Freeway Removal in Detroit

[MicrosoftFan]

In my opinion, freeways are the main reason neighborhoods crumbled in Detroit. They leveled homes. They destroyed neighborhoods. And they provided an all-to-easy way to escape the neighborhoods into the "grass and garage" of the suburbs. I think that a good step to repairing Detroit would be to fill in all of our cobo canals.

The main snag on this plan is traffic. People will complain that trips will take longer and traffic will increase on mainline roads. This isn't completely true. Studies have even shown that removing freeways reduces traffic. I'm not saying removing I-94 will fix traffic problems, but removing I-375 will. Instead of routing cars on one road, people will use the service drives, Randolph, Rivard, Beaubien, or Public Transit Systems. With expansion of public transit, some of the load will be taken off the road! [[Just thought of that)

Let's say we tear up the Chrysler Freeway from 8 Mile south an put a park there instead. If you live in Hazel Park and work in downtown. Instead of using I-75, take Woodward south. The traffic will start to flare up as you cross the Davidson, so you have several alternates:

• Take an alternate route, like 2nd, John R, Hamilton, or Cass
• Drive along the I-75 service drive [[Now renamed Hastings)
• Park at New Center then take the M-1 Rail to Downtown
• Park at the fairgrounds then take the 53 bus to Downtown

All of this helps to even out traffic.

With public transit along mainline roads, the traffic flow will be transferred onto the "US-12" rail or any other public transit forms. Also, with bike lanes, commuters within a few miles of their workplace can use this option.

When removing freeways, there are several options to use the reclaimed land. Again using I-75 as an example, land could be used as

• A wide boulevard, widening the service drives to 4 lanes in each direction. A park in the middle, with bike and transit lanes
• New residential and retail neighborhoods
• Commercial Space
• Parks

Even with no modifications, getting from the Ambassador Bridge to 8 mile without using the chrysler [[instead the I-96 and Davidson) takes only about 4 more minutes.

As for which freeways to remove, the first I'd say would be I-375, M-10 south of the Fisher, and the M-3 connector. Then the fisher from I-96. A long time after that the Davidson and the Southfield. Then the Chrysler. I can't really picture the I-94 and M-10 being removed. They've been here for a lot longer and they carry the most traffic.

So I think it would be effective to remove freeways and replace them, instead of using more money to fix freeways.

Thanks,
MicrosoftFan

[313WX]

Chicago and Los Angeles have even more extensive freeway systems than Detroit, and they didn't decline nearly to the extent that Detroit has. In fact, LA continues to grow rapidly.

[MicrosoftFan]

Chicago and Los Angeles have even more extensive freeway systems than Detroit, and they didn't decline nearly to the extent that Detroit has. In fact, LA continues to grow rapidly.

1. Chicago's freeway system may be more extensive, but in the city limits there's really only 94/90, 290, and 55, going on for miles until they hit 294.

2. Los Angeles' growth happened in freeway era; the city was built around them.

[313WX]

Actually, like Detroit, LA was also built around the street car. GM pushed to have the streetcars in LA dismantled in the 1950s just as hard as they did here.

Bear in mind the city of Los Angeles had 1.2 million people by 1930, long before they were large scale construction of freeways.

The issue, in large part, is economics. Los Angeles is home to a booming entertainment industry [[recessions or not, people will always watch TV, listen to music and see movies), whereas Detroit is home to the cyclical Auto Industry [[once people fear losing their job in recessions, new car purchases are the first thing they put off).

If Detroit can somehow find a way to generate new, recession-proof wealth that subsequently creates an abundance of good-paying jobs, the freeway system and how it was built will be irrelevant to those who desire to live/work in the city.

[MicrosoftFan]

Actually, like Detroit, LA was also built around the street car. GM pushed to have the streetcars in LA dismantled in the 1950s just as hard as they did here.

Bear in mind the city of Los Angeles had 1.2 million people by 1930, long before they were large scale construction of freeways.

