do need an outer beltway. The problem is that an outer beltway will only spawn more edge cities. They have been talking having an outer beltway with very few exits.
I lived in northern Virginia from 1985 to 1994. Tyson's Corner is really not that bad to negotiate except during the Christmas shopping season. Now the Seven Corners intersection is another story. You have to know what you are doing there and there is no interstate. The worst interstate area there is the Springfield "mixing bowl". I had to negotiate that every day from 1989 to 1992.
OK, you asked for it... you are bat-shit crazy! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Let me ask this question... north of I-94, what is the major cross-town roadway for getting from the east to the west side? Let's see McNichols [[6 Mile) is closed, so that would leave 7 Mile Rd. [[and Davison to a lesser extent)!! :eek:
I-94 does a great job of fixing the problem that the east/west sides of Detroit are poorly connected with cross town roadways. South of I-94 you have the Warren/Forest maze to get you across town, and below that you have to go to downtown to find cross town roads.
So I-94 does a great job of funneling all the cross town traffic that has nowhere else to go [[without the need for a map) between 7 Mile to the north and Warren/Forest to the south.
How much of the traffic on the Capital Beltway would you say is truckers travelling thousands of miles up-and-down the East Coast, versus regular turkeys making their daily commutes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
The three highest priority places for total freeway removal are:
- I-375 [[Chrysler Fwy south of the Fisher) [[along wit the remaking of Hastings Street in this section, along with the remaking of Jefferson Ave into a pedestrian friendly street)
- Fisher Fwy spur through Eastern Market to Gratiot Ave.
- Lodge Fwy south of the Fisher. [[one note on this, keep the tunnel under Cobo, and use it for an avenue/boulevard or even a rail right-of-way... a transit station under cobo???)
Some freeways sections that have had devastating affects, that would benifit from removal, but since it is so costly, perhaps mitigation efforts such as adding bridges, pedestrian crossways and parks build over the freeway:
- Fisher Fwy from the Jefferies Fwy to the Chrysler Fwy. [[most important)
- Fisher Fwy along Fort Street
- Jefferies Fwy along Grand River Ave
- Ford Fwy along Michigan Ave
- Ford Fwy along Harper Ave
Most of the Chrysler Fwy north of Downtown is already built, and although 50 years ago it destroyed Hastings Street, it is now long gone and removing the freeway won't really do anything. I think this is an important one to keep. Along with the Lodge at least from New Center.
-- I don't think any freeways in the suburbs should be removed, as the suburbs were built around the freeways. They rely on them [[sort of how Detroit neighborhoods relyed on streetcars). I think applies to the suburban portians of the city of Detroit as well. Rather, a policy should be enacted that no new freeways will be built! Anywhere! Transit systems cost less, are easier to upgrade and expand, and are much more sustainable and compatible to an urban environment.
Quick question: do the freeways HAVE to connect to one another? Could the Fisher Fwy be removed past the Jefferies in Downtown? Couldn't 75 just be rerouted via the Jefferies and Ford? That may be asking a little bit too much. But I could see it being removed and replaced with a rebuilt Vernor Ave. It would still be high-capacity like Woodward. Remember, many of our major aveneus such as Grand River are emptied out cos a freeway runs along them. But that is a good oportunity for light-rail to take over without interference from motorists.
Keep in mind that the The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was also designed to carry armored vehicles and troops in times of war.
Commerce and commuting are not the sole purpose of the system.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/b...interstate.htm
I know it's easy to laugh off any notion that the highways would ever be needed to move military forces -- maybe make a Red Dawn joke -- but lots of political, economic and social experts said in 1914 that world war was impossible because of all the trade ties between nations.
