The End of Detroit... [Plan to widen I-94, I-75]

[ghettopalmetto]

Thank goodness you don't make the [[already made) decisions around here.

And bully for that, lest the citizenry be forced to use their brains.

It's not difficult to see how rampant freeway construction has literally destroyed and ravaged the once-great City of Detroit. I'd say that it looks Third-World, but Hanoi and Phnom Penh are in far better shape.

But hey, don't let little ole me get in the way of building Thunderdome. Detroit obviously knows more then the rest of the world, which is quickly moving away from this expensive, 1950s motoring idealism.

MDOT and their idiot conspirators at SEMCOG had already decided in 1998 that this project was going to move forward. Changing circumstances since then be damned. God forbid they ever become careful stewards of taxpayer dollars.

[Detroitnerd]

All that CONGESTION! I mean, have you guys seen Manhattan? It's like a parking lot almost all day long. It's a shame to think all the prosperity that is passing them by. What they need to do is widen those roads into expressways. Sure, they'll have to take down a few skyscrapers to do it, but think of all the prosperity they'll unleash when people can drive without gridlock in Manhattan!

[jackie5275]

Yup. From the east side, 94 in the a.m is still a parking lot from about Moross/Vernier to I75 and in the outbound evenings it's stop and go all the way to 696. [[which is why I will use Jefferson). Its been like that for as long as I can remember.

From the westside, it's backed up from around Mich Ave to Chene in the morning & from Harper/Mt. Elliott area to I-96 in the evening. The only difference I've seen is that it got repaved from Metro Airport into downtown for the Superbowl, which is now coming up on 8 years ago.

[Gistok]

And bully for that, lest the citizenry be forced to use their brains.

It's not difficult to see how rampant freeway construction has literally destroyed and ravaged the once-great City of Detroit. I'd say that it looks Third-World, but Hanoi and Phnom Penh are in far better shape.

Yeah... that's it... it was the freeways that killed Detroit... not crime, poor schools, lack of city services, streetlights are out... just the freeways...

It's so much easier to wrap your argument around 1 simple point than to look at the bigger picture, isn't it. Talk about using your brains....

[ghettopalmetto]

Yeah... that's it... it was the freeways that killed Detroit... not crime, poor schools, lack of city services, streetlights are out... just the freeways...

It's so much easier to wrap your argument around 1 simple point than to look at the bigger picture, isn't it. Talk about using your brains....

Other cities have crime. Other cities have bad schools. Other cities have questionable services.

Most other cities don't look like Detroit. So let's end the self-pity party now, shall we? You're going to take the neighborhood with the most economic development outside of downtown, run an 18-lane road through it, and tell me that everything is going to be peachy? I have a bridge that might interest you.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Can't plow the damned streets or run a bus on time, but let's spend billions on freeways we don't need! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Detroitnerd]

Congestion is not a product of outdated infrastructure. Congestions is a product of trying to build one road to handle all the high-speed crosstown traffic. Everybody wants to take it, and then everybody complains when it's busy during the times everybody wants to take it.

Expanding the road doesn't ease congestion. What it does is enable people to make the decisions that will congest it once more.

What a shame the roads were put where they were. They should have been north and west of the city. If they had been, Detroit would be much better off.

[Bham1982]

The empirical [[read: ACTUAL AND MEASURABLE) evidence shows that adding lane-miles INCREASES congestion in the long-term. So why you would want to spend $2.3 billion to INCREASE congestion on a "major international trade" route is beyond me.

I was waiting for the first blatant misuse of induced traffic theory, and here it is.

To sum, a 20-lane freeway will move less traffic than a rutted dirt road, according to this post. Who knew?

Time to reduce the Tokyo subway system to a single clown car. Don't want to induce more traffic and congestion!

[Bham1982]

Congestion is not a product of outdated infrastructure. Congestions is a product of trying to build one road to handle all the high-speed crosstown traffic.

