PIRG: I-94 Project One of the Worst "Highway Boondoggles"

**Scottathew** · October-07-14, 07:19 AM

The Public Interest Research Group has labeled the I-94 project one of the worst "highway boondoggles" in the nation.

"State Rep. Jim Townsend, a Democrat of Royal Oak, introduced House Bill 5883, which would prohibit the Michigan Department of Transportation [[MDOT) from spending approximately $4 billion to tackle the expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

"These freeway expansions are an epic waste of money," says Townsend, in a statement Wednesday. "At a time when we should be investing our scarce road dollars on fixing the roads we already have, MDOT is instead pursuing a freeway expansion that will weaken our economy and saddle taxpayers with new lanes to maintain in the future."

...Public Interest Research Group [[PIRG) released a study that labeled the I-94 project one of the nation's worst "highway boondoggles" in the works.

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...ening-projects

**313WX** · October-07-14, 07:24 AM

I'm glad someone in Lansing gets it...

EDIT: And before the peanut gallery gets riled up, this was also said in the article:

MDOT does share some common ground with opponents: Both sides agree the roadways need serious infrastructure repairs, but Townsend and others question why additional taxpayer dollars should be spent on widening the freeways.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-07-14, 07:58 AM

Interesting that this is posted by someone who identifies themselves with Rochester.

Less money for Detroit's problems means more money for others?

**Bham1982** · October-07-14, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Less money for Detroit's problems means more money for others?

Definitely. Note that the representative opposed to the expansion is from Royal Oak, a city that owes its prosperity to a competing east-west freeway [[and a much wider one than the expanded I-94, which apparently isn't an "epic waste of money" according to the good Rep. Townsend...)

Maybe Rep. Townsend can prove he isn't a hypocrite, and will agree to permanently shut down lanes on I-696 through Royal Oak? Didn't think so.

**Hermod** · October-07-14, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Definitely. Note that the representative opposed to the expansion is from Royal Oak, a city that owes its prosperity to a competing east-west freeway [[and a much wider one than the expanded I-94, which apparently isn't an "epic waste of money" according to the good Rep. Townsend...)

Maybe Rep. Townsend can prove he isn't a hypocrite, and will agree to permanently shut down lanes on I-696 through Royal Oak? Didn't think so.

While I-696 did remove a lot of the traffic off of the east-west "mile roads", I hardly see where it is a financial windfall to Royal Oak or any of the other southern tier suburbs. I-696 removed quite a bit of property tax base from the cities it traverses.

**Eber Brock Ward** · October-07-14, 08:21 AM

FWIW, Townsend is a big supporter of transit, complete streets, and the like, and has been instrumental in the Suburbs Alliance pivoting from an inner-ring suburbs interest group into a force for regionalism. He has a good background in policy and urban/regional planning, as well.

So I don't think he's anti-highway, per se, but more anti-highway expansion. His press release called the expansions "failed transportation policies straight out of the 1960s." It reads as if the bill will still put money toward highways/roads, but to bring them to states of good repair rather than expanding other ones.

Odds are more than likely that he just "gets it," so to speak.

**Scottathew** · October-07-14, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Interesting that this is posted by someone who identifies themselves with Rochester.

Less money for Detroit's problems means more money for others?

Yes, I live in Rochester Hills. I support the freeway expansions, but I found this article to be an interesting counter-point to my viewpoint and it made me think. That is why I shared it.

I think the projects are needed, but this article really makes you think hard about where the billions of dollars could go. It made me think about whether or not freeway expansion should be a high priority or not.

**313WX** · October-07-14, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Interesting that this is posted by someone who identifies themselves with Rochester.

Less money for Detroit's problems means more money for others?

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Definitely. Note that the representative opposed to the expansion is from Royal Oak, a city that owes its prosperity to a competing east-west freeway [[and a much wider one than the expanded I-94, which apparently isn't an "epic waste of money" according to the good Rep. Townsend...)

Maybe Rep. Townsend can prove he isn't a hypocrite, and will agree to permanently shut down lanes on I-696 through Royal Oak? Didn't think so.

The same rep. is also against the expansion of I-75 [[which goes through/nearby Royal Oak and Rochester).

So I doubt it has anything to do with more dollars being spent on freeway expansion in his area than Detroit...

**Bham1982** · October-07-14, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

While I-696 did remove a lot of the traffic off of the east-west "mile roads", I hardly see where it is a financial windfall to Royal Oak or any of the other southern tier suburbs. I-696 removed quite a bit of property tax base from the cities it traverses.

