Freeway Removal in Detroit

[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.

[Scottathew]

Professor, fascinating link! What a great project for Rochester, NY. I would imagine many of the nearby residential properties will see a drastic increase in property value.

[schulzte]

How did you make this?

Just with MS Paint. Took about an hour

[schulzte]

Yeah, I think rerouting I-75 on to I-94 and I-96 makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to route through interstate traffic right through the heart of downtown like that when you have freeway redundancies. If you need to get downtown from the north, you have the Lodge, Woodward, or a new surface highway that replaces I-375.

Looking at Traffic Counts, I-96 downtown isn't that busy, but I-94 is. I think that stretch of the Edsel Ford Freeway which would be I-94/I-75 would have to be widened for those 2 miles to deal with an increase traffic load. I think it's only 6 lanes through there.

M-8 Davison Freeway/Avenue could also be labeled "Alt 75" even though it's surface highway for a mile. It is underutilized now; traffic could cut over to I-96 and head south from there, that might relive pressure on the I-94/I-75 Edsel Ford Freeway at rush hour times.

[313WX]

Good riddance to GM. The auto companies have caused so much heartache for the city. Just let them evaporate like they are already doing naturally. They have most of their workers up in Warren already anyway.

Why don't you tell the millions upon millions of people who depend on GM for an income how you really feel about them?

[313WX]

There are fewer auto jobs here in the Detroit area now than there were in the 1980s [[someone correct but I've seen this statistic before). The auto industry is the past. Bring the tech downtown and let's bring Detroit into the 21st century. Being completely beholden to the big3 for the past half century hasn't done us any good.

Ford/Chrysler/GM and their Suppliers are the by far largest employers in Metro DEtroit.

That's followed by ONLY Health Care [[auto industry workers' Cadillac health insurance benefits support it) and the Government [[auto industry workers' taxpayer dollars support this also)...

[313WX]

I wonder what effect the dismantling of I375/I75 from the river to Eight Mile would have on the continuing presence of GM in the Ren Cen?

Well, suburbanites would be forced to drive IN the crime ridden, poverty-stricken neighborhoods instead of bypassing them like they do now.

So yeah, that idea won't fly.

[Gpwrangler]

Why don't you tell the millions upon millions of people who depend on GM for an income how you really feel about them?

Probably doesn't get out much. Maybe doesn't drive a car either.

[Wesley Mouch]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and I have some questions:

1. Does anyone here think that this is a serious possibility; that is, does anyone think that freeways here will be torn out and replaced with either some other type of road or no road at all? Even if not, it's an interesting intellectual question.
...
4. Are we confusing correlation with causation? ... Thanks in advance.

BG, I do think this is a serious possibility. There are several examples now [[easy to google) of freeway removals and relocations. So I think the feds are open to good ideas. And since everyone and their brother wants to help Detroit, I think we're in a great position to get something done at this particular moment.

My guess is that the odds of I375 being replaced with a surface boulevard is about 3-to-1 in favor. The odds of other major moves 10-to-1 against.

But what you might see if some sort of major covering of I75 or I94 at or near Woodward as a concession to the progressive urbanism movement. My odds on this are even.

As to causation/correlation... I do think there's a causation. Bad freeway design does harm neighborhoods and cities. I just think its only 1 of 50 factors. I strongly believe we should adjust our freeways, but if we think fixing freeways will fix our urban problems, we're deluding ourselves.

Yet proper modernization and 'urbanization' of freeways is a good, and should be favored because it is good. Not because its our salvation.

[ABetterDetroit]

BG, I do think this is a serious possibility. There are several examples now [[easy to google) of freeway removals and relocations. So I think the feds are open to good ideas. And since everyone and their brother wants to help Detroit, I think we're in a great position to get something done at this particular moment.

My guess is that the odds of I375 being replaced with a surface boulevard is about 3-to-1 in favor. The odds of other major moves 10-to-1 against.

But what you might see if some sort of major covering of I75 or I94 at or near Woodward as a concession to the progressive urbanism movement. My odds on this are even.

As to causation/correlation... I do think there's a causation. Bad freeway design does harm neighborhoods and cities. I just think its only 1 of 50 factors. I strongly believe we should adjust our freeways, but if we think fixing freeways will fix our urban problems, we're deluding ourselves.

Yet proper modernization and 'urbanization' of freeways is a good, and should be favored because it is good. Not because its our salvation.

A excellent post with realistically possible major upgrades.

Replace I375 with a wide boulevard at the same grade as the surrounding area as has been proposed and bury I75 and I94 and cap with green space 3-4 blocks on both sides of Woodward. This is something that both businesses and residents would support. Removal of the either 94 or 75 is nothing but a wishful fantasy return to a 1929 Detroit that is not going to happen in the next fifty years if ever.

[Hermod]

Removal of the Chrysler and Lodge spurs are probably doable. I don' think the feds will let you screw round with 75 and 94 as through highways though.

