I-94 Expansion Project [[Roadway to Detroit's Future)

[townonenorth]

It does not destroy my argument. Have you read the document?

"there is currently little empirical basis for accepting or rejecting the claims by the American
Road and Transportation Builders Association that “adding highway capacity is key to helping to reduce traffic congestion”, or of the American Public Transit Association that without new investment in public transit, highways will become so congested that they “will no longer work”.1 Our results do not support either of these claims."

No, they concentrate on what I originally posted, that adding lanes to existing roads does not attract additional traffic. Quit playing dumb.

You can't "destroy" my argument AND make it at the same time. Their conclusions suggest that "a new lane kilometer of roadway diverts little traffic from other roads" therefore likely means that the new road most often induces new traffic without taking it off other roads.

Not a chance in hell that is happening. All the people that are on that road are forced to be there. Myself, if I wer on my way to Metro, I would take either 8 mile to the Southfield, or 696 to I-275. The poor sould condemned to follow that route are mostly people that live there, or truckers and commercial drivers. Now if you were to look up the percentages of commuters versus trucks, you may learn something. But really, I doubt that you are capapble of doing that.

Potential reasons discussed include changes in individual behavior; the migration of people and economic activity, increases in commercial transportation, and diversion of traffic from other roads. So, um, they rule out the last one there.

Like I said above, most of the traffic isnt a personal choice.

You could read on and find out, but it's kinda sad to see you cling to one line as your defense, even as you likely don't understand what it means. Pity

.

Like you know what the hell you are talking about. Pity.

I don't think boulevarding the Ford would necessarily be catastrophic for Detroit. We should probably start elsewhere, though. Instead, it would probably be better to remove I-375 and the Gratiot exit first.

Go ahead, I'll wait. Better yet, I should avoid the area altogether, considering the insane asylum is running the show.

No, more like laughing at you and rolling my eyes. I think it's pretty clear who's unhinged by this dialogue.

Sounds like a classic case of insanity to me.

[wolverine]

Grand Rapids paid dearly for this. They know very clearly how the freeways divide their community. But they made a fix for this by putting institutional buildings and hospitals up along the freeways because they are on the least desirable land.

[Wesley Mouch]

I have not seen any evidence that freeway expansions have led to less congestion....

Why is this forum debate about congestion. Whether or not 'induced demand' is the result of every piece of road maintenance or not is not very important.

What we have here is MDOT rebuilding a freeway that is aged. When they do that, they build it to contemporary standards. What do you think should be done? Just let it rot?

[townonenorth]

I have a great idea. Dnerd can drop his opposition to the I-94 expansion if he's allowed to hang out under the bridge at Woodward at 94 collecting tolls. He can then use the tolls for his urban mass transit project. So how about it? You can even take your laptop down there.

But a toll road makes more sense in a lot of respects. Actually would probably force a few folks off the ditch and on surface roads. But, that would require Detroit to maintain said side roads, and further put them in the hole. That grid aint cheap.

[Wesley Mouch]

I have a great idea. Dnerd can drop his opposition to the I-94 expansion if he's allowed to hang out under the bridge at Woodward at 94 collecting tolls. He can then use the tolls for his urban mass transit project. So how about it? You can even take your laptop down there.

But a toll road makes more sense in a lot of respects. Actually would probably force a few folks off the ditch and on surface roads. But, that would require Detroit to maintain said side roads, and further put them in the hole. That grid aint cheap.

I'm all in favor. Toll roads for the thru traffic work pretty well. Look at Matty.

It also has a certain equalizing effect on wealth, and it discourages driving -- central it seems to DNerd's thinking.

[Novine]

"What we have here is MDOT rebuilding a freeway that is aged. When they do that, they build it to contemporary standards. What do you think should be done? Just let it rot?"

I have no problem with MDOT rebuilding the freeway if it's needed. But that's not what's proposed. MDOT wants to add a lane in each direction. That adds to the total cost of the project, costs that can't be justified and that Detroit can't afford to finance.

[MSUguy]

Why is this forum debate about congestion. Whether or not 'induced demand' is the result of every piece of road maintenance or not is not very important.

What we have here is MDOT rebuilding a freeway that is aged. When they do that, they build it to contemporary standards. What do you think should be done? Just let it rot?

Who's against fixing the freeway? Widening the freeway with another lane and a new service drives is not what Detroit needs. The issues with ramps and interchanges can be addressed within the current right of way.

[townonenorth]

Also another aspect of this that bears inspection. The premise that people will move farther out due to the additional lanes is flawed in the present day. I think they should do a study with the gas prices today, and see what correlation that has with current drivers on 94.

