Freeway Removal in Detroit

[Bham1982]

You assume a paradigm that is static and permanent. What if:

"Detroit is already built out. We aren't starting from scratch. The question is whether, in a region completely reliant on the streetcars, a municipality would have any economic interest in increasing auto access." --1940s Detroit

That is a ridiculous analogy, because auto usage and demand was soaring in the 1940's, like no time in history. In contrast, current transit usage and demand has essentially never been lower.

If Detroit never built freeways back then, I would guess that the region would be even more screwed up than now. It would be the only U.S. city without widespread auto-based mobility, and the auto and logistics industry would have to relocate.

[Bham1982]

This is an overly simplistic analysis, and you know it. You might want to mention, however, that Los Angeles has built an incredible amount of subway and light rail lines in the past 20 years.

And by "incredible amount" you mean one. LA has built one subway line.

LA is autotopia, with very low transit usage, and a very limited transit system, yet has expanded more than any other metro in the U.S. over the past century.

[ghettopalmetto]

That is a ridiculous analogy, because auto usage and demand was soaring in the 1940's, like no time in history. In contrast, current transit usage and demand has essentially never been lower.

Auto usage would have never increased if the State hadn't built so many "free" roads. Think about it.

You might want to check your figures on transit usage and demand, because you couldn't be more wrong. Eh, who am I kidding? You're just going to keep making shit up to "confirm" your already-held opinion anyway.

If Detroit never built freeways back then, I would guess that the region would be even more screwed up than now. It would be the only U.S. city without widespread auto-based mobility, and the auto and logistics industry would have to relocate.

So now that the auto industry employs fewer people than before WWII, we *must* widen the freeways!!! Wheeeeeeeeee! God forbid Detroit eliminates I-375, without which the auto industry would surely fail.

You'll sure-as-shit weasel any old crap to justify your love of the status quo, won't you?

[ghettopalmetto]

And by "incredible amount" you mean one. LA has built one subway line.

LA is autotopia, with very low transit usage, and a very limited transit system, yet has expanded more than any other metro in the U.S. over the past century.

Since 1990, Los Angeles has opened 93 miles of rail transit lines, which carry 350,000 passengers per day. There are five rail expansion projects currently under construction.

You just keep thinking whatever you damn well please. It's pointless having a discussion with a person as wholly irrational and dismissive of facts as you are.

[middetres]

I see six rail lines in LA, but maybe it's like that blue/black or white/gold dress thing...maybe if I look again I'll only see one.

http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/...s/rail_map.pdf

And two are subway lines, not one.

[ghettopalmetto]

I see six rail lines in LA, but maybe it's like that blue/black or white/gold dress thing...maybe if I look again I'll only see one.

http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/...s/rail_map.pdf

And two are subway lines, not one.

Don't bother. Bham1982 is a staunch defender of his privileged automobile-oriented suburban lifestyle that is supposed to be some kind of model for the rest of the world to emulate. You're not going to win him over with facts and rational discourse.

[canuck]

In Los Angeles, the purple and red lines are the only two subway lines per se, so there are two sub lines and the rest are metrorail surface lines according to Wikipedia.

And, as Inestine used to say, two lines are better than one.

[Hermod]

Auto usage would have never increased if the State hadn't built so many "free" roads. Think about it.

You might want to check your figures on transit usage and demand, because you couldn't be more wrong. Eh, who am I kidding? You're just going to keep making shit up to "confirm" your already-held opinion anyway.

Why would anyone want to own a car when the Detroit streetcar system is so wonderful?
Attachment 26362
Attachment 26363
Attachment 26364

[ghettopalmetto]

Why would anyone want to own a car when the Detroit streetcar system is so wonderful?
Attachment 26362
Attachment 26363
Attachment 26364

Propagandize much?

No one is keeping you from owning a car. No one is trying to take your car from you. But dare to move Detroit the slightest bit out of the 1950s, and you'll cry and throw a tantrum to high heaven.

Sorry, man. Not all of us are living in the nostalgia of our teenage years. It's high time Detroit--and MDOT--start looking at all of the money they're wasting on an outdated and inefficient transportation system.

[Scottathew]

No one is trying to take your car from you.

[[in the voice of President Obama) "If you like your car, you can keep your car."

But seriously, if we would have built out subways\rail on the spokes, people would use them. I really would like to see a subway on Woodward one day, but it's going to take a little bit longer before serious discussions can start about that, and the price-tag is pretty steep.