No, congestion is a product of prosperity. Trying to relieve congestion is a separate issue, but no traffic engineer will agree with the prescriptions in this thread.

[ghettopalmetto]

I was waiting for the first blatant misuse of induced traffic theory, and here it is.

To sum, a 20-lane freeway will move less traffic than a rutted dirt road, according to this post. Who knew?

And as always, you're making shit up.

Congestion has to do with the speed that traffic moves due to vehicular demand [[variable quantity), not its theoretical capacity [[fixed quantity). But hey, that's only what I learned in my college coursework. I'm sure your off-the-cuff opinion is just as scientific.

It's just a shame, though. Because if economic activity depended strictly on MOVING CARS, as you imply, then Detroit would be glittering in gold leaf.

[mikeg19]

I drive 94 to 696 to Mound everyday for work from 23 and Gratiot. For the most part, I have no difficulty with traffic, and when I take 94 or 75 into and out of Detroit, it's rarely bad enough where I think "Man we need 8 lanes each way."

Widening the freeways is dumb in my opinion because the only time any congestion exists is for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening. The other 22 hours of the day you can literally do 95mph if you wanted to and have no problems.

My sentiment has been echoed by others from time to time regarding freeway congestion: it's not the freeways themselves, it's the interchanges & the people using them. Updating interchanges and merge lanes in a manner where you're not squeezing 5 lanes of traffic down to one in an 1/8 of a mile makes so much more sense to me than adding additional lanes. I'm sure traffic engineers study this stuff to death, but I think that smarter interchanges and junctions would reduce the logjams. Driving down 696 at rush hour you aren't doing 90mph, but maybe 55 or 60. Hit the 75 interchange? Backed up for miles.

This also doesn't account for the assholes who cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get off a freeway or who bypass the mile and a half of traffic to cut up to the front. Those things also contribute to the buildup of traffic, but we can't really do too much about that now can we?

[TKshreve]

And as always, you're making shit up.

Finally, some closure.

/thread

[brizee]

They should go all the way.

Live the dream.

Turn Detroit into a real life Devil's Island.



134 squard miles of flat concrete prison. Ringed by 50 lane each direction at grade freeways.

75, 94, 96, 8 Mile all of it.

Solves the freeway problem, the parking problem and the Wayne County jail clusterfuck problem with one rock.

With Right to Work and eviscarated pensions?

South East Michigan? More like Upper Eden!

[Bham1982]

Congestion has to do with the speed that traffic moves due to vehicular demand [[variable quantity), not its theoretical capacity [[fixed quantity). But hey, that's only what I learned in my college coursework. I'm sure your off-the-cuff opinion is just as scientific.

You just contradicted yourself. You claimed that adding more lanes slows traffic.

Adding more lanes obviously increases demand, which is the point. You want to get more mobility from Point A to Point B. Induced demand doesn't mean that adding lanes will slow traffic; it means it will increase capacity and that capacity will be used.

[ghettopalmetto]

You just contradicted yourself. You claimed that adding more lanes slows traffic.

Incorrect. Please learn to read. Adding lanes leads to INCREASED DEMAND IN THE LONG TERM. If you don't know the difference between that and what you're writing, then you're beyond reproach.

Adding more lanes obviously increases demand, which is the point. You want to get more mobility from Point A to Point B. Induced demand doesn't mean that adding lanes will slow traffic; it means it will increase capacity and that capacity will be used.

"More mobility"? What the hell does that mean? How do you measure "mobility"? What are its units? More importantly, what is its relevance?

You wouldn't need so much mobility if you didn't have to cross 18-fucking-lane wide roadways.

[TKshreve]

Mike19 -

You have a very good point. It is not a secret that the junctions are about as mickey mouse as you could get. Couple that with I-94 crossing I-75/Lodge/I-96 within 4-5 miles of each other and there is the perfect storm for congestion. Throw in out-dated exchanges and dlck drivers, well it's really not that hard to comprehend.