The issue, in large part, is economics. Los Angeles is home to a booming entertainment industry [[recessions or not, people will always watch TV, listen to music and see movies), whereas Detroit is home to the cyclical Auto Industry [[once people fear losing their job in recessions, new car purchases are the first thing they put off).

If Detroit can somehow find a way to generate new, recession-proof wealth that subsequently creates an abundance of good-paying jobs, the freeway system and how it was built will be irrelevant to those who desire to live/work in the city.

Good point.

[ghettopalmetto]

Actually, like Detroit, LA was also built around the street car. GM pushed to have the streetcars in LA dismantled in the 1950s just as hard as they did here.

Bear in mind the city of Los Angeles had 1.2 million people by 1930, long before they were large scale construction of freeways.

The issue, in large part, is economics. Los Angeles is home to a booming entertainment industry [[recessions or not, people will always watch TV, listen to music and see movies), whereas Detroit is home to the cyclical Auto Industry [[once people fear losing their job in recessions, new car purchases are the first thing they put off).

If Detroit can somehow find a way to generate new, recession-proof wealth that subsequently creates an abundance of good-paying jobs, the freeway system and how it was built will be irrelevant to those who desire to live/work in the city.

The difference is that Metropolitan Detroit kept geographically growing [[as did its freeway system) even though the population has remained stagnant since the early 1970s. Thus, any new "growth" in the past 40 years-or-so has been merely a reshuffling of the deck chairs.

In the meantime, one thinks of all the money spent on new roads, extension of utility lines, expansion of suburban safety services, construction of new schools, demolition of old schools and houses, etc., and there has been *massive* expenditure merely to allow this reshuffling to take place. Have these billions of dollars in investments produced any return for the taxpayers?

[Junjie]

Chicago and Los Angeles have even more extensive freeway systems than Detroit, and they didn't decline nearly to the extent that Detroit has. In fact, LA continues to grow rapidly.

This might be true for the metro areas, and I agree that freeways are hardly a sole explanation for Detroit's decline, but I think there's a good point to be made about the over-abundance of freeways in Detroit's downtown specifically. Here's Chicago downtown and Detroit downtown at the same scale... it should be pretty evident that Chicago left the majority of downtown untouched while Detroit put freeways right through the CBD.





I think there's a decent case for removing 375 but it's much iffier for other freeways. MDOT shows a 2013 traffic count for the lower section of 375 [[south of Macomb, I assume) that's less than what Gratiot carries. The section between Macomb and the interchange is about double that but still only about 33-50% of 94, 75, etc. Removing the freeway and turning it into simply an exit onto a new boulevard probably would have very little overall effect on traffic and could have big benefits for the east side of downtown.

Further removals though might require an actual investment in public rapid transit alternatives, so I won't be holding my breath.

Edit: Here's where I got the average daily traffic volumes.

[JoeGeds]

Pretty neat traffic count map, Junjie. looks like the most traffic is on I-75, just north of the Davison [[183,200 vehicles per day). Interesting.

[Bham1982]

In my opinion, freeways are the main reason neighborhoods crumbled in Detroit.

Then why is the East Side the most destroyed part of Detroit? The East Side has practically no freeways.

The West Side, the more prosperous side, has tons of freeways. The most vibrant neighborhood retail, West Vernor, is totally surrounded by freeways. The most destroyed neighborhood, the Lower East Side, has no freeways.

If you removed freeways from Detroit, you would essentially destroy the little commerce remaining in Detroit, because Detroit would no longer be accessible by the 90% of the metro area population living outside Detroit.

[MicrosoftFan]

Then why is the East Side the most destroyed part of Detroit? The East Side has practically no freeways.

The West Side, the more prosperous side, has tons of freeways. The most vibrant neighborhood retail, West Vernor, is totally surrounded by freeways. The most destroyed neighborhood, the Lower East Side, has no freeways.

If you removed freeways from Detroit, you would essentially destroy the little commerce remaining in Detroit, because Detroit would no longer be accessible by the 90% of the metro area population living outside Detroit.

There are more reasons than simply just freeways Detroit crumbled. On the east side, heavy industry destroyed neighborhoods. And Detroit would be accessible, because the most important freeways would be left intact.