Haha. Well, um, thanks, I guess. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Well, Mack/MLK is south of I-94, but it's a solid crosstown thoroughfare without the annoying one-way orientations. I guess Davison, to my mind, is still the quickest way to drive from one side of town to the other. And why is McNichols closed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
It's true, Detroit never had a good system of crosstown thoroughfares [[probably something we inherited from the ribbon-shaped private claims and the odd alignment of the 10,000-acre tract smack in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
But consider that for a long time we DID have a good system of crosstown streetcars. We gave them up and pushed for high-speed roads instead. And that's when we did some sensible things [[bulldozing Myrtle through to Woodward, for instance) and a lot of questionable things [[routing I-75 on Vernor Highway).
It is a handy route for people who don't want to consult a map, but when you consider that it handles through traffic, switching traffic, short-trip traffic ... well, that's a lot of jobs to give one road. [[And that's not to mention the thousands of demolitions that went into building it.) Ideally, we should put some other transportation option in place to pick up the slack and promote density -- if we build dense enough, maybe we won't need to take all those crosstown trips. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
keep in mind he got the idea from Adolph Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Interesting point. I guess I can understand this rationale in the context of the road between, say, Washington and Alaska or between the Rouge Plant and Willow Run [[both built 1942-1943), but I find it harder to understand the military rationale for roads that bisect and trisect large cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
8 Mile, and to a lesser extent, Mack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Granted, some folks in the neighborhoods bordering 8 Mile simply take a 5/10 minute ride up to I-696, which is considerably faster than all the routes before-mentioned. Personally, the Warren and [[especially) the Hazel Park police have been pissing me off with their obsessive patrolling of 8 Mile, so that's how I discovered I-696.
In the 1962 Cuban Crisis, the army company that I was assigned to made a short notice240 mile move from Camp Pickett, VA to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. The interstates hadn't been built at that time and it was rough keeping the 56 truck convoy together passing through towns with stop lights. Every sizable town we passed through, we would have to pull over on the shoulder outside of town and recollect the convoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Interesting point. I guess I can understand this rationale in the context of the road between, say, Washington and Alaska or between the Rouge Plant and Willow Run [[both built 1942-1943), but I find it harder to understand the military rationale for roads that bisect and trisect large cities.
Interesting question, and it may never be answered because I'd guess there were numerous project managers for the various highways in various cities and states, and the rationales on how the roads were laid out in their different cities probably hinged on various local critieria and reasons.
Anyway, this is pretty much an academic debate around here. The Ilitches would have a far better shot at getting an entirely publicly-funded arena made out of gold before politicians would try to sell taxpayers on the notion of tearing down freeways as a sort of environmental/hyper-local economic/social justice effort because it would be inconvenient to drive. Never going to happen.
City Airport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Other than that, it's an ok route.
In my opinion, Detroit's city fathers wanted it to go through Detroit. Take a peek at the 1945 Master Plan; you'll find they wanted about a dozen expressways cutting through the city. They saw to it that the Lodge and Davison were built before the Interstate Highway Act. This was due to the prevailing perception that land adjoining expressways would skyrocket in value the same way it had for streetcar lines and rail stops. I can sympathize with them; they didn't know what they were doing to their city.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
I've lived just 40 years and seen a lot of things in the never-gonna-happen department just ... happen. Maybe your crystal ball works better than mine. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
I like the idea of the Gold Dome, but I think you underestimate the Ilitches' pull in this town. ;)
Oh, right. I try to stay away from City Airport. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
First thought that comes to my mind is it would just add one more reason to the list of why outsiders who have a choice would avoid seeking employment in the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
"I already have to pay income taxes to a city that I don't live in? And get gouged for parking that is usually free at suburban employers? And now on top of everything else I've got to double my commute time driving past burned out ruins on sidestreets because there are no more freeways?
Haha. Maybe that's the perception. But Detroit already went through a period of road-widening in the 1920s that left us some pretty darn good spoke roads. If we were to line them with serious mass transit [[streetcars, light rail vehicles, subways, etc.), we could see more investment and less burned-out hulks.Quote:
Originally Posted by EMG
Heck, one of the reasons Grand River Avenue looks so darn awful is because they ripped out the streetcar tracks and built a freeway one block away. In that instance, you could argue that the freeway contributed to the presence of those burned-out hulks; could removing the freeway and restoring rail transit reverse this in the long term?