It did remove real estate, but the remaining real estate is far more valuable, because Royal Oak is now in the center of the region, and essentially 20 minutes to almost everything. Ferndale, Huntington Woods and Berkley also benefited, and real estate values zoomed following I-696. Now you could live in Royal Oak and work in Farmington Hills, GM Tech, or Ford HQ. Couldn't do this very easily before.

Downtown Royal Oak [[and Downtown Ferndale) boomed following the completion of I-696. This isn't a coincidence. You can't be a regional center for bars and restaurants if you aren't accessible to the region at large.

Why is the lakes area of Oakland County so cheap even though Michiganders love lake living? Accessibility issues. You can't get to work or most activity centers easily.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-07-14, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

While I-696 did remove a lot of the traffic off of the east-west "mile roads", I hardly see where it is a financial windfall to Royal Oak or any of the other southern tier suburbs. I-696 removed quite a bit of property tax base from the cities it traverses.

Do you remember what Downtown Royal Oak was like prior to I-696 opening? Didn't think so.

I will answer it for you. It was a dump. Nearly all of the businesses downtown were struggling or closed. Fast forward 25 years and it is now the meating ground for drunken yuppies at their favorite food court. It has a lot more streetlife, but it is also best to be taken in small doses. The freeway allowed Royal Oak's CBD to become a central place convenient for those travelling not only E-W; but N-S as well on I-75. Notice how I-75 isn't as big of a boondoggle and only given lip service, but he attacks I-94? Hmmm.....

**dtowncitylover** · October-07-14, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Definitely. Note that the representative opposed to the expansion is from Royal Oak, a city that owes its prosperity to a competing east-west freeway [[and a much wider one than the expanded I-94, which apparently isn't an "epic waste of money" according to the good Rep. Townsend...)

Maybe Rep. Townsend can prove he isn't a hypocrite, and will agree to permanently shut down lanes on I-696 through Royal Oak? Didn't think so.

LOL what? If anything Townsend is following in the steps of Marie Donigan who was the previous Royal Oak/Mad Heights state rep who was a big supporter of public transit.

The Walter Reuther was built to support the growing suburban landscape. I don't think it necessarily "competes" with the Edsel Ford at all. They both have their commuters and trucks.

696 is a suburban freeway. The suburbs were built around the freeway. 94 was built around an urban landscape and that landscape should be first and foremost, not some widening that will further destroy said landscape.

**Bham1982** · October-07-14, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

The same rep. is also against the expansion of I-75 [[which goes through/nearby Royal Oak and Rochester).

So I doubt it has anything to do with more dollars being spent on freeway expansion in his area than Detroit...

He can prove he isn't a hypocrite by removing lanes and exits from I-696. Put that freeway on a "road diet", using the complete streets dogma. Replace I-696 with bike lanes, sure to get heavy commuting usage in January. Definitely remove the Main Street exit, which just encourages an wasteful autocentric lifestyle...

**313WX** · October-07-14, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

He can prove he isn't a hypocrite by removing lanes and exits from I-696. Put that freeway on a "road diet", using the complete streets dogma. Replace I-696 with bike lanes, sure to get heavy commuting usage in January. Definitely remove the Main Street exit, which just encourages an wasteful autocentric lifestyle...

He can't do that alone...

Besides, it's far easier to prevent future mistakes from happening than to fix past mistakes...

**Bham1982** · October-07-14, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Do you remember what Downtown Royal Oak was like prior to I-696 opening? Didn't think so.

I will answer it for you. It was a dump. Nearly all of the businesses downtown were struggling or closed. Fast forward 25 years and it is now the meating ground for drunken yuppies at their favorite food court.

Downtown Royal Oak basically had tumbleweeds blowing down Main and Washington prior to completion of I-696. It was full of shuttered stores from the old days when JC Penney and other merchants dominated the streetscape.

Downtown Royal Oak wasn't really recognized as having anything in terms of restaurants/bars until the 1990's.

**iheartthed** · October-07-14, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Do you remember what Downtown Royal Oak was like prior to I-696 opening? Didn't think so.

I will answer it for you. It was a dump. Nearly all of the businesses downtown were struggling or closed. Fast forward 25 years and it is now the meating ground for drunken yuppies at their favorite food court. It has a lot more streetlife, but it is also best to be taken in small doses. The freeway allowed Royal Oak's CBD to become a central place convenient for those travelling not only E-W; but N-S as well on I-75. Notice how I-75 isn't as big of a boondoggle and only given lip service, but he attacks I-94? Hmmm.....

If the absence of I-696 was the reason that downtown Royal Oak was a dump then why was downtown Royal Oak ever built to begin with?

**dtowncitylover** · October-07-14, 08:45 AM

I think we're talking about two different things here. What I am hearing is that 696 caused Royal Oak to benefit into a the pseudo-urban environment it is today. Therefore, the I-94 widening project will cause Detroit's CBD to experience growth in the same way. This is completely wrong.

