If Detroit is too big for itself...

**EastsideAl** · December-11-09, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

The big arterials are all too wide for current traffic levels, and are pedestrian unfriendly. Putting some kind of transit down Woodward is a first step to fixing that. The proposed BRT for Gratiot would be another. And yes, I know everyone hates BRT.

I've seen and ridden on BRT, and yes, BRT sucks [[for instance, the Silver Line in Boston - what a joke). Bring back the streetcars!! Gratiot and particularly Grand River would be perfect corridors for light rail.

**313WX** · December-11-09, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

The big arterials are all too wide for current traffic levels

When I look at streets such as 8 Mile, Gratiot, Woodward & Jefferson, I would have to completely disagree.

All of the lanes are utilizeed on these streets during peak rush hour, and the traffic is usually bumper to bumper as well. In fact, Gratiot gets quite bad out of downtown from 10 mile to 14 mile & from Van Dyke to Gunston around 5 PM.

With that said, another road that could be condensed is Van Dyke [[from 6 Mile to I-94).

Retroit · December-11-09, 07:49 PM

Here is a map that shows daily usage of Detroit's major roads:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/detmetro_19640_7.pdf

Elsewhere in the state:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,...2141--,00.html

**mwilbert** · December-11-09, 07:58 PM

When I look at streets such as 8 Mile, Gratiot, Woodward & Jefferson, I would have to completely disagree.

All the lanes are used but that doesn't mean they are all full. I'm most familiar with Woodward, and it certainly isn't usually at capacity, even at rush hour. Neither is 8 Mile. I could believe Gratiot is different, because I don't take Gratiot at rush hour very often. Jefferson doesn't seem that busy.

My personal observation is that the delays on these roads tend to be caused by lights allowing crossing traffic, not by lane capacity. Perhaps someone who is a traffic engineer will read this and comment--I don't claim to be an expert on this.

Also, I was talking about arterials within Detroit proper, not 10 - 14 Mile.

I've seen and ridden on BRT, and yes, BRT sucks [[for instance, the Silver Line in Boston - what a joke)

The Silver Line is a joke because it runs [[largely) on uncontrolled city streets. The portion that runs in busways runs about as fast the Green Line. There isn't enough room on Boston streets for BRT, which makes it stupid, but that's the point--there is enough room in Detroit. If you ran LRV on the Silver Line route they wouldn't be any faster--they would still be stuck in traffic. I'd prefer light rail on the arterials, but my understanding is that ridership levels are too low to qualify for funding, whereas BRT is possible.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-11-09, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

If you ran LRV on the Silver Line route they wouldn't be any faster--they would still be stuck in traffic.

This is an untrue statement. Electric-powered rail vehicles have higher rates of acceleration and deceleration than rubber-tired diesel engine vehicles. Thus, light rail operates at the maximum allowable speed for a higher percentage of its time of operation.

**mwilbert** · December-11-09, 08:09 PM

This is an untrue statement

It is completely true. The rate of acceleration of a Silver Line BRT is not limited by traction, but by the car two feet in front of it.

People overstate the difference in acceleration anyway, but in the case of the Silver Line it is completely irrelevant.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-11-09, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

It is completely true. The rate of acceleration of a Silver Line BRT is not limited by traction, but by the car two feet in front of it.

People overstate the difference in acceleration anyway, but in the case of the Silver Line it is completely irrelevant.

You're suggesting that a diesel-powered articulated bus can achieve at least the same rate of acceleration as a typical passenger vehicle? If so, you might like to publish a paper on the topic, because it would revolutionize the world of mechanical dynamics.

I'm also fairly [[read: 1000%) certain that MBTA does not allow passenger cars to operate in the grade-separated portions of the Silver Line.

**Nikki Pooh** · December-11-09, 08:23 PM

Sounds like someone has been sipping too much of the "Process/Continuous Improvement" kool-aid...Downsizing the freeways? As if to say Detroit has met its doom and there's no coming back. Save the rhetoric for another cause, such demolishing old, dilapidated buildings. Let's not get ahead of ourselves...Just saying!

**mwilbert** · December-11-09, 08:46 PM

I wasn't talking about the grade-separated parts, as I thought was clear from the original post. And no, generally the Green Line cars don't accelerate any faster than the Silver Line busses. Maybe they can, but track conditions don't generally allow it except on the far stretches of the Riverside line. If the cars accelerate faster, they have to stop and wait for the unit ahead to clear the station, and riders prefer continuous slower motion to lots of between-station stops, so they tend to go slow.

The idea that urban transit is generally limited by capabilities of the vehicles is pretty dubious. When I first went to Boston in the 70's, the Red Line routinely would cross the Longfellow Bridge at over 50 MPH. Now I believe the fastest the operators are supposed to go is 30, maybe 35. The trains can still do 50. The tracks, and the underlying bridge can't handle it. There are horrible congestion and signalization problems throughout the Green Line, which limits the potential benefits of faster acceleration.

A transit system is a system, and improving one component doesn't usually buy you very much. LRVs definitely move between stations faster than BRT in a ideal environment, but the Silver Line isn't even close to that. For instance, when transitioning between underground busways and the street, the driver has to get out and manually move the pantograph because the buses switch from CNG to electric operation and back. And I don't believe the type of LRV in use in Boston is even capable of making the small-radius turns that the Silver Line busses have to make--the busses have to cross lanes to make some of them. My point was that the Silver Line isn't a joke because of its BRTness, but because of its infrastructure which forces it to run in Boston traffic on Boston streets. My point was not that BRT is preferable to light rail, except perhaps insofar as we might be able to get BRT on Gratiot, but apparently not light rail.