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Remember most neighborhoods through the 70s [[including commercial strips along the avenues) remained relatively stable, even 20 years after the freeways were built and the street cars were ripped apart.
Even if we did have the freeways removed, Detrot would still have those same problems that caused the commercial stripis and neighborhood to "bomb out" in the first place [[we know what they are).
Yes, that's right! If you look at any great city in the world, they have a mishmash of freeways all over the damned place! And FREE parking! As far as the eye can see! And no taxes, either! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!Quote:
Originally Posted by EMG
EMG--your "outsiders" are already living in places other than Detroit, and SE Michigan's massive freeway system sure as hell ain't bringing 'em in. Why is that? Must be something to the idea that freeways aren't the end-all be-all ever-loving shit of the earth, huh?
Disinvestment is a long-term process. It doesn't happen right away, but as you remove critical services from a city thoroughfare while investing in bypassing it and building new farther and farther away from it, the effect is cumulative.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
And nobody seems to be saying that removing freeways is a magical "silver bullet" that will turn Detroit into a land of sunshine and soap bubbles. But if we were to build up our rail transit infrastructure while de-emphasizing and perhaps removing some freeways, it could help unite neighborhoods that were cut off from each other and could spur some transit-oriented development. And that would be a plus.
absolutely. I think that is one of the primary reasons. what is crazy is how in a decade so much changed. the freeways were built, the streetcar tracks ripped out, public housing projects built, downtown torn apart. even crazier how just years before the "spoke" avenues were widened. Part of the problem was the nature of how the city was built, especially the post 1915 expansion, where the city nearly doubled in geographic size, and developed a very suburban character. Entire neighborhoods went up overnight. Those were the new parts of the city, where the wealthy and middle class were moving, so the freeways were probably built to accommodate them, along with the very new suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I defiantly would support tearing out part of the Jefferies freeway when, going eastbound, it meets Grand River Ave [[right after the spur to Davison), the freeway would merge with Grand River just east of Oakman Blvd, west of Livernois. It could be a mistake, and lead to traffic, but it certianly would make a statement about where the urban core of the region starts [[the pre-1915 city limits). Maybe we could even use the right of way left from the freeway for a transit line, or a greenway park.
Most people that use the freeway are going long distances. They are not interested in taking the boutique-lined surface roads of Detroit. The freeways will exist as long as they are being used [[not that I actually expected anyone to click on the link of road utilization that I posted. :[[)
Street cars and urban farms. Maybe we should raze most of these unsightly tall buildings, and divvy up the land to farmers, maybe with French names ... they could farm long strips of land that extend outward from the river ... I hear that's been done before. :D
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
But my point was the freeways & street car removal weren't the reasons why mass disinvestment took place in Detroit [[and why investment won't take place). An insult, yes, but not the cause. Until Detroit can solve it's civic problems and create a better public image of itself, no one's investing here, freeway or no freeway. One can always build around the freeways if they really want to.
In addition, while the traffic volume may be lower than it should be now, that's mainly because of the current economic conditions [[not a decrease in population regionally). Once people start working and commuting again, the freeways should be at full use again.
Oh, I agree. That's why I think it's probably better to route freeways around a city rather than through it. That way the area dedicated to roads gets used by people who are actually going to or from the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
I used that link but it's such a huge file I had a hard time zooming in at all.
Yes, Detroit is a troubled city, and many factors have contributed to the state it is in. Nobody is denying that. In many ways, to use that overworked phrase, Detroit was hit by the "perfect storm" of problems. But, by the same token, you can take any individual problem and say that "this wasn't THE REASON" for Detroit's decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
The fact remains, discontinuing streetcar service really hurt those mom-and-pop shops that lined the routes. And downtown shopping never recovered once it was no longer the hub of a serious rail transit system. And to build every freeway, they had to knock down thousands of homes, hundreds of businesses, scores of apartment buildings, largely so people could bypass the city. These are real actions with real effects. Saying that they weren't the sole reason for Detroit's decline tends to obscure or dismiss these relevant issues.