I-94 is already there and is already used by commuters to come into the city. [[So where is the prosperous urban life?) 696 was not there before but when it did appear it helped people, mostly auto-centric suburbanites, to come into Royal Oak and Ferndale for some nightlife and the Zoo.

**jt1** · October-07-14, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Downtown Royal Oak basically had tumbleweeds blowing down Main and Washington prior to completion of I-696. It was full of shuttered stores from the old days when JC Penney and other merchants dominated the streetscape.

Downtown Royal Oak wasn't really recognized as having anything in terms of restaurants/bars until the 1990's.

I'm struggling to find the RO/696 comparison relevant. 696 was created where there was no freeway so it did make accessibility easier. 94 and 75 exist and are not, or rarely packed to the point of having a traffic jam. If traffic is ever packed up on either of these it is either a few minutes during rush hour or during a special event.

Let’s improve the condition of the existing freeways that supply the same accessibility as 696 as opposed to spending billions to add lanes that may be needed, at most, an hour a day.

Comparing the situation of going from nothing to something is very different than comparing the situation of going from something to something more.

I hope that 94 is improved but not widened. Anyone that has seen the MDOT plan knows it would be horrible for the the few improving areas in the city of Detroit/

**Bham1982** · October-07-14, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If the absence of I-696 was the reason that downtown Royal Oak was a dump then why was downtown Royal Oak ever built to begin with?

Because when downtown Royal Oak was originally built, people didn't own vehicles, so superhighways were kind of besides the point?

I would guess that that transit share for regional leisure visitors to downtown Royal Oak is almost zero.

**jt1** · October-07-14, 08:50 AM

Beat me to it Dtowncitylover

**Bham1982** · October-07-14, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

I think we're talking about two different things here. What I am hearing is that 696 caused Royal Oak to benefit into a the pseudo-urban environment it is today. Therefore, the I-94 widening project will cause Detroit's CBD to experience growth in the same way. This is completely wrong.

No one claimed such a thing.

The point is that a rep. from Royal Oak, host to massive freeway largesse, is fighting freeway improvements in competing jurisdictions. That's the hypocrisy. No one claims that Dexter Davison will morph into a Royal Oak-ish drunk tank for yahoos from Plymouth and Utica.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-07-14, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If the absence of I-696 was the reason that downtown Royal Oak was a dump then why was downtown Royal Oak ever built to begin with?

Downtown Royal Oak was a streetcar suburb.

**dtowncitylover** · October-07-14, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by jt1

I'm struggling to find the RO/696 comparison relevant. 696 was created where there was no freeway so it did make accessibility easier. 94 and 75 exist and are not, or rarely packed to the point of having a traffic jam. If traffic is ever packed up on either of these it is either a few minutes during rush hour or during a special event.

I would very much disagree with that. On a good day, by which I mean a bad day, 94 and 75 are very congested. 94 through Midtown/Eastside and 75 usually north of the Davison and south of 14 Mile. That can last for a good hour or so every morning and evening.

**313WX** · October-07-14, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

I would very much disagree with that. On a good day, by which I mean a bad day, 94 and 75 are very congested. 94 through Midtown/Eastside and 75 usually north of the Davison and south of 14 Mile. That can last for a good hour or so every morning and evening.

I don't think either freeway is congested enough to justify widening them though.

For example, today it only took me 5 minutes on westbound I-94 today to get from Conner to I-75, which isn't shabby at all for a major city during rush hour.

**dtowncitylover** · October-07-14, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No one claimed such a thing.

The point is that a rep. from Royal Oak, host to massive freeway largesse, is fighting freeway improvements in competing jurisdictions. That's the hypocrisy. No one claims that Dexter Davison will morph into a Royal Oak-ish drunk tank for yahoos from Plymouth and Utica.

Ok, GOOD! That's like saying because I don't live in Israel/Palestine I'm not allowed to fight for peace. That's not hypocrisy, it's preemptive action. If 94 is widened unnecessarily and based off of a 10 year old study, then that paves [[no pun intended) the way for 75 to be unnecessarily widened.

You also make it seem like Rep. Townsend built 696 and 75 himself. While I'm sure he is committed to the maintenance of those freeways, he isn't interested in expanding them.

**dtowncitylover** · October-07-14, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

I don't think either freeway is congested enough to justify widening them though.

Other major cities across the country with much wider freeways deal with traffic jams far worse than the periodic stop-and-go we deal with on our freeways...

Very true. No freeway in town has the need to be widened due to congestion, though I wish they told that the M-59 folks.