[ghettopalmetto]

Then why is the East Side the most destroyed part of Detroit? The East Side has practically no freeways.

The West Side, the more prosperous side, has tons of freeways. The most vibrant neighborhood retail, West Vernor, is totally surrounded by freeways. The most destroyed neighborhood, the Lower East Side, has no freeways.

If you removed freeways from Detroit, you would essentially destroy the little commerce remaining in Detroit, because Detroit would no longer be accessible by the 90% of the metro area population living outside Detroit.

Ah, I was wondering how long it would take before one of those alcoholic father-type "Even Though We Abused the Hell Out of It, Detroit NEEDS the Suburbs to Surivive" posts would show up. As if City residents are waiting with baited breath for some upper-middle-class family from Novi to shower a few dollars on them.

Can't have those city folk gettin all uppity now. Better put on the smackdown early and often. Who cares what Detroit needs? We have an enormous albatross of suburbs to prop-up!

[MicrosoftFan]

This might be true for the metro areas, and I agree that freeways are hardly a sole explanation for Detroit's decline, but I think there's a good point to be made about the over-abundance of freeways in Detroit's downtown specifically. Here's Chicago downtown and Detroit downtown at the same scale... it should be pretty evident that Chicago left the majority of downtown untouched while Detroit put freeways right through the CBD.





I think there's a decent case for removing 375 but it's much iffier for other freeways. MDOT shows a 2013 traffic count for the lower section of 375 [[south of Macomb, I assume) that's less than what Gratiot carries. The section between Macomb and the interchange is about double that but still only about 33-50% of 94, 75, etc. Removing the freeway and turning it into simply an exit onto a new boulevard probably would have very little overall effect on traffic and could have big benefits for the east side of downtown.

Further removals though might require an actual investment in public rapid transit alternatives, so I won't be holding my breath.

Edit: Here's where I got the average daily traffic volumes.

If you look at the map, freeway removal makes sense. Let's say the Fisher from I-96 to M-10 is removed. This section carries about 99,000 cars per day. Moving the load to Michigan Avenue [[which carries 10,000 cars) would raise traffic on that road to 110,000. This is comparable to I-94 at Lonyo, which has 3 lanes in each direction. Michigan actually has an extra lane for traffic. Combine that with some traffic using Vernor, Fort, or other alternate routes, and the overall traffic penalty would not be so severe.

[ghettopalmetto]

If you look at the map, freeway removal makes sense. Let's say the Fisher from I-96 to M-10 is removed. This section carries about 99,000 cars per day. Moving the load to Michigan Avenue [[which carries 10,000 cars) would raise traffic on that road to 110,000. This is comparable to I-94 at Lonyo, which has 3 lanes in each direction. Michigan actually has an extra lane for traffic. Combine that with some traffic using Vernor, Fort, or other alternate routes, and the overall traffic penalty would not be so severe.

Empirical evidence shows that many of those car trips would simply disappear, as freeways are known to induce driving. Bear in mind that any trips diverted from the freeway to Michigan Avenue [[for example) would be a boon to businesses located along that road. Traffic counts are a huge factor in determining where to locate a business...and despite Bham's worship of freeways as drivers of commerce, you don't see too many businesses located along the shoulder of I-96.

[MicrosoftFan]

Empirical evidence shows that many of those car trips would simply disappear, as freeways are known to induce driving. Bear in mind that any trips diverted from the freeway to Michigan Avenue [[for example) would be a boon to businesses located along that road.

Of course then there's the community and economic benefit. A few days ago I drove down Grand River, where it runs parallel to I-96. Literally no businesses left except a gas station and a White Castle. Running I-96 traffic down Grand River would make the area hopping again.

If you take a look at the traffic volume map that was provided, Detroit's main roads [[Woodward, Fort, Gratiot, etc.) have traffic volumes pale in comparison to the freeways. You may have to widen a road here or there, but the volumes would stay manageable.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course then there's the community and economic benefit. A few days ago I drove down Grand River, where it runs parallel to I-96. Literally no businesses left except a gas station and a White Castle. Running I-96 traffic down Grand River would make the area hopping again.

