I think people have the right to change their perspective on things [[for whatever reason) without being mocked, yes?
Printable View
It would still be costly to convert I-94 to a parkway, although I imagine it would cost less than rebuilding the freeway. But if you did that, you would presumably have some capacity issues if you tried to route all of that I-94 traffic onto 696, even if you weren't concerned about the existing industrial users of the current I-94.
I'm sympathetic to idea of reducing the impact of the freeways in the city, but unlike the freeways south of I-75, I-94 is an integral part of the region's transportation infrastructure. I suspect getting rid of it would result in some serious problems.
Do you even read the posts or do you just see words and then decide they must say what your preexisting bias wants them to say? I wrote that "Successful cities accept high congestion, across the board, because those cities are desirable precisely for being filled with things that aren't freeways and parking lots." Houston and LA are definitely both successful cities. I'll let you work out whether Houston and LA also have high congestion for yourself.
If only I had ever argued that auto-dependency leads to economic collapse and transit-dependency leads to wealth and success.
If $4 billion dollars of freeway expansion don't count as new auto infrastructure, I don't know what does.
Not sure what your point is here. Vancouver's metro is about 2.3 million, Detroit is about 4.2 million, DC is about 5.8 million. Cities both smaller and larger than Detroit show that different mixes of transportation seem to have a more salutary effect on the CBD.
"Forced" - you did know that Federal workers receive $245 to pay for parking each month but only $130 per month to pay for transit, right? As to Vancouver, neither ethnicity nor real estate prices would seem to have much to do with what effect freeways have on city cores that I can see.
Right. Yes. But these are policy outcomes, not acts of God. My point was that if Vancouver had decided not to build cheap transit, to provide lots of parking, and to run freeways straight into downtown, its downtown would probably look somewhat more like Detroit's and somewhat less like it does. This is so basic and obvious I don't even know what we're arguing.
I certainly apologize if I was remembering someone else, and am happy to make those comparisons. What lessons would you draw for improving Detroit's transportation system going forward on the basis of those cities?
I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have some questions:
1. Does anyone here think that this is a serious possibility; that is, does anyone think that freeways here will be torn out and replaced with either some other type of road or no road at all? Even if not, it's an interesting intellectual question.
2. Are we talking about more than the 375 spur into downtown? Have we missed the fact that 94 through downtown services trips from Canada to Chicago? That 75 connects all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to Florida? I think the point at inception of the interstate system was that the existing set of roads [[Michigan Ave from Detroit to Chicago, for example) were insufficiently fast for Eisenhower's vision. There was an acknowledgement that the roads would be unpopular in local areas, but would serve the greater country. I would highly doub that the City of Detroit or even the State would have the authority to shut down an interstate highway. Perhaps I am missing the concept being considered.
3. Are we talking just about interstates, or are we including Telegraph, Ford Road, Woodward and other high[[er) speed roads? What precisely is the distinction?
4. Are we confusing correlation with causation? I think it's been demonstrated that there are plenty of growing cities and metropolitan areas with highways right through central areas. Atlanta, Houston and Dallas come to mind immediately, and they are some of the fastest growing cities and MSAs in the country.
Just some questions along the way. Thanks in advance.
I wonder what effect the dismantling of I375/I75 from the river to Eight Mile would have on the continuing presence of GM in the Ren Cen?
There is no way in hell we are going to "obsolete" freeways that are part of the interstate system. Cars are going to be the choice of the majority of commuters as long as the economy keeps rockin' . The automobile is nowhere near becoming obsolete. Someone floats this idea out once in awhile and we argue about it for seven or eight pages, and that's it.
There are fewer auto jobs here in the Detroit area now than there were in the 1980s [[someone correct but I've seen this statistic before). The auto industry is the past. Bring the tech downtown and let's bring Detroit into the 21st century. Being completely beholden to the big3 for the past half century hasn't done us any good.
Careful here. When one talks about growth "in Atlanta", you're really talking about "Gwinnett County, Cobb County, Clayton County, Forsyth County and Cherokee County". The massive freeway system hasn't resulted in a boom of the very small and linear Downtown/Midtown corridor, but rather an explosion of sprawl into the hinterlands to the north [[sound familiar?).
Essentially, Georgia never met a developer or road contractor they didn't like. They're constantly pumping money into expansion of their clogged freeway system, which is what has made the relentless automobile-oriented expansion possible. But if that kind of soulless, traffic-choking sprawl is considered "successful", then please, let me live in a miserable failure of a city.
Can't speak for anyone else, but here are my answers.
