Duggan opposes widening of highways.

[ghettopalmetto]

I will mostly side with dissenters for the sake of discussion. There is a lot that goes into making these decisions. I would suggest that those who want to comment on this topic read the EIS.

Let me guess: It's the boilerplate MDOT highway expansion EIS that says:

"By widening the roadway, congestion will be reduced and average traffic speeds will be increased, thereby decreasing the amount of fuel wasted and exhaust discharged into the atmosphere."

Is that about right?

[DetroitPlanner]

Let me guess: It's the boilerplate MDOT highway expansion EIS that says:

"By widening the roadway, congestion will be reduced and average traffic speeds will be increased, thereby decreasing the amount of fuel wasted and exhaust discharged into the atmosphere."

Is that about right?

See 5.3.1. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...D_292072_7.pdf

The City's official position is support for the project.

[ghettopalmetto]

See 5.3.1. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...D_292072_7.pdf

The City's official position is support for the project.

All that means is that the geniuses employed by the City got bamboozled by MDOT too.

This is city planning out of the 1950s. No other city or state can afford to do the crap that Detroit, Michigan does.

[Novine]

Hasn't the last 50 years of history in Detroit demonstrated the folly of freeway construction to build a city? It might work out in the suburbs but what evidence is there for anything positive from freeways?

[Wesley Mouch]

Hasn't the last 50 years of history in Detroit demonstrated the folly of freeway construction to build a city? It might work out in the suburbs but what evidence is there for anything positive from freeways?

Seems like we're missing any pro-freeway-widening voices.

I agree that freeway construction didn't serve the urban cores so well. But interstate [[meaning long-distance freeways) have been acknowledged widely for the post-war success of American commerce. As such, it has dramatically helped the development of the south and southwest. This is good for America, even if not so much for Detroit.

Widened and improved freeways [[W&IF) won't help Detroit's redevelopment much. But that's not the point. W&IF will help Detroit maintain and become more central to international trade. It is good for the general economy, and that's good for Detroit in the long-haul.

There's also a great short-term argument. The cash will be spent, and it might as well be spent here. Bridges in Washington state collapse. And we oppose modernization.

Why? Because the new urbanist idea opposes them. And its a valid POV. But applying doctrine universally is dangerous. Detroit needs commerce. W&IF will help commerce here. Commerce is good. Commerce brings wealth. We need wealth. Bring on W&IF.

Ignore Duggan's comments. He's just playing to the crowd he needs on his side to win -- Detroit residents who hate the State [[and frankly feds, except when money's needed).

[iheartthed]

Widened and improved freeways [[W&IF) won't help Detroit's redevelopment much. But that's not the point. W&IF will help Detroit maintain and become more central to international trade. It is good for the general economy, and that's good for Detroit in the long-haul.

If that's true then why has Detroit declined so dramatically in prominence since the advent of the interstate highway system? The city is as integrated into the highway network as any major American city could possibly be.

[michimoby]

Why? Because the new urbanist idea opposes them. And its a valid POV. But applying doctrine universally is dangerous. Detroit needs commerce. W&IF will help commerce here. Commerce is good. Commerce brings wealth. We need wealth. Bring on W&IF.

Commerce is become exponentially less reliant on a viable freeway system; in the case of Detroit, you're asking for W&IF for a city with a continuing decline of population. If anything, the city/region needs a less expansive freeway network than it did years ago.

I imagine this earmarked funding is not considered as an either/or, but if it were the case -- dump the widening and get BRT in place, STAT. That will draw in population and, ultimately, the need for increased interstate shipping.

[ghettopalmetto]

Seems like we're missing any pro-freeway-widening voices.

I agree that freeway construction didn't serve the urban cores so well. But interstate [[meaning long-distance freeways) have been acknowledged widely for the post-war success of American commerce. As such, it has dramatically helped the development of the south and southwest. This is good for America, even if not so much for Detroit.

