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

**antongast** · January-11-12, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

What I can say is that there are several businesses that have survived along this stretch.

You can cherry-pick examples on either side. Look at Grand River, for instance. The part of it near downtown is okay, the part out past Schaefer is okay, and the part in between that has the Jeffries running right next to it is absolutely devastated.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 03:12 PM

I thought this site had a great deal of interesting information. Last time we brought up the Ford, it seemed we had a good discussion about boulevarding it, and that info came from here.

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...Proposals.html

**Gistok** · January-11-12, 03:17 PM

DN... I don't think ANYBODY is going to save any money on not re-doing I-94. It will just get spent elsewhere.... and not on mass transit...

As for I-94 and safety... yes it is an issue to a lot of people... having your car break down in the hood is not a pleasant experience. I like having those Courtesy Vans on the Freeway in case of problems.

Also I like to avoid driving thru the hood because of the issues related to a lack of locals paying attention to such things as RED LIGHTS... and then there's the issue of roadway problems. Last time I took an alternate route, it happened to be 7 Mile... [[since there's no crosstown between the Ford Fwy and 7 Mile [[Davidson only gets you so far!). And my car hit a pothole and I had issues with my car that cost over $500 to fix. So do forgive me if I'd rather stick to a nicely repaved I-94 with courtesy vans... than have to deal with costly or [[as was in an earlier post) life threatening issues.

And as for the tearing down of houses along the way of an expanded I-94... like I said, I only think a 4th lane is warranted... not fancy service drives.

**Gistok** · January-11-12, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I thought this site had a great deal of interesting information. Last time we brought up the Ford, it seemed we had a good discussion about boulevarding it, and that info came from here.

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/...Proposals.html

Anyone who likes the idea of boulevarding should just take a drive on Davidson between I-96 and M-10, to experience it....

**TKshreve** · January-11-12, 03:31 PM

The speed limit on Lafayette is lower than that. And I don't see a whole lot of speeding on Lafayette.

Then you must be sitting on I-94 during rush hour in stop and go traffic, because it is a race track during those hours.

City driving isn't that dangerous.

I have taken Warren before. The car I was riding in was T-boned by a hooptie which blew a stop sign from behind a building. We rolled 2.5 times and ended up upside down, having to crawl out on broken glass. The car that hit us fled the scene, never to be found. The cops [[who showed up after the Fire Engine, but before the Ambo) were told by numerous residents that WE were the ones going the wrong way on Warren, causing the accident. They eventually learned the real story from a 6 year old girl who witnessed the accident herself.

Well, a renovation would be a hell of a lot better received by potential business than the pot hole infested, broken corridor, street lamp scarce, coney island rimmed, stop sign blowing, weed laden service-drive network that exists now.

Not to mention the adequate snow plowing that creates a vibrant street network during the winter months.

Look at me! I can scan a page of Google results about an issue and pick the one I AGREE WITH! [beams, clearly wants star on forehead]

I only aimed to point out that the entire debate of Induced demand is a theory, but if you want to will your cherished theory into fact, have fun with that.

Ignorance is one thing. We all start out ignorant.

Willful ignorance is repugnant.

Well, when you try to pass off your opinions as fact, it permeates the thread with a stinky, waggish poof of arrogance. I would rather plead ignorance than tout arrogance any day of the week. Except M-F from 6:30am-9:00am and also 3:30am-6:30pm.

See Dnerd, I can be facetious too...... boy is that productive.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

I only aimed to point out that the entire debate of Induced demand is a theory, but if you want to will your cherished theory into fact, have fun with that.

As I said, just like evolution. Evolution explains a lot of things that we see. When we open a new roadway and it quickly fills to capacity, and then when we enlarge it again it quickly fills to capacity, induced demand explains why this happens, and why it might not be such a hot idea to try to meet demand with capacity. Conversely, when freeways are removed and some predict gridlock, the predicted gridlock doesn't appear. Induced demand explains why this happens, time and again.

Now if you want to believe that expanding capacity doesn't expand demand, that's very difficult to do, because studies show, again and again, that expanding capacity expands demand until demand exceeds capacity. Similarly, frustrating demand with limited capacity induced that demand to go elsewhere. And that's a fact.

These facts are best explained by the THEORY of induced demand.

If you want to come up with some other theory that better explains why capacity cannot solve the demand problem, go to it. Yet the fact remains that capacity expands demand, which meets capacity, ad infinitum.

I recommend you read more about this. It's fascinating because it is so counterintuitive.

And it's good news in the end. Places that have tried expanding capacity as a solution have notoriously clogged, 10-lane freeways and some of the ugliest environments imaginable. We can avoid that here.

Anyway, to argue that metro Detroit's highways are congested is sort of silly. For a couple hours a day. It's nothing like Boston or New York or Los Angeles. Traffic in Detroit is, for the most part, good, and few would pick up a shovel even if that DID solve the problem.

**Gistok** · January-11-12, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

You can cherry-pick examples on either side. Look at Grand River, for instance. The part of it near downtown is okay, the part out past Schaefer is okay, and the part in between that has the Jeffries running right next to it is absolutely devastated.

I can't speak for the Jeffries and Grand River... but for over 30 years the stretch of Harper along I-94 has been booming even after the freeway was installed right next door.

Why is it not now booming? Nothing to do with the freeway... just urban blight has taken its' toll as it creeps eastward along Harper towards the burbs....

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I can't speak for the Jeffries and Grand River... but for over 30 years the stretch of Harper along I-94 has been booming even after the freeway was installed right next door.

Why is it not now booming? Nothing to do with the freeway... just urban blight has taken its' toll as it creeps eastward along Harper towards the burbs....