If you take a look at the traffic volume map that was provided, Detroit's main roads [[Woodward, Fort, Gratiot, etc.) have traffic volumes pale in comparison to the freeways. You may have to widen a road here or there, but the volumes would stay manageable.

While we're engaged in fantastical brainstorming...is there any reason why the existing Interstates couldn't be converted to parkways? Remove lanes, eliminate exits, plant vegetation, and suddenly you have a network of pleasant boulevards that complement the surface road network, instead of the current automotive sewer paradigm.

I understand this is a totally unrealistic idea. MDOT will remain perpetually convinced that road widenings and more freeways are the only solutions to anything.

[canuck]

While we're engaged in fantastical brainstorming...is there any reason why the existing Interstates couldn't be converted to parkways? Remove lanes, eliminate exits, plant vegetation, and suddenly you have a network of pleasant boulevards that complement the surface road network, instead of the current automotive sewer paradigm.

I understand this is a totally unrealistic idea. MDOT will remain perpetually convinced that road widenings and more freeways are the only solutions to anything.

I think this is where Detroit could provide a sort of end of cycle and beginning of another in terms of urban design. The idea that the world's automotive capital would revert to a more garden-city theme in its layout is a very exciting prospect. I wish this were possible if only to show that the existing model has not been a fruitful one on many levels, that the dependance on automotive processes in handling freight for instance, as opposed to the use of rail has helped suburban sprawl go unchecked, and fucked up innercities on many levels.

I am not saying that extricating industry from residential areas was unsound, but really, if you look at large suburban industrial parks, there isn't much difference in proximity to living habitats and that of the early 20th century innercity developments. What I believe is that shameless processes that depend on waste to further economic development have totally taken over the more rational use of resources of yore, and that highways have been a principal conduit for this wastefulness. I would hope for less highway presence rather than more myself, in my city.

[Honky Tonk]

Then why is the East Side the most destroyed part of Detroit? The East Side has practically no freeways.

The West Side, the more prosperous side, has tons of freeways. The most vibrant neighborhood retail, West Vernor, is totally surrounded by freeways. The most destroyed neighborhood, the Lower East Side, has no freeways.

If you removed freeways from Detroit, you would essentially destroy the little commerce remaining in Detroit, because Detroit would no longer be accessible by the 90% of the metro area population living outside Detroit.

Not only that, but some freeways actually act as crime prevention barriers for the few viable, thriving communities, left in Detroit. I know a lot of posters here have this vision of colorful bicycle riders, latte bars, and fuzzy puppies, once all the evil freeways are removed, but Detroit's problems lie a lot deeper than the I-375 & Lafayette interchange.

[Honky Tonk]

There are more reasons than simply just freeways Detroit crumbled. On the east side, heavy industry destroyed neighborhoods. And Detroit would be accessible, because the most important freeways would be left intact.

Really? What "heavy industry" did the East Side have?

[Jimaz]

Pretty neat traffic count map, Junjie. looks like the most traffic is on I-75, just north of the Davison [[183,200 vehicles per day). Interesting.

Yes, thanks for the link, Junjie.

Here's another, less specific, link that might be useful: 2013 Average Daily Traffic [[ADT) Maps.

[Mackinaw]

Comprehensive narrowing where helpful [[i.e., the Lodge and 96 in the City) and a moratorium on expansion projects, with a focus on new and smarter exits/entrances and bridges, is probably the best way forward, though I do find a lot of merit in 375 removal. I appreciate your radical thought, but we cannot undue history city-wide [[though perhaps we can with 375 to some extent), and I think the better course is to provide more options. We can build world class transit and have people using it without decomissioning the highways; but we probably cannot do it, at least very easily, without the moratorium I speak of and without shifting funds to transit accordingly. While freeways have major negative externalities for neighborhoods, they do not in themselves destroy them when the other elements of the urban lifeblood remain present. One of the most desirable urban neighborhoods on the continent, Brooklyn Heights, is basically surrounded by an interstate, and its neighboring desireable neighborhoods, Cobble Hill and the Columbia Street waterfront and DUMBO, are bisected by the same interstate. Of course, the interstate is the BQE and it was ingeniously constructed with two levels onto the side of a cliff [[near Brooklyn Heights) and kept appropriately narrow in the other neighborhoods. Detroit's freeways were designed without regard to neighborhoods, and are now being maintained and expanded without regard to neighborhoods.

