Demolition of Select Detroit Freeways.

**doctors** · December-10-12, 05:14 PM

It's been so long since I've posted to this forum. I have been living in NYC for the past five years.

An idea for Detroit came to me while thinking about the downtown area.

It seems that Detroit built the Chicago Loop downtown... for cars!

What if Detroit were to extend the Davison freeway from the Lodge to the Jeffries?

What if Detroit were to demolish the Lodge and Chrysler freeways south of the Ford freeway, including I375 and the M3 connector, and demolish the Fisher freeway east of the Rosa Parks Memorial Highway?

I75 between M8 and I94 would become I375. M8 will be signed from I96 to Mound Rd turning north on Mound Rd to 18 1/2 mile Rd and begin/end at the Van Dyke freeway. The freeway portion of M8 between the Jeffries and the Chrysler will become I75/M8. The interchanges between the Lodge and the Ford and the Chrysler and the Ford will be redesigned to reduce bottlenecking. The Lodge and the Chrysler south of I94 will become avenues. The Fisher freeway portion downtown and the M3 connector will be filled in and incorporated into the city grid.
The avenues will be narrower than the freeways they replace so fresh new development can be built for miles in each direction without having to deal with the slumlords.

The key point of this proposal is the extension of the Davison freeway. Without this extension the rest of the proposal is unfeasible.

There would be delays during rush hours between the combined I75 and I96 portions, but nothing on par with New York or LA traffic.

**mwilbert** · December-10-12, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by doctors

It's been so long since I've posted to this forum. I have been living in NYC for the past five years.

An idea for Detroit came to me while thinking about the downtown area.

It seems that Detroit built the Chicago Loop downtown... for cars!

What if Detroit were to extend the Davison freeway from the Lodge to the Jeffries?

What if Detroit were to demolish the Lodge and Chrysler freeways south of the Ford freeway, including I375 and the M3 connector, and demolish the Fisher freeway east of the Rosa Parks Memorial Highway?

I75 between M8 and I94 would become I375. M8 will be signed from I96 to Mound Rd turning north on Mound Rd to 18 1/2 mile Rd and begin/end at the Van Dyke freeway. The freeway portion of M8 between the Jeffries and the Chrysler will become I75/M8. The interchanges between the Lodge and the Ford and the Chrysler and the Ford will be redesigned to reduce bottlenecking. The Lodge and the Chrysler south of I94 will become avenues. The Fisher freeway portion downtown and the M3 connector will be filled in and incorporated into the city grid.
The avenues will be narrower than the freeways they replace so fresh new development can be built for miles in each direction without having to deal with the slumlords.

The key point of this proposal is the extension of the Davison freeway. Without this extension the rest of the proposal is unfeasible.

There would be delays during rush hours between the combined I75 and I96 portions, but nothing on par with New York or LA traffic.

This might make some sense in a world where there was more demand for Detroit real estate, but I suspect what we would end up is strips of empty land running for miles.

I would suggest a more modest proposal of eliminating the freeways south of the Fisher. The southern spur of the Chrysler really cuts off Lafayette Park from Downtown, as the southern part of the Lodge cuts off Corktown. I think removing those freeway cuts and restoring some of the cross streets would be likely to make the whole area more attractive, and the distances involved are so short that it probably wouldn't affect travel times all that much.

**Detroitnerd** · December-10-12, 05:58 PM

I think a good place to start would be eliminating I-375 and M-10 south of the I-75 cut and turning them into boulevards. Once people see the benefits of it, they might be amenable to more freeway decommission.

**iheartthed** · December-10-12, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I think a good place to start would be eliminating I-375 and M-10 south of the I-75 cut and turning them into boulevards. Once people see the benefits of it, they might be amenable to more freeway decommission.

I agree. I would decommission/demolish I-375 and have I-75 route along I-96->I-94 then connect to I-75 above the I-94 interchange.

**marshamusic** · December-10-12, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

The southern spur of the Chrysler really cuts off Lafayette Park from Downtown, as the southern part of the Lodge cuts off Corktown. I think removing those freeway cuts and restoring some of the cross streets would be likely to make the whole area more attractive, and the distances involved are so short that it probably wouldn't affect travel times all that much.

Awesome. I wish you'd have something to do with the implementation of such an idea. I've often thought about how much nicer my bike ride to work would be if I didn't have to contend with the freeway ingress and egress on Lafayette. Nice thinking.