And all that gas that is wasted sitting in traffic is an absolute crime.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
I have no problem with MDOT rebuilding the freeway if it's needed. But that's not what's proposed. MDOT wants to add a lane in each direction. That adds to the total cost of the project, costs that can't be justified and that Detroit can't afford to finance.

Not Detroit, but State and Federal money coming into Detroit. No justification necessary or requested. This is the State doing something for us.

Who's against fixing the freeway? Widening the freeway with another lane and a new service drives is not what Detroit needs. The issues with ramps and interchanges can be addressed within the current right of way.

This issue was decided long ago by traffic engineers. We can debate all day and night long about 'induced demand', public taking of property, congestion, service drives, left-hand exits, federal funding, traffic design -- but in the end, MDOT decided long ago that they would finally bit the bullet and finally address the issue that one of the most critical pieces of Michigan freeway [[read MDOT) infrastructure -- and probably one of the busiest pieces in the middle of its biggest city -- needs to be done right. And if they touch this freeway, its going to be done right by what they view as today's standards. The right # of lanes, probably designed exit ramps, gigantic service drives, good signage, etc.

And billions of dollars of Michigan tax money headed to Detroit to be spent.

Enjoy the ride.

[Wesley Mouch]

Also another aspect of this that bears inspection. The premise that people will move farther out due to the additional lanes is flawed in the present day. I think they should do a study with the gas prices today, and see what correlation that has with current drivers on 94.

And all that gas that is wasted sitting in traffic is an absolute crime.

Gas in only about 1.5 times the inflation adjusted cost of 1980 -- source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petro...s_history.html

I know it seems worse. But in fact gas remains fairly economical. We were spoiled by that $2.36 average 2009 cost per gallon.

[iheartthed]

I have a great idea. Dnerd can drop his opposition to the I-94 expansion if he's allowed to hang out under the bridge at Woodward at 94 collecting tolls. He can then use the tolls for his urban mass transit project. So how about it? You can even take your laptop down there.

But a toll road makes more sense in a lot of respects. Actually would probably force a few folks off the ditch and on surface roads. But, that would require Detroit to maintain said side roads, and further put them in the hole. That grid aint cheap.

I'd support it if a toll was attached to pay for it. Particularly Detroit's portion of it...

[Wesley Mouch]

I'd support it if a toll was attached to pay for it. Particularly Detroit's portion of it...

Am I completely wrong here. Several people talk about the cost to Detroit. This should be state/federal funding only. Or am I wrong?

[Hermod]

Also another aspect of this that bears inspection. The premise that people will move farther out due to the additional lanes is flawed in the present day. I think they should do a study with the gas prices today, and see what correlation that has with current drivers on 94.

And all that gas that is wasted sitting in traffic is an absolute crime.

I have to agree with that. Adding an additional lane in the middle of Detroit is not going to cause someone to move from 23 Mile and Gratiot to Port Huron.

[Hermod]

Am I completely wrong here. Several people talk about the cost to Detroit. This should be state/federal funding only. Or am I wrong?

Detroit picks up around 1.25% of the cost.

As I remember, the breakdown used to be:

90%-Uncle Sugar, 7.5%--State of Michigan, 1.25% Wayne County, and 1.25% City of Detroit. Just enough skin in the game to keep the city and county honest in their requirements for federal funding..

[iheartthed]

Am I completely wrong here. Several people talk about the cost to Detroit. This should be state/federal funding only. Or am I wrong?

Someone said above that Detroit has to contribute a small percentage of the cost. Dunno if that's true or not.

[Wesley Mouch]

Detroit picks up around 1.25% of the cost...90%-Uncle Sugar, 7.5%--State of Michigan, 1.25% Wayne County, and 1.25% City of Detroit. Just enough skin in the game to keep the city and county honest in their requirements for federal funding..

Would you know how they do/must fund their 1.25% [[and I did very that on MDOT's site). Does this come out of gas tax already collected, or general funds?

[Novine]

"Not Detroit, but State and Federal money coming into Detroit. No justification necessary or requested. This is the State doing something for us."

Detroit's share is 10% of the state's share of 12.5% which equals 1.25% as noted above. That's 16 milion dollars coming from the city. No matter where the money is coming from in Detroit's budget, there's no way you can show any way that it's the best way for Detroit to spend scarce resources. Is Detroit ever going to get back a benefit from those dollars? No. Those dollars could be spent fixing streets around the city. Instead, they're going into a freeway widening Detroit doesn't need.

[SteveJ]

I'm actually pretty excited about this project. Led lights, modern bridges, additional capacity so when one lane goes down its not the end of the world. This is AWESOME. This is way better than public transit because its actually going to create jobs!!