1) Only some very limited parts. As you say, most of the freeways are part of a larger system and can't just be eliminated without serious problems elsewhere in the system [[and in the city, for that matter).
2) I would think both I-375 and the portion of the Lodge south of I-75 could potentially be removed. I'm really not sure how much point Davison has either, but there isn't any pressing reason to get rid of it now, as there is no development pressure anywhere near it.
3) I think people might want to consider narrowing some of those roads, as has been done with, for example, Livernois. I know lots of people don't like the median because of the limitations on turns, but it does make the street nicer and easier to cross, and hasn't caused any real traffic problems I'm aware of. On the other hand, the wide roads are, in my view, really mostly a problem for pedestrians. So while the width of Woodward in Midtown could be a problem, I'm not sure anyone cares how wide Telegraph is. Similarly, I wouldn't see the point of removing I-275.
4) I do not think I am. I don't think highway construction prevents growth. But I think ghettopalmetto is correct in saying that the MSAs you mention are primarily growing in their sprawlier parts, assisted by the large amounts of highway construction. Construction which has made Atlanta into something truly horrible. I haven't been to Houston in 30 years, but I go to Dallas fairly often and it is pretty unpleasant.
I don't think southeastern Michigan would be growing faster with more highways, although I think there might be some growth [[and quality of life) benefit to better-maintained highways. I think Michigan and other states build and expand highways without proper planning for the expense of their future upkeep. There isn't much doubt that highways make urban spaces less attractive, but I don't expect urban growth to dominate overall growth in very many US metro areas anyway. In Detroit, where the urban core is such a small portion of the metro anyway, any effect would be unnoticeable in the overall numbers.
The auto companies are the main thing bringing outside revenue into the region, and by far the main private source. Wishing that they were not around is wishing for a total collapse of the metro economy. Perhaps someday there will be other industries in Detroit that bring in something close to what the auto industry does, but that day isn't today, or any day in the near future.
Actually, Eisenhower did not intend for interstates to run through urban areas:
Quote:
[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.
http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/03/10/eisenhower-didnt-want-highways-through-cities/
Fair enough point on Atlanta--I've been there many times, and it's as congested as any place I've ever been. But so are Chicago [[where I used to live) and DC [[where I just got back from), and they have successful transit systems. I just don't see that there is a causation here. Some cities are mass transit-oriented and stagnant, some are car-oriented and stagnant. There are examples of growth in both cases [[Houston went from 600K population in 1950 to 2.1MM today).
Further, I don't think there's any evidence that removing freeways would lead to increases in population. The horse is already out of the barn, so to speak.
Yeah, but I don't think that the system ended up that way because it was better. It was just a play for "free" federal money by local governments and state highway authorities [[and probably some encouragement by the private companies who stood to benefit from it). I don't think freeways through a city like Detroit make any more sense now than it did back then.
Scholars of statistics show that correlation between A and B can have three possible meanings:
A caused B
B caused A
Something else caused A and B
Was it that roads were expanded, and then people moved out, or people moved out, traffic became unbearable, and roads were expanded? Or did something else cause people to move out and someone to build roads at the same time?
On the point of maintenance, it is very rare for politicians to plan for future expenses of virtually anything. Pensions, Medicare, wars, you name it. Expenses [[and associated tax liabilities) are someone else's problem [[to them).
Speaking as just one person, I think highways help people like me enjoy downtown Detroit. I can get down to watch a Tigers game [[F U Bert Blyleven), go to dinner, take in a show, shop much more easily and conveniently with them.
Well, there's a difference between "murdering" businesses for societal greater good, and murdering them for misguided ambitions. There is no question that the country is far better off for having the interstate highway system than not. And those small businesses made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good.
However, I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that American cities that were mutilated by the system are better off for having the system traverse the inner cities. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. No other economically advanced nation that built a robust highway system did to their cities what we did to ours, and for that reason no other economically advanced nation has the degree of urban decay we have in our country. We did not gain anything by sending the freeways through our urban cores that the Germans missed out on by not doing so.
Ypu, thse little motels that survived have had to become "no tell motels".
Eisenhower would have preferred to have I-75 run straight from the Ohio Turnpike up to the Mackinac Bridge without going near Detroit. The reason that I-75 runs over and jogs though Detroit is because the Detroit politicians pushed for it. Detroit had a scheme for city expressways which predated the interstate highway program by a number of years. Detroit wanted expressways. By integrating their urban expressway scheme into the interstate program, they got Uncle Sugar to pick up 90% of the cost. As I recall, the expressways within the city limits were paid for as follows:
USA-90%
State of Michigan- 7.5%
Wayne County - 1.25%
City of Detroit-1.25%