**Gistok** · December-10-12, 06:27 PM

.... yeah that's right... let's turn lower Lodge and I-375 into surface boulevards streets so that they're pedestrian friendly like Jefferson is between Shelby and St. Antoine... or Huron Church Line Rd. is near the Ambassador Bridge in Canada... or better yet... like M-59 Hall Rd. is at Lakeside... people won't mind the incessant flow of traffic when trying to cross the street....

**mwilbert** · December-10-12, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

.... yeah that's right... let's turn lower Lodge and I-375 into surface boulevards streets so that they're pedestrian friendly like Jefferson is between Shelby and St. Antoine... or Huron Church Line Rd. is near the Ambassador Bridge in Canada... or better yet... like M-59 Hall Rd. is at Lakeside... people won't mind the incessant flow of traffic when trying to cross the street....

If your point is that busy surface streets aren't automatically pedestrian-friendly, granted. However, if your point is that they can't be, I think that is wrong.

JVB · December-10-12, 06:49 PM

Maybe a compromise by covering large sections of them with parks the way 696 is in Oak Park.

**finster** · December-10-12, 07:01 PM

Well, obviously this kind of thing has no chance of happening ever, even if Detroit was not the most dysfunctional big city in America. It may be interesting in an arm chair urban planning sort of way but that's as far as it'll go.

I have read the many posts on here about how the freeway builds cut off sections of the city from each other and such.

What I think could conceivably happen at some future date would be to improve pedestrian and bike type access would be to build wide greenspaces accross the freeways such as in Oak Park over I-696. I would love to see that happen as the freeways aren't going anywhere and walking and biking are wonderful for a vibrant center city.

**Gistok** · December-10-12, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

If your point is that busy surface streets aren't automatically pedestrian-friendly, granted. However, if your point is that they can't be, I think that is wrong.

No I think that it just adds to the congestion without adding to any general positive. Look at I-94 when you take it to Port Huron... if' you're not going to Canada, there's a boulevard that turns into a 5 lane congested roadway that mixes local traffic with those that are heading to the Lake Huron shoreline towns north of there. It's often very congested, and not a pleasant route, and definitely NOT pedestrian friendly.

I think covering the freeway with green spaces would be a better route, but neither plan is cost effective.

I just don't see the gain in doing this.

**EastsideAl** · December-10-12, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Maybe a compromise by covering large sections of them with parks the way 696 is in Oak Park.

Which was done only because the area's orthodox Jewish community fought a long and bitter fight, let us not forget. And only then for religious reasons, not because the freeway planners so loved the idea of green space atop their creations.

I think this would be a great idea for the Fisher [[I-75) where it runs north of downtown, particularly if the new Illitch arena etc. project is built on Woodward north of the freeway. I also very much like the idea of the elimination, or perhaps the capping, of the Chrysler and Lodge south of there. All of which would work to relink downtown to the rest of the city and make the downtown/midtown area more walkably/bikeably urban.

Good luck finding the money to do it anytime soon though.

JVB · December-10-12, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Which was done only because the area's orthodox Jewish community fought a long and bitter fight, let us not forget. And only then for religious reasons, not because the freeway planners so loved the idea of green space atop their creations.

I think this would be a great idea for the Fisher [[I-75) where it runs north of downtown, particularly if the new Illitch arena etc. project is built on Woodward north of the freeway. I also very much like the idea of the elimination, or perhaps the capping, of the Chrysler and Lodge south of there. All of which would work to relink downtown to the rest of the city and make the downtown/midtown area more walkably/bikeably urban.

Good luck finding the money to do it anytime soon though.

Tie the $13 million DDA funding that he wants to an investment by Illitch Holdings in some greenspace over the freeways. I'd love to see a version of what they have in Oak Park downtown. Never gonna happen, but that would be awesome.

**DetroitPlanner** · December-10-12, 10:21 PM

Greenspace over freeways would not be worth getting $13 Million. The Big Dig [[a similar project in Boston) cost about $10 billion.

What is to be gained by removing freeways? In some places quite a bit. The removal of old outdated or destroyed by earthquake freeways in Milwaukee and San Francisco have been well documented.

This being said, the segment of I-375 being talked about is one of the few examples of Europave in North America. This was built to have a much longer life cycle than your typical roadway. The feds paid for this and would not want it torn up prior to the end of its lifecycle.

Again, cost is a factor. There is only a finite amount of transportation dollars available and these have to be spent prudently. The replacement of good pavement would fall way down the list behind public transit, safety, congested areas that impact the economy [[the new crossing, I-94), and road diets that improve facilities for bicyclists or provide environmental relief, maintaining current roads.