[schulzte]

Fixed it all




Some of existing I-75 and all of I-375 removed.
I-75 rerouted on to I-94 and I-96.
New 5 lane surface street to replace I-375, connects into I-75
New Surface streets
New Business 75 Loop, Warren to Woodward to Campus Martius to Fort
New Business 94 Loop, Michigan to Campus Martius to Monroe to Gratiot

[Bham1982]

In Los Angeles, the purple and red lines are the only two subway lines per se, so there are two sub lines and the rest are metrorail surface lines according to Wikipedia.

And, as Inestine used to say, two lines are better than one.

That's one line. The current line goes to Hollywood, and then has an additional two stops dead-end. The Purple Line is a proposed line.

LA has 20 million people and one subway line. It's easily the most auto-dependent megacity on earth. There isn't another world city more associated with car culture.

[Bham1982]

In Los Angeles, the purple and red lines are the only two subway lines per se, so there are two sub lines and the rest are metrorail surface lines according to Wikipedia.

And, as Inestine used to say, two lines are better than one.

That's one line. And that one line has low ridership.The current line goes to Hollywood, and then has an additional two stops dead-end. The Purple Line is a proposed line.

LA has 20 million people and one subway line. It's easily the most auto-dependent megacity on earth. There isn't another world city more associated with car culture.

The remainder of LA's transit is overwhelmingly just buses. There are some light rail lines [[with low ridership) and a few commuter rail lines [[with ridiculously low ridership), but the system is overwhelmingly bus-oriented, with the busiest transit routes mostly buses.

[iheartthed]

and the price-tag is pretty steep.

Freeways aren't cheap either.

The I-94 project includes bridges over the interstate for Van Dyke and Gratiot, which will be finished this year and next year, respectively, at a cost of $2.7 billion in federal and statebonds. The I-75 project will be completed in seven segments, the last of which is expected to be complete by 2033, at a cost of $1.3 billion in federal funds.

http://archive.freep.com/article/20130620/NEWS05/306200113/I-75-I-94-widening-SEMCOG-interstates

You could probably get a Woodward subway line from downtown Detroit into Oakland County for what they're spending on the I-94 project.

[Bham1982]

Since 1990, Los Angeles has opened 93 miles of rail transit lines, which carry 350,000 passengers per day. There are five rail expansion projects currently under construction.

And only one subway line. Trolleys have the same capacity as bus. It means nothing in terms of transit orientation. You need high capacity, grade separated heavy rail if you want to have a transit-oriented environment.

And LA transit share has actually dropped since rail was reintroduced. It isn't 350k rail passengers, you made that up. Overall non-linked transit trips are around 300k [[so probably around 100k riders), which is horrible ridership, much lower than that of small cities like Boston, San Francisco, Montreal, DC and Philly.

You just keep thinking whatever you damn well please. It's pointless having a discussion with a person as wholly irrational and dismissive of facts as you are.

No, you got caught lying. Visit LA, take the bus with no one but desperately poor undocumented immigrants, and report back to us on your transit-oriented utopia, the one with 16-lane freeways, giant garages everywhere, and the world's most celebrated auto culture.

[iheartthed]

I cannot really think of any freeway that if removed would make the city a worse place to be. And the only good arguments I can make for keeping even the freeways that seem useful [[Southfield Fwy, some combination of I-94/I-75) is that it makes it easy for cars to get through the city, which I don't think is a compelling interest of the city itself. Vibrant cities aren't that way because they are easy to pass through, but exactly the opposite.

After a little thought I'm going to backtrack slightly on this one. I think the removal of I-75 through southwest Detroit would probably be a bad idea due to it being a feeder for the bridge[[s) into Ontario. Otherwise, I don't think it would have a detrimental affect to remove the Fisher east of the Ambassador Bridge and remove entirely the Chrysler portions of I-75 within the city limits.

[mwilbert]

Freeways aren't cheap either.



You could probably get a Woodward subway line from downtown Detroit into Oakland County for what they're spending on the I-94 project.

Very unlikely. It is about 9 miles from downtown to the southern edge of Oakland County. You probably can't build a subway in the US at this point for less than $500 million/mile. [[Which is ridiculous--US infrastructure construction costs are absurd.) But for 2.7 billion, you could probably get to Highland Park.

And even if you didn't spend money on the not-very-compelling widening of I-94, the bridges would still need a lot of rebuilding, which would still cost a lot. We should complain about the mix of transportation spending in Michigan, but if Michigan devoted all of its current transportation spending to road maintenance, it would still be wouldn't be spending enough just on that.

[ghettopalmetto]

And only one subway line. Trolleys have the same capacity as bus. It means nothing in terms of transit orientation. You need high capacity, grade separated heavy rail if you want to have a transit-oriented environment.