I'll add that along the stretches between 696 + 75, the ramps force a quick merge into traffic. Three lanes for this entire corridor is probably not enough to handle the ingress and egress along the way without creating backups and a reduction in overall speed. Not to mention there is significant winding throughout the stretch.

[Bham1982]

Incorrect. Please learn to read. Adding lanes leads to INCREASED DEMAND IN THE LONG TERM. If you don't know the difference between that and what you're writing, then you're beyond reproach.

Of course it leads to increased demand. That's the whole intent! Can you imagine building a subway line with the intent of reducing public transit demand?

You claimed something completely different. You claimed that additional transport capacity leads to increased congestion and slower speeds. In other words, the more infrastructure, the lower the capacity; as if a dirt road moves more traffic than I-75.

An I-75 expansion will lead to more car traffic on I-75, which is the whole intent. It will also result in faster overall speeds, which is the reason the traffic shifted to I-75 in the first place. If an expansion resulted in slower speeds it would reduce demand.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course it leads to increased demand. That's the whole intent! Can you imagine building a subway line with the intent of reducing public transit demand?

MDOT is justifying this project on the basis of "congestion". Why would you want to increase demand if you're trying to relieve congestion?

You claimed something completely different. You claimed that additional transport capacity leads to increased congestion and slower speeds. In other words, the more infrastructure, the lower the capacity;

This is correct. This is what the empirical data shows. Except the capacity of a roadway remains fixed, as it is a function of the number of lanes.

as if a dirt road moves more traffic than I-75.

This is a fundamental misinterpretation on your part.

An I-75 expanson will lead to more car traffic on I-75, which is the whole intent.

It is? Seems like MDOT thinks they're "relieving congestion". Unless you're telling us that the REAL intent of these projects is to get the Suburban Sprawl Machine jumpstarted back into action....

[Bham1982]

MDOT is justifying this project on the basis of "congestion". Why would you want to increase demand if you're trying to relieve congestion?

Because a larger freeway has more carrying capacity, thus increasing demand, and reducing congestion.

[Detroitnerd]

No, congestion is a product of prosperity. Trying to relieve congestion is a separate issue, but no traffic engineer will agree with the prescriptions in this thread.

Well, that sort of avoids the deeper issues of traffic management and why freeways don't work the way we think they should.

Anyway, as many of us on here are aware, you're sort of a booster for the status quo, and none of us cares particularly what you think at this point. I should probably block you, but I'm always curious to see what new low you will stoop to next.

[Bham1982]

but I'm always curious to see what new low you will stoop to next.

Apparently I've "stooped to the new low" of believing additional transport capacity means additional transport usage, and that's kind of the whole intent.

[ghettopalmetto]

Because a larger freeway has more carrying capacity, thus increasing demand, and reducing congestion.

Tell that to the folks in Atlanta. Try not to be embarrassed when they laugh their asses off.

[Bham1982]

Tell that to the folks in Atlanta. Try not to be embarrassed when they laugh their asses off.

Atlantans believe that smaller freeways have more carrying capacity than larger freeways? Is there something in the water down in GA?

[jaytheory]

Very good news for the region's mobility and economic health.

You are joking right

[jaytheory]

Detroit having traffic like Chicago is a mirage

[ghettopalmetto]

Atlantans believe that smaller freeways have more carrying capacity than larger freeways? Is there something in the water down in GA?

This thread concerns three phenomenon:

1. Roadway Capacity
2. Roadway Demand
3. Congestion [[actual speed of traffic relative to free-flowing speed)

I think you have, somehow and without cause, established in your mind that there is:

A) an inverse relationship between Capacity and Congestion.
B) an inverse relationship between Demand and Congestion.

If the growth of Demand outstrips the growth of capacity [[as is *exactly* what happened in Atlanta after Freeing the Freeways), then Congestion increases. Except now, you have even more congestion than before the increase in capacity took place. For example, the Perimeter Freeway in Atlanta used to be six lanes until the 1980s. Now, it is twelve lanes of congestion.