Your comment about how "investment won't take place" in Detroit seems a little out of date, though. Investment is taking place in the city. I'd draw your attention to all the new businesses opening up in the mid-city area. Quite a bit of investment there, even in a down economy.
The point about Detroit's kleptocratic political class is well-taken. But the answer to that problem is more regionalism, not more isolation. Our region has used Detroit as a toilet for all its problems, is it any surprise that scum rises to the top?
I also don't understand the emphasis on the "image" problem. For a person who wants to get down to the real issues of Detroit's problems, public relations are not as important as transportation policy.
Maybe so. Maybe we should swap crystal balls. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
If you click on the "+" at the top of the screen, it will zoom in. Using data from that map, you'll see that I-94 carries 138,200 cars per day. Now, don't you think that having those cars on surface roads will cause some inconvenience for the residents and businesses in that area. Or, are all those drivers to be expected to take I-696 and I-275? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Correction: Detroit has used itself as a toilet for all its problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Everyone can't remove Detroit freeways. It's there to accomondate traffic from Downtown to the suburbs and prevent local traffic congestions, even though there are more traffic congestions everywhere.
Or maybe those trips just...disappear!Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...barcadero.html
I suspect the subsistence commerce from those shops was hurt a lot more by the development of competition in the form of grocery chains, which could offer more goods at cheaper prices. Flash freeze packaging hurt, too, which I believe became mainstream in the 1940s-50s [[hence, TV dinners).Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I also thought a lot of the large highways followed existing roads, meaning that the impact on homes/biz wasn't as bad as if they were brand new roads.
Again, this is academic. Unless you're talking a short, insignificant stretch of roadway, then there is simply no money or political will to do this. It would involve telling people what amounts to "We elites believe you people drive too much, and for you're own good we're going to make it harder for you to get from Point A to Point B in your stinky, unhealthy car. You need to walk more, take public transit and eat better food at neighborhood stores owned by you neighbors. Losing these roads will make that happen."
And while it probably would make some of that happen, it would be massively politically unpopular. Americans love their conveniences and their crappy food. And most don't buy into the notion of quaint urban life in Sims-style communes. Instead, Detroit is seen as a big, nasty, dirty, dangerous place with race, crime, political, social and economic problems that are so catastrophic as to be existential in question. The schools are broken almost beyond repair. Israeli-style settler enclaves is how some see some of the urban development ideas.
This is just me talking as a downtown resident. I'm all for hearing ideas, but it feels like this one needs a splash of reality [[if the thinking is that it could be done on any sort of real scale). Detroit isn't a European city, nor West Coast place. Things are how they are here, and I think that until basic city service and education are fixed, and the political class is reformed, all these ideas are words on a forum. That said, all the little things going on do add up, and they're great, but this one just seems too politically toxic.
I tried zooming it, but it seemed that every time I did it it took forever to redraw it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
On to those 138,200 cars per day: I think you're joking with me, right? I think I've pretty consistently said that if we want to de-emphasize or remove freeways, it has to go hand in hand with emphasizing rail transit to take cars off the road.
Anyway, now that you mention it, I will say that Detroit's main thoroughfares are underused. It often surprises me how motorists insist on using the freeway for everything, lining up along Mack to wait for their chance to get on I-75 after a ball game or market day. It'd be faster to go up Woodward and get on the freeway out there, but few people seem to do it.
If I had a magic wand, I'd have the freeway bypass the city. If the route were like I-275 and I-696, so be it, with very few exits. Mumford called the idea a "townless road" -- he's a lot more eloquent about it than I am.
A funny thing about looking at traffic figures: They are often used to justify the roads that are there. But I wonder how many of those people are going into the city. Or out of the city. If they're not going to Detroit, wouldn't they rather go around on a modern freeway instead of going through an urban cut built in the 1950s?
A funny thing happens in places without freeways: you start building things closer together. So, instead of hopping on the freeway and driving 5 miles to buy a gallon of milk, you walk 5 blocks down the street. Instead of slogging 30 miles to work, maybe you take a bus 3 miles.