[BankruptcyGuy]

BG, I do think this is a serious possibility. There are several examples now [[easy to google) of freeway removals and relocations. So I think the feds are open to good ideas. And since everyone and their brother wants to help Detroit, I think we're in a great position to get something done at this particular moment.

My guess is that the odds of I375 being replaced with a surface boulevard is about 3-to-1 in favor. The odds of other major moves 10-to-1 against.

But what you might see if some sort of major covering of I75 or I94 at or near Woodward as a concession to the progressive urbanism movement. My odds on this are even.

As to causation/correlation... I do think there's a causation. Bad freeway design does harm neighborhoods and cities. I just think its only 1 of 50 factors. I strongly believe we should adjust our freeways, but if we think fixing freeways will fix our urban problems, we're deluding ourselves.

Yet proper modernization and 'urbanization' of freeways is a good, and should be favored because it is good. Not because its our salvation.

Agree with you on 375 being more likely than other major moves.

By "covering of I75 or I94" do you mean something like the tunnels under I696? That would be aesthetically pleasing, I'm sure. Not sure that there will be highway funds targeted toward that, though.

If it's 1 of 50 factors, it's not causation, but I see your point.

[Wesley Mouch]

...By "covering of I75 or I94" do you mean something like the tunnels under I696? That would be aesthetically pleasing, I'm sure. Not sure that there will be highway funds targeted toward that, though. ...

Yep. But I don't even think you have to achieve 100% coverage [[although it sure would be nice).


More examples and ideas at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194851

[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.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Yep. But I don't even think you have to achieve 100% coverage [[although it sure would be nice).


More examples and ideas at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194851

Nice concept. I wonder how much the "land" on top of such a bridge would be worth. At some point, it would be worth more than the cost of the bridge, I'd think.

[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.

[Hermod]

When they replace a bridge over 75 or 94, possibly make the bridge wider so that the retail strip in the crossing streets can be uninterrupted by the freeway. Not much you can do about the major freeway interchanges.

[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.

[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/

[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.

[Buttons]

The jobs would just move out of state to cities that provide freeways. Every city in America has freeways that take them out of downtown. How come Detroit and Cleveland is effected more than any other city?

[Detroitnerd]

The jobs would just move out of state to cities that provide freeways. Every city in America has freeways that take them out of downtown. How come Detroit and Cleveland is effected more than any other city?

Fixed-route mass transit promises continual investment. Rockefeller Center is there because below it is a hole in the ground from which 100,000 people an hour can emerge. They are able to fill the towers with workers, the shops with employees, and ensure a steady stream of customers all day long. Literally, 2 million people travel underneath the building on trains all day long.

You simply cannot move that intact to White Plains, N.Y. The amount of investment in Rockefeller Center and all the other buildings along the transit line prohibits easily removing that investment to another place. Therefore, the transit service remains a commitment and the businesses remain committed to the neighborhood along the line.

In Cleveland and Detroit, we've ripped up all our fixed-route transit, and have simply let developers build where it's most profitable to them, allowing developers to direct our regional planning entirely. They build on green fields far from the city, the jobs move there, more developers build more subdivisions in the proximity, and then the demands of the traffic force the state and regional agencies to shell out money to upgrade the roads. But it doesn't matter. Because 10, 15, 20 years down the line the development will have moved on to the next green field where more profits can be made. And the only thing that could have stopped this -- fixed-route transit -- was considered an outdated and silly idea.

[Buttons]

Fixed-route mass transit promises continual investment. Rockefeller Center is there because below it is a hole in the ground from which 100,000 people an hour can emerge. They are able to fill the towers with workers, the shops with employees, and ensure a steady stream of customers all day long. Literally, 2 million people travel underneath the building on trains all day long.

You simply cannot move that intact to White Plains, N.Y. The amount of investment in Rockefeller Center and all the other buildings along the transit line prohibits easily removing that investment to another place. Therefore, the transit service remains a commitment and the businesses remain committed to the neighborhood along the line.

In Cleveland and Detroit, we've ripped up all our fixed-route transit, and have simply let developers build where it's most profitable to them, allowing developers to direct our regional planning entirely. They build on green fields far from the city, the jobs move there, more developers build more subdivisions in the proximity, and then the demands of the traffic force the state and regional agencies to shell out money to upgrade the roads. But it doesn't matter. Because 10, 15, 20 years down the line the development will have moved on to the next green field where more profits can be made. And the only thing that could have stopped this -- fixed-route transit -- was considered an outdated and silly idea.

This is different than simply removing freeways. New York does have freeways and sprawl across three states. There are freeways that can take you from White Plains to Manhattan. Most of the fastest growing cities in the US are more freeway centric.

[Wesley Mouch]

Yeah, I think rerouting I-75 on to I-94 and I-96 makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to route through interstate traffic right through the heart of downtown like that when you have freeway redundancies. If you need to get downtown from the north, you have the Lodge, Woodward, or a new surface highway that replaces I-375.....

If you're gonna spend billions on I94, make it count. Do all the work there, and kill the Fisher/I-75 that really cuts downtown apart.

I agree that 94 cutting through where it does is an atrocity. But one atrocity is better than two.