My suggestion: take all the spare time you have for this thought project and put it into convincing the state government to scrap the '94 expansion plans, at least to the extent it will require taking of any property in Detroit's Midtown. Snyder would respond to logic and Detroit's concerns on this, I do believe.

[MicrosoftFan]

Really? What "heavy industry" did the East Side have?

The Packard Plant, Connor Creek, the fruitless industrial project by St. Cyril, City Airport, Jefferson North, Poletown Plant, basically everything in Milwaukee Junction.

[MicrosoftFan]

Comprehensive narrowing where helpful [[i.e., the Lodge and 96 in the City) and a moratorium on expansion projects, with a focus on new and smarter exits/entrances and bridges, is probably the best way forward, though I do find a lot of merit in 375 removal. I appreciate your radical thought, but we cannot undue history city-wide [[though perhaps we can with 375 to some extent), and I think the better course is to provide more options. We can build world class transit and have people using it without decomissioning the highways; but we probably cannot do it, at least very easily, without the moratorium I speak of and without shifting funds to transit accordingly. While freeways have major negative externalities for neighborhoods, they do not in themselves destroy them when the other elements of the urban lifeblood remain present. One of the most desirable urban neighborhoods on the continent, Brooklyn Heights, is basically surrounded by an interstate, and its neighboring desireable neighborhoods, Cobble Hill and the Columbia Street waterfront and DUMBO, are bisected by the same interstate. Of course, the interstate is the BQE and it was ingeniously constructed with two levels onto the side of a cliff [[near Brooklyn Heights) and kept appropriately narrow in the other neighborhoods. Detroit's freeways were designed without regard to neighborhoods, and are now being maintained and expanded without regard to neighborhoods.

My suggestion: take all the spare time you have for this thought project and put it into convincing the state government to scrap the '94 expansion plans, at least to the extent it will require taking of any property in Detroit's Midtown. Snyder would respond to logic and Detroit's concerns on this, I do believe.

I agree. The I-94 expansion project is terrible. I think that a less radical approach to removal would be to get rid of I-375 and M-10 south of Fisher, then get rid of the I-96 "express lanes" because narrowing that would be good for the surrounding neighborhood. I could see a I-696 style rooftop park next to the new Red Wings Arena.

A lot of what freeway removal is about is helping neighborhoods. Detroit's downtown comeback may be great in all, but helping neighborhoods will actually stabilize the population of the city.

Also, I found a cool page about public transit on I-94- this would be great now. Stick a light rail system in the median of I-94 just like I-94 is in Chicago.

http://detroittransithistory.info/Ar...yBusStops.html

[MicrosoftFan]

While we're engaged in fantastical brainstorming...is there any reason why the existing Interstates couldn't be converted to parkways? Remove lanes, eliminate exits, plant vegetation, and suddenly you have a network of pleasant boulevards that complement the surface road network, instead of the current automotive sewer paradigm.

I understand this is a totally unrealistic idea. MDOT will remain perpetually convinced that road widenings and more freeways are the only solutions to anything.

Parkways... I hadn't thought of that. Most of the neighborhoods that surround our expressway corridors are abandoned anyway, so why not widen the freeways and stick parks around them like in Queens?

[Wesley Mouch]

Mackinaw's got a balanced post. Balance is essential. We can tear out I375, yet realize that expanding I94 will help Detroit.

[MicrosoftFan]

Mackinaw's got a balanced post. Balance is essential. We can tear out I375, yet realize that expanding I94 will help Detroit.

How exactly will widening a heavy use freeway and removing overpasses be good for Detroit? Right through the center of 2 of our most flourishing neighborhoods?