Amazing, isn't it?
It's almost like we forgot how cities functioned for thousands of years, and history began in 1945.
And for that, both you and Detroit fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
If people thought that way about Detroit in the 1940s, there wouldn't be any damned freeways--maybe not anywhere in the United States. The difference is, the people then didn't understand what the negative effects would be. We do know what the negative effects of such ham-handed policies are, yet we continue to accept them because "we just don't feel like" dealing with them.
yeah, but in detroit, to rectify that, we have proposed a 3 mile train line with 15 stops because walking 4 blocks [[or across the street if we're looking at Millender Center/RenCen people mover as our guide) is out.of.the.question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
...which is pretty much that last time Detroit functioned like a real city.Quote:
..... and history began in 1945.
Oh, sure. I agree. I am not saying that building freeways and discontinuing streetcar service are responsible for everything. There were so many factors! But I suspect that one of the major obstacles to seeing our problems clearly is to say that there's just too much noise to figure out what happened. I suspect people who say that really aren't all that interested in figuring it out in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Haha. OK, mister: You are not in charge of the public relations for this. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Seriously, though, this is not about lecturing people on their perceived shortcomings. It's about offering the people choices in how to get around. And maybe looking back and saying, "Hmmm, maybe ripping down thousands of buildings and routing all the regional traffic right through town wasn't such a hot idea after all."
Haha. Yes, BShea, not all Americans want to live in Detroit. Detroit has a lot of problems. Since we both live here, we're intimately familiar with most of them. But the generation that turned its back on Detroit is aging out of the picture. And attitudes about cities are changing. A growing segment of the population does desire to live in an urban environment, does desire transportation choices, does want local food, does want to spend their money at local businesses. And they're willing to pay a premium for it. That's heartening. And the market is in the process of responding to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
I appreciate your candor and your insights, though I think there's a difference between seeing things for what they are and the spirit of resignation some people have. Yes, Detroit has problems, but they can't be battled by saying, "That's how they are." It takes creativity, commitment and a hell of a lot of hard work. And, yeah, a dose of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
The thing is, dismissing Detroit "until it fixes its problems" is a dead-ender. We all have to transform Detroit, and the proper tool is regionalism, not isolation. It may be 100 years before Detroit finally gets the regional government it deserves, but that's how the house gets cleaned.
I know, file all this stuff under "Snowball's Chance." But a lot of things from the Never Gonna Happen Dep't. get done, and it all starts with a bunch of people idly talking about it. Who knows?
Is this a fair comparison? Embarcadero was 1.2 miles of dead-ended freeway, it was unsightly [[elevated 55 feet tall), and was damaged by the earthquake.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
It seems that when they close down freeways, the predictions of gridlocked traffic don't seem to materialize. Though it seems totally counterintuitive, here is a link to a piece about how eliminating freeways can actually help relieve traffic jams:Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...lp-save-a-city
or the tiny version:
http://tinyurl.com/mlvqpy
Sorry, I didn't mean to intimate that Detroit was a lost cause, but instead that there are very basic things that have to be solved --- the things that make a city a city --- before there's any realistic chance of doing the cool things people want to do on a large scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I live downtown and I don't want to live elsewhere. But I'm still going to drive to the Allen Park Meijer for my "big" food shopping trips and I still want to drive to the mall for other shopping. I don't want to pay the premium on goods that come with a downtown retail shopping experience unless it's for stuff I can't get elsewhere. Maybe that makes me an exception, I dunno.
People left the countryside for cities for reasons. They then left cities for the 'burbs for other reasons. I suspect there's only a fraction of the metro Detroit population interested in the "new urban" experience. It's also chicken/egg ... if you had a great downtown experience to offer, with low crime, great schools, transit and reasonable prices, people would come downtown in some numbers ... but without people downtown now, it's unrealistic to think there's enough tax base to create that atmosphere.