Because you're an expert on this kind of thing? Ha ha ha ha! All you know is upper-class tea-and-scones privilege, son. I'd be shocked if you ever rode a non-chauffered transit vehicle in your life. Hate to tell you, chief, but Oakland County, Michigan is damn far from the center of the universe.

And LA transit share has actually dropped since rail was reintroduced. It isn't 350k rail passengers, you made that up. Overall non-linked transit trips are around 300k [[so probably around 100k riders), which is horrible ridership, much lower than that of small cities like Boston, San Francisco, Montreal, DC and Philly.

I got those numbers from LA County Metro. Those 350,000 daily passengers beat the piss out of Detroit's transit ridership [[this is double the *combined* ridership of DDOT and SMART, and doesn't even include LA's expansive bus network), and make LA one of the top-ten busiest rail systems in the country. But hey, since you're the king of flexible metrics, you'll find fault with this too.

No, you got caught lying. Visit LA, take the bus with no one but desperately poor undocumented immigrants, and report back to us on your transit-oriented utopia, the one with 16-lane freeways, giant garages everywhere, and the world's most celebrated auto culture.

Editorialize much? I've never seen you post a single damned FACT anywhere. Maybe you could try that. Just once would be nice.

[Shai_Hulud]

Fixed it all.

That's pretty good, Michigan Ave. could probably take the I-75 traffic easily. However I-75 below I-94 would probably need to be replaced with some sort of high capacity avenue. I-94 to the lodge right there seems like a clear bottleneck.

And while we're dreaming about freeing up land in a city with too much free land the Davison Freeway, M-8 can definitely go. Very little traffic between I-75 and the Lodge, none east of I-75.

[Hermod]

Propagandize much?

No one is keeping you from owning a car. No one is trying to take your car from you. But dare to move Detroit the slightest bit out of the 1950s, and you'll cry and throw a tantrum to high heaven.

Sorry, man. Not all of us are living in the nostalgia of our teenage years. It's high time Detroit--and MDOT--start looking at all of the money they're wasting on an outdated and inefficient transportation system.

Propagandize? You mean to say that I photoshopped those pictures?

[313WX]

ghettopalmetto, since you seen to hate the way things are done around here, have you considered moving to a city/region/state that does things to your satisfaction?

[Hermod]

[[in the voice of President Obama) "If you like your car, you can keep your car."

But seriously, if we would have built out subways\rail on the spokes, people would use them. I really would like to see a subway on Woodward one day, but it's going to take a little bit longer before serious discussions can start about that, and the price-tag is pretty steep.

We had that and it was all built by a company [[or its predecessor companies) called the Detroit United Railway. Unfortunately, the Detroit city government and all three Detroit newspapers [[Free Press, News, Times) did everything they could to bankrupt and destroy the DUR. Here was their rail network:

Attachment 26367

[iheartthed]

Very unlikely. It is about 9 miles from downtown to the southern edge of Oakland County. You probably can't build a subway in the US at this point for less than $500 million/mile. [[Which is ridiculous--US infrastructure construction costs are absurd.) But for 2.7 billion, you could probably get to Highland Park.

And even if you didn't spend money on the not-very-compelling widening of I-94, the bridges would still need a lot of rebuilding, which would still cost a lot. We should complain about the mix of transportation spending in Michigan, but if Michigan devoted all of its current transportation spending to road maintenance, it would still be wouldn't be spending enough just on that.

If I were emperor I would probably opt to convert I-94 to an at-grade parkway through the city and completely do away with the need for bridges and the associated maintenance costs. I would route I-94 up I-275 and over I-696 to join up with its current route towards Port Huron north of the city.

[Detroitnerd]

Hermod is an interesting character. His scholarship of the streetcar era is impressive. He was there on the ground floor as a minor technician during the freeway boom. For these things, he should be heeded.

But he's also complicated. Worked for the government much of his life and hates "the gummint." Fondly recalls a soda and a sandwich at Cunningham's yet extols the virtues of sprawltopia. For these things, he deserves a good bit of mocking.

Either way, very much a product of his generation.

[ghettopalmetto]

Hermod is an interesting character. His scholarship of the streetcar era is impressive. He was there on the ground floor as a minor technician during the freeway boom. For these things, he should be heeded.

But he's also complicated. Worked for the government much of his life and hates "the gummint." Fondly recalls a soda and a sandwich at Cunningham's yet extols the virtues of sprawltopia. For these things, he deserves a good bit of mocking.

Either way, very much a product of his generation.

DetroitYES!'s very own Ron Swanson.