**professorscott** · December-10-12, 10:25 PM

Actually the unditching of I-375, removal of Interstate Highway designation and converting it to a surface boulevard with a grassy median is something that has been seriously discussed, in the very recent past, by MDOT. Don't be too surprised if it actually happens, though not in the short term [[Federal money don't roll like that).

JVB · December-10-12, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Greenspace over freeways would not be worth getting $13 Million. The Big Dig [[a similar project in Boston) cost about $10 billion.

The Big Dig was nothing at all like a park over the freeway. I don't know what the ones in Oak Park cost, but I guarantee it was a lot closer to $13 million than $10 billion.

**DetroitPlanner** · December-10-12, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

The Big Dig was nothing at all like a park over the freeway. I don't know what the ones in Oak Park cost, but I guarantee it was a lot closer to $13 million than $10 billion.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is a lot more expensive than the $13 million being dangled in front of pizza boy. Putting existing freeways underground is not a simple procedure. The project being proposed by the original poster is a comprehensive one looking at all of the freeways throughout the City. It is of a very large scope.

Pro Scott, I know that some MDOT employees have expressed an interest in studying 375, but there has not been an actual study approved by the State Transportation Commission. Therefore, there has not been the funding to take it beyond just talking about it. Planners have the tendancy to think big, getting funding to study it however is a totally different animal.

**marshamusic** · December-10-12, 11:00 PM

What is meant by Greenspace over the freeway in Oak Park? I can't remember anything like that, although I mostly just drive on 9 mile. Was this somehow to accommodate Orthodox Jews and their walks to Synagogue?

**professorscott** · December-10-12, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Marsha Music

What is meant by Greenspace over the freeway in Oak Park? I can't remember anything like that, although I mostly just drive on 9 mile. Was this somehow to accommodate Orthodox Jews and their walks to Synagogue?

Precisely. It has been there since the expressway was built.

**DetroitPlanner** · December-11-12, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Marsha Music

What is meant by Greenspace over the freeway in Oak Park? I can't remember anything like that, although I mostly just drive on 9 mile. Was this somehow to accommodate Orthodox Jews and their walks to Synagogue?

The link provides an aerial view: http://maps.google.com/?ll=42.476908...10568&t=h&z=17

**Gistok** · December-11-12, 12:44 AM

Those 3 overpasses have been a nightmare for MDOT. There always seems to be water dripping somewhere, or worse in the winter sometimes I've seen some pretty huge icicles hanging from the overpasses occasionally. They were a fortune to install, and even costlier when you factor in the delay time and legal blockades that they had on the expansion of I-696 from I-75 to US-10.

And I can not remember how many years it has been since the lighting on the inside sides of the overpasses has worked correctly.

**Wheels** · December-11-12, 10:06 AM

Wouldn't that be the opportune time to install pre-manufactured concrete cylinders with tracks that connect in segments for a subway? Cover them with boulevards with parks and green space, bike paths, light retail or whatever works for the area.

Start with a loop around downtown 375, 75, 10 and move out from there like spokes on a wheel.

**Bham1982** · December-11-12, 10:16 AM

This proposal would just create more vacant land.

There's already a huge glut of land, even downtown and midtown. Why spend billions to create even more dead space, while removing roadway capacity [[essential for downtown events).

**Bham1982** · December-11-12, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Marsha Music

What is meant by Greenspace over the freeway in Oak Park? I can't remember anything like that, although I mostly just drive on 9 mile. Was this somehow to accommodate Orthodox Jews and their walks to Synagogue?

The Orthodox in that area have their apartments/houses on one side of the freeway, and their schools/institutions on the other side. Keep in mind they have to walk on the Sabbath, so they needed pedestrian access between the two.

The fear was that the freeway would kill the community, especially since most Jews had already left for newer suburbs.

I think those parks have been modestly successful. The community has been preserved, though I think it's smaller than 20 years ago. They have high birth rates, so the community should be maintained somewhat.

**Hermod** · December-11-12, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

This proposal would just create more vacant land.

There's already a huge glut of land, even downtown and midtown. Why spend billions to create even more dead space, while removing roadway capacity [[essential for downtown events).

Bham, don't interrupt! These guys have a very serious session of SimCity going on here.

**finster** · December-11-12, 11:27 AM

How about in future bridge replacements they add a 10 foot wide walking, biking, etc. path across just a few locations. There will obviously be an additional cost but as a percentage of a total freeway upgrade [[roadway, bridges, etc.) I don't think it will be a fortune to do this once every mile or two in key locations.