And the ugly fact that gets little discussion? Cities are the repository of the poor. Always have been, always will be. How the poor are handled [[which sounds Orwellian, I know) is a real problem here.
Yes, but it has to begin somewhere. Detroit is not the place for a person who hates all taxes or wants to send their children to public school. But for those who don't consider taxes a top issue or who don't have children, not so much of an obstacle. I don't believe we have to solve every single issue in Detroit for it to be desirable. We'll always have problems; it's how we deal with them that counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
I shop at the local ethnic market because the quality is good and the prices are reasonable. They have to keep the quality high, unless they want to hear shrill complaints from their demanding customers! In this regard, I'm probably the exception. Most people like to shop as you do. People who shop as I do are a small segment, but growing year after year, even in this economy. Heck, 10 years ago, home gardening was a niche interest; most homeowners seemed to regard working in the soil as fit for peasants. But Americans started 8 or 9 million more gardens in just the last year. Trends are small and slow but powerful once they get going.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
If they're interested in new urbanism, they have few places to enjoy here because our urban policy is to turn cities over to the poor and uneducated. So they'll go to Portland or Chicago or somewhere else. And we lose all that good energy. Here's hoping the balance tips for Detroit in the '10s.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Not true. Paris is the opposite: The rich live in the city, the poor live on the outskirts. Or in 1880, Detroit was a nice small city surrounded by coarse farm folk. Part of the problem is that most American cities came of age during the brutal laissez faire capitalism of the last 19th century. That's why Henry Ford's solution to urban problems was "We shall leave the city." And many of us have turned our back on cities. Which prompts the fitting rationalization that cities are for the poor. And, when you live here, it's tempting to become resigned to that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Advances in transportation allowed for larger cities. Cities expanded along horse car lines, they expanded along electric streetcar lines, and they expanded along roadways with the advent of the automobile. Everyone was looking to move up to a better house if they could afford it. Much as a new car becomes a first, then second, then third generation used car until it goes to the scrapper, so also do houses pass from those moving up to those at the bottom of the economic heap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
In the fifties, there were two separate transportation problems. Eisenhower saw the need for an interstate highway system to allow people and goods to move quickly across the country bypassing cities and towns. At the same time, middle sized and large cities were faced with automotive congestion on a street grid not designed for automobiles. The cities wanted to build urban expressways [[not necessarily extending into the countryside). The Davidson and the Lodge were never intended to go outside of the city limits. One was to ease east-west problems and the other was to take the congestion off of Woodward [[main street). The problem was "money" because the cities could only suck off the federal teat if their expressways were a part of the "Interstate System". Unfortunately, this caused the expressways to extend into the countryside and permit suburban sprawl because it linked the city expressways into the interstate network. What if the Lodge ended at Seven Mile? What if the Ford ended at the city limits?
What if the Fisher ended at Fort? What if the Jefferies ended at Telegraph? What if the Chrysler ended at McNichols? But it will never happen, Detroit without it's freeways is like NYC without it's subways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
I have a better idea. Put a rail line on the freeway and that would be mass transit. Use one of the lanes for it.
I suggested running the M1 rail line down the next street over from Woodward. What if John R. was closed to automotive traffic and tuned into a right-of-way for a two track transit line running from downtown to 8-Mile? By giving the motorman a device to change the traffic lights on the east-west streets, the streetcars could move quite quickly. It would be "relatively cheap" to put in the rails compared to a subway or an elevated.. Station stops would only be a block east of Woodward and within easy walking distance. Is there that much left on John R. which would be affected by the loss of automotive traffic?Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Paris is the opposite: The rich live in the city, the poor live on the outskirts.
Is Paris an apt comparison to Detroit? I've never been there, but the poor made up most of the city in 1789, when things got pretty dicey ...
In the core downtown, the few blocks of high rises and condos, yeah those folks are rich. But the bulk of Detroit isn't like that. I'm considering the whole city, not the ghettoized few blocks of isolated six-figure folks in 40th floor condos.
