Freeway Removal in Detroit

[BankruptcyGuy]

Yeah, but I don't think that the system ended up that way because it was better. It was just a play for "free" federal money by local governments and state highway authorities [[and probably some encouragement by the private companies who stood to benefit from it). I don't think freeways through a city like Detroit make any more sense now than it did back then.

So is the question "was this smart planning in the 1950's"?

Interstates murdered business along main State Routes across the country [[Route 50, Route 66). I'm guessing that wasn't the intention either.

[iheartthed]

So is the question "was this smart planning in the 1950's"?

Interstates murdered business along main State Routes across the country [[Route 50, Route 66). I'm guessing that wasn't the intention either.

Well, there's a difference between "murdering" businesses for societal greater good, and murdering them for misguided ambitions. There is no question that the country is far better off for having the interstate highway system than not. And those small businesses made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good.

However, I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that American cities that were mutilated by the system are better off for having the system traverse the inner cities. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. No other economically advanced nation that built a robust highway system did to their cities what we did to ours, and for that reason no other economically advanced nation has the degree of urban decay we have in our country. We did not gain anything by sending the freeways through our urban cores that the Germans missed out on by not doing so.

[Hermod]

Well, there's a difference between "murdering" businesses for societal greater good, and murdering them for misguided ambitions. There is no question that the country is far better off for having the interstate highway system than not. And those small businesses made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good.

However, I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that American cities that were mutilated by the system are better off for having the system traverse the inner cities. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. No other economically advanced nation that built a robust highway system did to their cities what we did to ours, and for that reason no other economically advanced nation has the degree of urban decay we have in our country. We did not gain anything by sending the freeways through our urban cores that the Germans missed out on by not doing so.

Ypu, thse little motels that survived have had to become "no tell motels".

Eisenhower would have preferred to have I-75 run straight from the Ohio Turnpike up to the Mackinac Bridge without going near Detroit. The reason that I-75 runs over and jogs though Detroit is because the Detroit politicians pushed for it. Detroit had a scheme for city expressways which predated the interstate highway program by a number of years. Detroit wanted expressways. By integrating their urban expressway scheme into the interstate program, they got Uncle Sugar to pick up 90% of the cost. As I recall, the expressways within the city limits were paid for as follows:

USA-90%
State of Michigan- 7.5%
Wayne County - 1.25%
City of Detroit-1.25%

[professorscott]

Expressways, like everything governments do, have intended and unintended consequences. Detroit has, perhaps, more lane-miles of freeway per capita than any other major city in the world. Having said that, the thread question has to do with removing them. [[Note, if you want to argue my assertion: a toll highway is not a freeway. Also, I might be wrong, but I doubt it, and it's breathtakingly hard to count accurately.)

For the most part, this is not possible, but when you have short stretches of parallel freeway [[such as 375 and the southern part of the Lodge) it is arguable that one can be removed without devastating effect. The City of Rochester, NY, recently closed a portion of the "inner loop"; the closed portion was not signed as an Interstate Highway but was a connection to the Interstate system.

Project details: http://www.cityofrochester.gov/InnerLoopEast/

I think closing 375 as a freeway is an excellent idea and can help revitalize an area which looks promising for short-term revitalization. I agree with the comment made earlier about the Davison: sure, but why? The longer freeways: no chance.

[Buttons]

Expressways, like everything governments do, have intended and unintended consequences. Detroit has, perhaps, more lane-miles of freeway per capita than any other major city in the world. Having said that, the thread question has to do with removing them. [[Note, if you want to argue my assertion: a toll highway is not a freeway. Also, I might be wrong, but I doubt it, and it's breathtakingly hard to count accurately.)

For the most part, this is not possible, but when you have short stretches of parallel freeway [[such as 375 and the southern part of the Lodge) it is arguable that one can be removed without devastating effect. The City of Rochester, NY, recently closed a portion of the "inner loop"; the closed portion was not signed as an Interstate Highway but was a connection to the Interstate system.

Project details: http://www.cityofrochester.gov/InnerLoopEast/

I think closing 375 as a freeway is an excellent idea and can help revitalize an area which looks promising for short-term revitalization. I agree with the comment made earlier about the Davison: sure, but why? The longer freeways: no chance.

I really doubt Detroit has more miles of freeway lanes than any other city in the world.

[mwilbert]

I really doubt Detroit has more miles of freeway lanes than any other city in the world.

That wasn't the claim. The claim was more per person. I don't know if it is true, but it certainly seems possible.

[Detroitnerd]

That wasn't the claim. The claim was more per person. I don't know if it is true, but it certainly seems possible.

It's my understanding Detroit is No. 2 in freeway lane-miles per person.

No. 1 is supposed to be Kansas City.

[Wesley Mouch]

That wasn't the claim. The claim was more per person. I don't know if it is true, but it certainly seems possible.

More per person is irrelevant. So as the city has emptied out, the miles per person certainly has gone up. But that's effect. And some are trying to prove cause. By that measure, Detroit probably had a relatively lower miles/person in 1980 than today.

[Detroitnerd]

More per person is irrelevant. So as the city has emptied out, the miles per person certainly has gone up. But that's effect. And some are trying to prove cause. By that measure, Detroit probably had a relatively lower miles/person in 1980 than today.

Some of those statistics are regional, in which case "emptying out" wouldn't be an argument because the metro Detroit population has remained flat for decades. You can say the city is shrinking, but really it's a region mired deep in stagnation.

And, actually, Detroit appears to be somewhere in the middle, lane-mile-wise. So, as they say, there goes another perfectly good argument destroyed by the facts.

http://www.tlcminnesota.org/pdf/lanemilespercapita.pdf

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm

Of course, you're getting closer to the answer here, Wes. It's not freeways per se, but what they do, what sloppy fixes they encourage, what destructive patterns they aggravate, that make them objectionable in our metropolitan areas.

For instance, they can reorganize a metropolitan area in such a way that jobs can be placed further and further out of reach of those who need them most and have least access to automotive travel.

You will see on the chart below that Detroit is at the absolute rock bottom [[above only Cleveland) of the list when it comes to jobs being in proximity to the people who need them.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...neebone-holmes

Without an extensive system of freeways and NO OTHER MODE OF TRANSPORT, it would be impossible for jobs to keep moving further away from minorities and the poor. What you're subsidizing is a very expensive and destructive form of capital flight.

This is one of the many reasons people are re-examining freeways in a new light, and more seriously considering the importance of other modes of travel. Or, more radically still, lifestyles that do not require a great deal of traveling in the first place.

[jiminnm]

That wasn't the claim. The claim was more per person. I don't know if it is true, but it certainly seems possible.

Most recent info in a quick search:
http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/20/ci...-who-of-decay/