[Wesley Mouch]

"Not Detroit, but State and Federal money coming into Detroit. No justification necessary or requested. This is the State doing something for us."

Detroit's share is 10% of the state's share of 12.5% which equals 1.25% as noted above. That's 16 milion dollars coming from the city. No matter where the money is coming from in Detroit's budget, there's no way you can show any way that it's the best way for Detroit to spend scarce resources. Is Detroit ever going to get back a benefit from those dollars? No. Those dollars could be spent fixing streets around the city. Instead, they're going into a freeway widening Detroit doesn't need.

If the freeway weren't being widened, but just replaced to current standards would that be OK? I don't see this debate having anything to do with widening.

On the finance question, I think the source does matter. It may not be the best way to spend the money, but its probably better than most of the ways it really is being spent today. If not spent on supporting a state investment in Detroit that will return about a hundred-fold in dollars, it'd be spent on retirement benefits for Kwame's appointees.

[Huggybear]

...That's 16 milion dollars coming from the city. No matter where the money is coming from in Detroit's budget, there's no way you can show any way that it's the best way for Detroit to spend scarce resources...

It seems a little result-driven to demand ROI from this particular project when no government project has an ROI. We don't get actual dollars back from increased policing, increased lighting, surface road repairs, public transit or any other alternative use of $16 million. We might get some very small increased tax revenue - but let's face it - government spending is not a positive economic exercise [[nor is it designed to be). And governments spend money on things like this because we as a society value human life and welfare.

To say that there is "no way you can show that it's the best way for Detroit to spend scarce resources" suggests either a lack of imagination or [[more likely) some assumptions about what is worth more than what. For example, I'd argue that getting the freeway up to Interstate standards is a proxy for making it safer [[that is what those standards are ultimately designed to promote - their purpose is not to destroy cities), and fixing the entrances and exits, adding a shoulder on both sides, and fixing the service drive promote improved response to serious freeway accidents, which occur frequently and threaten lives. If new lanes are jam-packed, it does not affect these considerations; if the new lanes are not fully utilized [[i.e., "induced demand" doesn't happen), it helps prevent the sudden stops that cause accidents. And I'd say that if you save one life in the process, then $16 million is not that big of a price to pay. In fact, your chances of saving a life are probably better spending it on making this road safe than just about any other use.

Here's your second justification: people coming in to look at Detroit [[or any potential siting) for business look at infrastructure improvements. I-94 has a lot of property along it that needs to be re-used [[and much of it is under study), and the ROI from a "what you pay versus what you get" standpoint is actually pretty phenomenal: you spend $16 million [[which is an appopriate subject of a bond issue - unlike the KK method of borrowing to cover non-capital expenditures) and get $1.6 billion in road improvements that tidy up a ratty, crumbling road corridor and say to potential businesses, "hey, we actually care." This is actually huge bang for the buck from an ecomomic development standpoint - and way beyond what the city would be able to afford even in the best economic times. That quantity of cash out of pocket [[$16 million) doesn't even buy a toy streetcar, let alone operate it.

HB

[Detroitnerd]

Why is this forum debate about congestion. Whether or not 'induced demand' is the result of every piece of road maintenance or not is not very important.

What we have here is MDOT rebuilding a freeway that is aged. When they do that, they build it to contemporary standards. What do you think should be done? Just let it rot?

Just shore up the bridges, make sure the roadway is durable, make sure the signs are on nice and tight, and leave it the way it is.

According to MDOT's own information, it's safe as it is.

[Detroitnerd]

The state didn't route the expressways through the city.

You will note, I said "we."

[Detroitnerd]

No, they concentrate on what I originally posted, that adding lanes to existing roads does not attract additional traffic. Quit playing dumb.

You quit playing dumb. That is, if you're playing at it.

You obviously haven't read the paper. You obviously have no desire to read beyond one line you foolishly think confirms your opinion. In fact, you are being so intentionally blinkered that I realize we aren't talking about the issue at hand. The issue at hand is your hurt feelings. Why don't you get a thicker skin if you want to post online?

[Detroitnerd]

tidy up a ratty, crumbling road corridor and say to potential businesses, "hey, we actually care."

Right until they get OFF the freeway and realize how effed-up our priorities are.

[townonenorth]

You quit playing dumb. That is, if you're playing at it.

You obviously haven't read the paper. You obviously have no desire to read beyond one line you foolishly think confirms your opinion. In fact, you are being so intentionally blinkered that I realize we aren't talking about the issue at hand. The issue at hand is your hurt feelings. Why don't you get a thicker skin if you want to post online?

See that's just what I am talking about with you. Insults, belittling, and general nasty as f%$k comments. No wonder people talk about you like they do. I'll not repeat what they say, though. I am not as pithy as you are.