And in Detroit, there are poor people and blighted buidings steps from the city center and CBD. Most large American cities I've been to are like that, but Detroit is it's own creature become so few other cities have our unique geography/layout and industrial history.
This will happen in the coming decade.
More and more people are essentially being evicted from the motoring system, and that will mean less funding [[gas tax) and some unrest when the non motoring group is forced to pay for a expensive freeway transit system that they can't afford to use.
Now, I'm not an expert by any-one's means, but I have been picking up that there is a problem with establishing heavy rail lines. Many heavy rail lines used to have multiple sets of tracks running a route, this allowed trains to easily navigate past each other without causing any delays. Unfortunately, portions of the rights of way have been dismantled, and the existing routes are now owned by freight operators, and the freight trains take priority over the right of way while the passenger lines have to work around them. Furthermore, these lines are not configured for higher speed trains.
Why not use the freeways as the right of way for high speed rail lines?
Could closing lanes or freeways during off peak times, or in bad weather be a source of mass transit funding? Could that be done? Could it be considered as a freeway project?
I myself tend to avoid freeways. They never really run where I want to go anyway.
Given the state of Detroit. This might be a prime time to build the raillinks to where ever given the amount of vacant and underused properties.Leave the existing freeways and don't think about the building of new ones.People would be lost without them. This is the Detroit they know, Get in Get out.
I see myself that tearing up "good" freeways to "restore" them to something is a waste of money.True there are less folks living in Detroit and its neighhboring cities then what it was designed for, but if and when it comes back people will be yelling about the lack of freeways.
I am with you all the way! I spend almost all my money in the city. I'm pretty strict about it. For groceries, my main places are University Foods, Eastern Market, Little Asia Mart, and sometimes Honeybee and sometimes Goodwells. If you live in the Downtown/Midtown area there really isn't any need to go outside the city for groceries. It is almost pathological, how many city residents go to the suburbs to buy everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
There isn't really anything I need that I can't get somewhere in the city. It is a myth that somehow there are no grocery stores, an extraordinary myth if you think about how large of a city this still is. Yes, the city is extremely depressed, with the retail economy basically collapsed, but are there no grocery stores? no stores? ... there are grocery stores. there are places to shop. there are people. Detroit is still a real city!
I can't believe we ever sunk so low, to the point where places like Royal Oak started filling the role of "Downtown," where even the most Detroit-loving residents will travel 15 miles to go to the burbs for everything they need. They need to just take a closer look, and start to realize that Detroit is where it is at. Michigan's future rests here.
Because the citizens of Detroit have driven the "downtown" out of the city. Meijer, Kroger, and Walmart do not find it makes economic sense to operate stores in Detroit. Believe me, if they truly felt there was a "viable" market in Detroit, they would be building stores tomorrow.. RenCen, WSU, and government offices are pretty much all there is to Detroit Everything else is a liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
No, I'd say there must be something to the idea that there are a lot more things besides freeways that Detroiters need to fix if they honestly want a real chance of attracting more outsiders to their city.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
We have already gotten rid of most of the houses in Detroit. This seem just as logical.
I was out the yesterday and it does indeed suck. They need some Michigan lefts in the median to get shit in order out there.Quote:
Today, Tyson's Corner is also one of the biggest traffic clusterfucks on earth.
Beginning in the 1940s, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
No, the downtown shopping was still pretty viable in the 1960s. The regional shopping areas anchored by a supermarket and a Cunningham's were also doing well. In the 1940s and 1950s they were still building houses on the east side filling in vacant lots on blocks I assume they were still infilling on the west side during that time frame. I can remember when they built the last house on our block [[Nottingham between Yorkshire and Grayton). We kids had built so many forts in there over the years, it looked like the trenches of the Western Front in 1916.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
l
I think that realistically, its too late to remove the freeways now. It would just leave more urban prairie. It's not like anyone is going to build on the land that was freed up.
But as always, this thread is a cool DetroitYes thought experiment, that makes you think about things you otherwise would not.
