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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bham1982]

Empirical evidence shows that many of those car trips would simply disappear, as freeways are known to induce driving.

Indeed they would disappear. The few people traveling into Detroit would become even fewer, and the remaining businesses would perish. Then the armchair urban planners of DYes could rant and rave against the evil, racist suburbanites, and their refusal to travel 2 hours on surface roads for a taco in Mexicantown.

[Parkguy]

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.

Here's one from before freeways. There were some pretty overcrowded and run-down blocks in this view, and lots of injustice, but it was an intact city.

[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?

[313WX]

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?

It depends on how you define the return on investment ane taxpayers.

For suburbanites, they receive the non-monetary benefit of being able to work/play in and travel through isolated parts of the city without having to face the major problems that plague the city. Given that we have yet to see any large scale change in regional/state policies and living/commuting patterns, this sunken cost was obviously worth it to them for that benefit.

And given that these same suburbanites now control majority of lansing and make up majority of the region's populations, I wouldn't hold my breath for things to be done differently any time soom...

[iheartthed]

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.

But Los Angeles has 4 million people now. Most of the city's growth occurred during the freeway era. By 1930 Detroit was at 90% of its peak population.

[GPCharles]

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

All of which were surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods. From the Connor Road factories east to the GP border and west to Indian Village was all residential. So how did the existence of the plants kill those neighborhoods? More like it was the closing of the plants.

[MicrosoftFan]

All of which were surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods. From the Connor Road factories east to the GP border and west to Indian Village was all residential. So how did the existence of the plants kill those neighborhoods? More like it was the closing of the plants.

That's what I meant, the closing of the plants.

[313WX]

But Los Angeles has 4 million people now. Most of the city's growth occurred during the freeway era. By 1930 Detroit was at 90% of its peak population.

The point was that while the freeways did have some negative impacts on the city [[as well as positive impacts), it was not the sole cause of the city's decline, and not even the primary cause.

Otherwise, every other city with freeways as extensive as Detroit's would have declined to the same extent Detroit did if that were the case...

[iheartthed]

Otherwise, every other city with freeways as extensive as Detroit's would have declined to the same extent Detroit did if that were the case...

Who says that didn't happen? Check out St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Memphis, Birmingham, Baltimore, etc.

Detroit built its freeways through the city's most densely populated areas. This absolutely did have a detrimental effect on the city and its ability to stem its substantial population decline.

[313WX]

Check out St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Memphis, Birmingham, Baltimore, etc.

Check out what?

None of those cities have freeways systems nearly as extensive as Detroit's, nor were their declines [[although perhaps significant) nearly as severe as Detroit's decline.

[Onthe405]

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).

This is a common misconception regarding the economy of Los Angeles, fueled by media images rather than reality. Currently, entertainment is the 9th largest industry in the city. This is still far surpassed by manufacturing, which historically has been #1, [[and still is), although the differential margin has declined over the last few decades--particularly with the loss of aerospace manufacturing.

The biggest contrast with Detroit has been the diversity of industries within the manufacturing sector. That, and technology is currently experiencing tremendous growth in the city, particularly DTLA & "Silicon Beach" [[Playa Vista to Venice). Much of this is due to the ever-blurring lines between the entertainment, media, and technology businesses. All of the big Silicon Valley firms have already established [[or are planning) a sizable presence in LA in partnership with the legacy media outlets.

If this trend continues, the aforementioned economic misconception may actually become the reality. . .

[313WX]

This is a common misconception regarding the economy of Los Angeles, fueled by media images rather than reality. Currently, entertainment is the 9th largest industry in the city. This is still far surpassed by manufacturing, which historically has been #1, [[and still is), although the differential margin has declined over the last few decades--particularly with the loss of aerospace manufacturing.

The biggest contrast with Detroit has been the diversity of industries within the manufacturing sector. That, and technology is currently experiencing tremendous growth in the city, particularly DTLA & "Silicon Beach" [[Playa Vista to Venice). Much of this is due to the ever-blurring lines between the entertainment, media, and technology businesses. All of the big Silicon Valley firms have already established [[or are planning) a sizable presence in LA in partnership with the legacy media outlets.

If this trend continues, the aforementioned economic misconception may actually become the reality. . .

I stand corrected.

[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.