Widened and improved freeways [[W&IF) won't help Detroit's redevelopment much. But that's not the point. W&IF will help Detroit maintain and become more central to international trade. It is good for the general economy, and that's good for Detroit in the long-haul.

There's also a great short-term argument. The cash will be spent, and it might as well be spent here. Bridges in Washington state collapse. And we oppose modernization.

Why? Because the new urbanist idea opposes them. And its a valid POV. But applying doctrine universally is dangerous. Detroit needs commerce. W&IF will help commerce here. Commerce is good. Commerce brings wealth. We need wealth. Bring on W&IF.

Ignore Duggan's comments. He's just playing to the crowd he needs on his side to win -- Detroit residents who hate the State [[and frankly feds, except when money's needed).

If this project--which was first proposed over 15 years ago--is so essential to interstate commerce, then where is the money for capital improvements to the freight rail system? This should be a given, considering the increased amount of goods being shipped by rail, and the incredible increase in diesel prices since the 1990s. But no, not in Michigan. Because someone drew some lines on a map decades ago, so freeway widening MUST be a priority, changing paradigms be damned!

And if the widened freeway is intended to accommodate trucks, does that mean passenger cars will be banned from the new lanes? Of course not. MDOT is just using this silly justification to sell a pre-ordained bill of goods. Because MDOT knows how to do precisely two things: 1) Build new roads in cornfields and 2) Widen existing roads ad infinitum. For them to think otherwise would be for them to admit that they have their heads up their asses.

The original justification for this project was to untangle logjams at the downtown interchanges. Then it was to repair the bridges. After that, they were going to allow a right-of-way for future light rail service. Now it's for international truck traffic. What excuse, er, reason is next?

This is just like the long-proposed I-73 freeway in South Carolina, where the cash-strapped DOT wants to build a billion dollar freeway through delicate swampland, because tourists from Ohio and Michigan can't find Myrtle Beach.

[Wesley Mouch]

If that's true then why has Detroit declined so dramatically in prominence since the advent of the interstate highway system? The city is as integrated into the highway network as any major American city could possibly be.

It wasn't the freeways that killed Detroit. If that were the case, then most of America would be dead -- which I suppose could be argued. Detroit's decline is unrelated and in spite of interstate freeways.

GP: you're right about MDOT. Their heads are misplaced. Rail is doing pretty well right now, but don't count trucks out yet. Sure, diesel is relatively expensive, but its still the best way for short/mid hauls and certain cargo. As natural gas enters the trucking market thanks for fracking, that cost will become a non-factor.

It still looks to me like a hunt for reasons to hate a W&I that makes a lot of sense. MDOT's stupidity doesn't mean they're wrong. Just stupid.

[ghettopalmetto]

It wasn't the freeways that killed Detroit. If that were the case, then most of America would be dead -- which I suppose could be argued. Detroit's decline is unrelated and in spite of interstate freeways.

GP: you're right about MDOT. Their heads are misplaced. Rail is doing pretty well right now, but don't count trucks out yet. Sure, diesel is relatively expensive, but its still the best way for short/mid hauls and certain cargo. As natural gas enters the trucking market thanks for fracking, that cost will become a non-factor.

It still looks to me like a hunt for reasons to hate a W&I that makes a lot of sense. MDOT's stupidity doesn't mean they're wrong. Just stupid.

What is the cost of this project again? $1.8 billion to create up to 18 lanes of right-of-way along 7 miles of I-94? To save a minute of travel time in the short run? That makes a lot of sense to you?

[Novine]

"Detroit needs commerce. W&IF will help commerce here. Commerce is good. Commerce brings wealth. We need wealth. Bring on W&IF."

Again, 50 years of evidence that investing in freeways in Detroit has had no positive impact. What, we haven't spent enough on freeways?

[Gistok]

I call BS on the "increase of commute by 1 minute" study... it's obviously not taking rush hour into consideration...