Perhaps we should just let them flood out and rent gondolas. Hell, 94 is already 1/2 way there any ole how.
Rick's nailed it. Taking out freeways is something that is done when the land under the freeway is too valuable to support that use. [[Same reason there aren't drive-in theaters much anymore.) In Detroit, the land is not valuable enough to support such a massive undertaking. But we can hope :)
Well, you gave me a pretty categorical statement: Always has been, always will be. And I'm pointing out it's more complicated than that. [[As with most generalizations.)Quote:
Originally Posted by BShea
Of course, then we get into the game of arguing whether Detroit is an apple or an orange. Been there. Done that. ;)
I think many of you have forgot that freeways bring us parts to make our Mustang's, Cadillacs, Dodge Trucks, F-150's, Volts, Focuses, Mazda 6's as well as get them to markets.
Without a way to get these products to market cheaply, there ain't no Detroit.
This is not to say that in many places freeways could be put on a road diet or eliminated. However we have to remember what butters our bread. Even though the loaf is much smaller than it used to be, we still are tied to it.
In order to address the sprawl issues we would need to have stringent land-use standards and controls at the state level. Otherwise local municipalities will continue to steal stores, offices, and manufacturing facilities from each other and developers will still build way more homes than our market should naturally allow for. Access to good roads is not the issue here, its how we use our land that is the difference. Remember folks we will need good roads to run these light rail cars in the future, but light rail won't be successful unless we can address land-use issues.
I don't think anyone is advocating that we scrap the interstate highway system.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
The freeways that have the most impact on our land use are the interstates. Look at how I-96, I-75, I-94 have torn through the central cities. Look at how wide these roads are in the suburban areas. You can't say the same about M-10 or M-39, even the widened M-8 is pretty tame compared to I-275 in terms of non-motorized connectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
It seems when speaking "Detroitese", interstate freeways are always called by their number[[94, 75, never the Ford, Fisher, or the Chrysler) and non-interstates are called by their name[[the Lodge, the Southfield, and the Davison never M-10, 39, or 8). In Chicago, all of the expressways are interstates but always referred by name[[the Dan Ryan, the Kennedy, never 94).
... but we could never get rid of the interstate roads because they are part of the Federal system, remember? If we want to get rid of the "freeways", it would have to be something the State or the locals control; the Feds would have nothing with that based on national security.
True, 94 was designed to connect to the Blue Water Bridge, that's why it goes all the way to Port Huron. 75 and 96 give access to the Ambassador Bridge. 75 also gives access to the Soo....These were strategic explanations [[justifications?) for those interstates in the interests of national defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baselinepunk
Check out his very interesting site on removing freeways. The pictures of the Embarcadero removal in SF are especially worthwhile. http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...Proposals.html
The Embarcadero was an ugly water front freeway replaced after the earthquake in 1989 with a beautiful blvd. Traffic flow is actually much better and it's a wonderful part of the city now.
Makes one wonder how the auto industry was able to grow and boom during the 1910s and 1920s without the Interstates.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
i lived in n.va. for a time early 90's. as a matter of fact, i lived in springfield and worked in manassas. the entirety of no.va. is a madhouse of traffic and humanity like i've never seen before. no roadways, whatsoever, are oriented N-S or E-W. even the natives navigate with road maps on there lap! given all this, i think the entire region would be in eternal 'gridlock' without the beltway.
I like this old discussion. It occurs to me that there is issues with obtaining some rail right-of-ways for higher speed passenger rail service. With some interest in dismantling freeways, and the possible decline of automobile use in America, could freeways, or portions of freeways be utilized for rail, BRT, or other mass transit uses?
It is interesting to note that Detroit's own I-94 crosstown expressway had built stations, additional lanes, and other infrastructure for a BRT line when it was constructed [[Click here for more information on the I-94 BRT line).
A central rail line, playgrounds, and parks were once planed for I-96 and other Detroit freeways. A system of tunnels and underground stations would have been used in Downtown Detroit [[Click here to read a great old DetroitYES discussion and see renderings by clicking here).