Well, the freeway is a factor, apparently. A null factor. It would be nice if a mode that was so expensive to build and rebuild had some spinoff development associated with it. Apparently, there isn't much, if any.

**1953** · January-11-12, 04:24 PM

First they build boulevards to quickly move people from the city.

Then, they widened the boulevards to quickly move people further out.

Then, they built freeways to move people still further out.

Now, they are looking to widen the freeways to move people out further still.

None of this helps build healthy, sustainable neighborhoods.

I am opposed to freeway expansion on 94, even though I drive it every rush hour.

SteveJ · January-11-12, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't know and also think it's a non-issue. Michigan doesn't do spectacularly well at road maintenance anywhere... It seems the state is best at building new and unnecessary roads [[or adding unnecessary road capacity).

Where has the state built new roads in the past 15 years.

**iheartthed** · January-11-12, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

Where has the state built new roads in the past 15 years.

Pretty sure the newest part of M-5 was completed in the last 15 years. The last newest stretch of M-59 as well.

SteveJ · January-11-12, 04:34 PM

I'm talking about a whole new road in SE Michigan. The last one I recall was I-696.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 04:37 PM

When was the last time the regional population went up?

**iheartthed** · January-11-12, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

I'm talking about a whole new road in SE Michigan. The last one I recall was I-696.

Oh, so you're nitpicking.

SteveJ · January-11-12, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Oh, so you're nitpicking.

You keep on mentioning all these new roads Michigan is building and I'm just curious which ones you're talking about. I just don't recall any new roads being built in the area and all those new Northern Macomb roads people keep talking up. Just want to drive them one day. I just can't find them on a map.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by 1953

First they build boulevards to quickly move people from the city.

Then, they widened the boulevards to quickly move people further out.

Then, they built freeways to move people still further out.

Now, they are looking to widen the freeways to move people out further still.

None of this helps build healthy, sustainable neighborhoods.

I am opposed to freeway expansion on 94, even though I drive it every rush hour.

Good points, 1953.

**antongast** · January-11-12, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

I'm talking about a whole new road in SE Michigan. The last one I recall was I-696.

How was the M-5 extension not "a whole new road?" There wasn't a road there before, and now there is. It seems like a pretty straightforward example to me.

**iheartthed** · January-11-12, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

You keep on mentioning all these new roads Michigan is building and I'm just curious which ones you're talking about. I just don't recall any new roads being built in the area and all those new Northern Macomb roads people keep talking up. Just want to drive them one day. I just can't find them on a map.

I've given you two new stretches of road that weren't there just a few years ago. Just because they don't have a brand new designation doesn't mean they aren't new [[and unnecessary) roads.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 04:45 PM

If the point is that Michigan can barely afford to pay for its roads, and yet keeps expanding its roads which means it has more to maintain, it matters little whether new roads are built [[where would you build a new road?) or expanded [[which happens all the time).

SteveJ · January-11-12, 04:47 PM

Ok, I guess we built one new road in the last 20 years to an area badly needing it.

SteveJ · January-11-12, 04:48 PM

So due to the induced demand theory, the only road we should have in the whole state is Woodward and the other ones aren't really needed. Ok. Lets cap everything tomorrow then.

**TKshreve** · January-11-12, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

So due to the induced demand theory, the only road we should have in the whole state is Woodward and the other ones aren't really needed. Ok. Lets cap everything tomorrow then.

I'm gonna open up an off-road rickshaw empire. I'll call it TKShawDawgs Rickety-Rack Pack.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 05:03 PM

Badly needed roads. Hmmm.

I think one of the main things that should precede this conversation is the question: What makes a city valuable?

It seems to me that one of the things that is great about cities is that they are dense places that bring together many various goods, services, people and job types within one place, obviating the need for so much travel. That density is usually the result of a mix of modes of transit: Subways, light rail, buses, bicycle, foot, commuter rail, etc. This is the essence of the city; you have the convenience of never having to travel more than a few minutes on foot to get the daily necessities of life.

But if our only mode is automobiles, then we tend not toward density but toward dispersal. We may be willing to spend the few minutes we spent shopping on foot instead in a car driving to the store, but now we need to travel much more. The higher the capacity on the roads, the higher the speeds, the more we must travel, because things may now be father and farther apart.

Finally, it gets to a point where you are traveling long distances to get the necessities of life: To shop, to get to work, to get to the gas station, to get to a party. And it starts to seem natural that you'd want more, larger, higher-speed roads so that you don't have to waste your time driving.

On to those "badly needed" roads. We don't need them. They actually aid in the dispersal of the region over more land area. They destroy what's good about city life and, instead of allowing us to enjoy the country, swallow it up in the form of cloverleafs, interchanges, parking lots and environments nobody enjoys.

And so it gets to the point where people are proposing turning a road into a superhighway so that they can get across Detroit without having to see a panhandler, further destroying the fragile urban fabric and further dispersing the region. It's a vicious cycle if there ever was one.

**Detroitnerd** · January-11-12, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

So due to the induced demand theory, the only road we should have in the whole state is Woodward and the other ones aren't really needed. Ok. Lets cap everything tomorrow then.

Usually when people start arguing reductio ad absurdum, you get the sense their own arguments aren't very strong.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-11-12, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Usually when people start arguing reductio ad absurdum, you get the sense their own arguments aren't very strong.

'Reductio ad absurdum' could mean weak argument, but not necessarily -- so its a poor way to argue against a poster's point.

I think he's right here. Roads are important, and to prevent reasonable maintenance, repairs, and upgrades is as misguided as the road-building mania of the past.

This effort on I-94 is a rational part of good road policy -- and should be praised. [[Coming from a road-hater, and a believer that our road policy has been terrible and destructive.)