Whether we are in favor of the widening or not... it's already started to happen... bridge by bridge... as the decaying bridges between Connor on the east and I-96 on the west, are being replaced... they are being widened for the future expansion. The Van Dyke bridge is already a sign of what's happening.

I can see this is going to be a long term project... probably a decade or more... and so the 1.6 billion or whatever is going to be spread out over at least 10 years. It's not as though we're getting a lump sum all at once.

As for people who are not happy about it... too little too late...

[antongast]

Seems like we're missing any pro-freeway-widening voices.

Because the widening is fait fucking accompli! The pro-widening side doesn't have to argue its case, because they've already won the argument. The only people still talking about it are the ones who are angry about it.

[ghettopalmetto]

I call BS on the "increase of commute by 1 minute" study... it's obviously not taking rush hour into consideration...

Whether we are in favor of the widening or not... it's already started to happen... bridge by bridge... as the decaying bridges between Connor on the east and I-96 on the west, are being replaced... they are being widened for the future expansion. The Van Dyke bridge is already a sign of what's happening.

I can see this is going to be a long term project... probably a decade or more... and so the 1.6 billion or whatever is going to be spread out over at least 10 years. It's not as though we're getting a lump sum all at once.

As for people who are not happy about it... too little too late...

Yeah, $1.6 billion, no big deal. Move along now, nothing to see here. Accept what is handed to you, never question authority, let assumptions remain unchallenged. Great tactic. Just spend the money and never provide objective data in support for such a massive outlay. Never revisit conclusions in the face of changing facts. Just trudge forward as if Eisenhower is still the President. That's the MDOT Way [[TM).

Now if only MDOT could fill a pothole.

[Wesley Mouch]

What is the cost of this project again? $1.8 billion to create up to 18 lanes of right-of-way along 7 miles of I-94? To save a minute of travel time in the short run? That makes a lot of sense to you?

Why yes. Of course not if you assume the only benefits are as you stated. But I don't accept your narrow view of the world designed to serve your goals.

If we get nothing else, we'll get new bridges!

I like progress. Its, well, progressive!

[ghettopalmetto]

Why yes. Of course not if you assume the only benefits are as you stated. But I don't accept your narrow view of the world designed to serve your goals.

If we get nothing else, we'll get new bridges!

I like progress. Its, well, progressive!

Oh, what are these magical benefits? Aren't they the same benefits Detroit has been realizing since the Interstates began construction in the 1950s? You might want to recall that the population in Southeastern Michigan has been stagnant--not growing, stagnant--for over 40 years. Why is there so much money needed for new freeways now, all of a sudden?

And progress? If you consider Atlanta an eternal traffic jam full of progress, then go ahead. But gasoline isn't ever dropping below $3 a gallon, so if you consider a petroleum-based future as "progress", well, I guess a city has a right to practice hara-kiri.

This endless freeway expansion is just like Detroit's demolition program. One of these days, it's going to pay off. We're not sure when, we're not sure how, but let's keep spending millions of dollars doing the same damned thing over and over and hope that one day, it actually works.

[iheartthed]

It wasn't the freeways that killed Detroit. If that were the case, then most of America would be dead -- which I suppose could be argued. Detroit's decline is unrelated and in spite of interstate freeways.

Do you think that most American cities carved themselves up with freeways to the extent that Detroit did?

[DetroitPlanner]

Oh, what are these magical benefits? Aren't they the same benefits Detroit has been realizing since the Interstates began construction in the 1950s? You might want to recall that the population in Southeastern Michigan has been stagnant--not growing, stagnant--for over 40 years. Why is there so much money needed for new freeways now, all of a sudden?

You can't compare Detroit of the 1950's to Detroit of today. There are far less rail lines. NAFTA has happened and 30 percent of the trade with Canada flows through Detroit, with even more making the trip through Detroit to Port Huron. Detroit is a lot more important of a place regarding trade with Canada and Mexico than it was then. This has meant a lot of slow moving lumbering trucks on our roads.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...2_410010_7.pdf

As far as the fossil fuels, we are making cars like the Volt, C-Max and soon Fusion Hybrids and sending them out to decrease our dependancy. I can forsee in a decade cars that will blow these out of the water in terms of saving fuel.

Moving goods is real advantage that Detroit has over just about anywhere else in the world. We should do everything we can to use that to spin off jobs and grow our economy and repopulate our neighborhoods.

[ghettopalmetto]

You can't compare Detroit of the 1950's to Detroit of today. There are far less rail lines. NAFTA has happened and 30 percent of the trade with Canada flows through Detroit, with even more making the trip through Detroit to Port Huron. Detroit is a lot more important of a place regarding trade with Canada and Mexico than it was then. This has meant a lot of slow moving lumbering trucks on our roads.

Is that so? Makes you wonder how on God's Green Earth that trade with Canada hasn't come to a grinding halt since MDOT proposed this 18-lane disaster way back in 1998 or so. If it's so NECESSARY, why has Detroit and the United States been able to survive the past 15 years without it?

As far as the fossil fuels, we are making cars like the Volt, C-Max and soon Fusion Hybrids and sending them out to decrease our dependancy. I can forsee in a decade cars that will blow these out of the water in terms of saving fuel.

As pertains to the health of a metropolis, the problem isn't fossil fuels, as much as it is vehicle dependency. This is just an expensive technological solution to a very, very simple man-made problem.

Moving goods is real advantage that Detroit has over just about anywhere else in the world. We should do everything we can to use that to spin off jobs and grow our economy and repopulate our neighborhoods.

Makes one wonder why that hasn't happened yet, huh? Just throw a few billion bucks at a road, and when that doesn't work, try again, right?

[Wesley Mouch]

Do you think that most American cities carved themselves up with freeways to the extent that Detroit did?

Yes.

Some cities did better, some worse. But Detroit doesn't seem like an outlier here. Cleveland is a mess. Seattle's waterfront elevated road isn't quaint. San Francisco has removed some urban freeways of late -- and they were stakes right into the heart. The Big Dig was done for a reason. I'm not seeing Detroit as particularly bad -- bad though we were.

[Hermod]

If that's true then why has Detroit declined so dramatically in prominence since the advent of the interstate highway system? The city is as integrated into the highway network as any major American city could possibly be.

"After that therefore because of that?"

Several other phenomena occurred besides freeways 1950-2013

[DetroitPlanner]

"After that therefore because of that?"

Several other phenomena occurred besides freeways 1950-2013

I'd agree, de-industrization, crime, racism had a lot more to do with the decline of Detroit than freeways ever did. If Freeways were so horrible, why does Chicago [[similar freeway system, if not worse), and Minneapolis [[A lot more freeways than any other City I have ever encountered) have done so well?

Yes freeways did displace people, but I am willing to bet that the numbers pale in comparison to those pushed out by losing a job, feeling unsafe in their homes, or just plain bigots.

[Detroitnerd]

San Francisco has removed some urban freeways of late -- and they were stakes right into the heart.

Huh? Wha...? Heh. Heh-heh. Hahaha. HAHAHAHAHA!

Freeway removal was a stake in the heart of San Francisco?

OK. Now that I know you don't know what you're talking about, I better understand why you choose to defend the ridiculous.

[Wesley Mouch]

Huh? Wha...? Heh. Heh-heh. Hahaha. HAHAHAHAHA!

Freeway removal was a stake in the heart of San Francisco?

OK. Now that I know you don't know what you're talking about, I better understand why you choose to defend the ridiculous.

Embarcadero. Central. Raised aerial freeways. Gone.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportatio...%20removal.pdf

'stake in the heart' was probably a little dramatic. Yet the heart isn't only downtown.

[Detroitnerd]

Wes, I'm glad to have somebody to disagree with because it usually spurs me on to clarify my thoughts. But your arguments are so specious I really don't feel that challenged by them.

If freeways were so necessary to cities, explain the success of the city of Vancouver?