DetroitDad · December-11-09, 09:31 PM

I'm not sure we really need both I-375 and the Lodge South of I-75. It seems that the freeway system could have been designed a little more efficiently where they all intersect and meet near Downtown, Midtown, and North Corktown. North M-5 also seems to have served no purpose other than to promote additional exurban sprawl.

I would like to really see something done with the Chrysler [[I-75) where it passes by Downtown. This freeway [[among others) should have been hidden, and had street grids and buildings built above it. It is good that Detroit's freeways are mostly below grade, maybe our young will find a way to complete that task.

lilpup · December-11-09, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

I'm not sure we really need both I-375 and the Lodge South of I-75. It seems that the freeway system could have been designed a little more efficiently where they all intersect and meet near Downtown, Midtown, and North Corktown. North M-5 also seems to have served no purpose other than to promote additional exurban sprawl.

I would like to really see something done with the Chrysler [[I-75) where it passes by Downtown. This freeway [[among others) should have been hidden, and had street grids and buildings built above it. It is good that Detroit's freeways are mostly below grade, maybe our young will find a way to complete that task.

Not at all in favor of covering freeways - serious safety issues, especially in the age of terrorism. I've often wondered why they don't make use of such easy opportunities [[thinking downtown Chicago in particular).

**softailrider** · December-11-09, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by tallboy66

Have a rail line run along the express lines of 96, imagine a 45 minute trip into the city from AA

Keep imagining- it ain't happening.

Retroit · December-11-09, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

I would like to really see something done with the Chrysler [[I-75) where it passes by Downtown. This freeway [[among others) should have been hidden, and had street grids and buildings built above it. It is good that Detroit's freeways are mostly below grade, maybe our young will find a way to complete that task.

They're called "tunnels" and they are expensive [[$22,000,000,000 for 3.5 miles in Boston). [[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig )

DetroitDad · December-11-09, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by lilpup

Not at all in favor of covering freeways - serious safety issues, especially in the age of terrorism. I've often wondered why they don't make use of such easy opportunities [[thinking downtown Chicago in particular).

Excellent point! Although, I'd be more worried about the Detroit Windsor Tunnel and Cobo.

Maybe only build over in small sections adjacent to some of the roads [[small tunnels), or use it for a park, like they did with "The Big Dig"? The point would be to make the connection between Downtown and Midtown better for pedestrians, and make the properties facing the service drives more desirable.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-11-09, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by lilpup

Not at all in favor of covering freeways - serious safety issues, especially in the age of terrorism. I've often wondered why they don't make use of such easy opportunities [[thinking downtown Chicago in particular).

So it's okay to have a freeway tunnel in front of the Capitol, but not in downtown Detroit?

DetroitDad · December-11-09, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

They're called "tunnels" and they are expensive [[$22,000,000,000 for 3.5 miles in Boston). [[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig )

You're probably right.

But, wasn't the Big Dig much bigger, and didn't that project include demolishing a raised expressway and burying a completely new one underground? Either way, I'm sure it would still be far too expensive and unnecessary to do this right now

**mwilbert** · December-11-09, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

They're called "tunnels" and they are expensive [[$22,000,000,000 for 3.5 miles in Boston). [[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig )

Tunnels are really expensive, but in conventional terms the Big Dig only cost $16 billion; the rest of the money you are referring to is interest, which isn't really normal to include--you don't include the interest you pay on your mortgage when you say how much your house cost.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-11-09, 10:15 PM

OR, you could bulldoze the Lodge and I-375 outright and attempt to reconnect downtown to the adjoining portions of the city....

andybsg · December-11-09, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is it now time to decommission some of the freeways? Just like there isn't much of a need for all those excess houses, there also isn't much of a need for all that excess road capacity. No?

You've answered your own question, no.

**iheartthed** · December-11-09, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So it's okay to have a freeway tunnel in front of the Capitol, but not in downtown Detroit?

As well as the Cross Manhattan Expwy that goes under several apartment buildings...

**windsor_shane** · December-11-09, 11:10 PM

removing some freeways altogether and replacing them with regular roads has proven to increase the vitality of the surrounding areas [[in places where they have done this property values of adjacent areas has dramatically risen). people will take freeways if they are there... and the more lanes you add.. the more cars.

check this link... a good read

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysTear.html

some history about the freeways...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=122541

**jeduncan** · December-12-09, 12:11 AM

I'm gonna skip the debate, and cut straight to the point: It's not going to happen.

**Funaho** · December-12-09, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

They're called "tunnels" and they are expensive [[$22,000,000,000 for 3.5 miles in Boston). [[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig )

Digging a new tunnel, especially when you have to do it under an existing freeway without closing it, is a lot more expensive than what it would cost just to say lower I-75 a bit and put a cap on top. Not that I'm saying that's a good idea right now, but it certainly wouldn't be on the same cost scale as the Big Dig.

Also to whoever mentioned terrorism: not building stuff just because a terrorist *might* do something to it is not the way to live. Plus who the hell would waste a bomb blowing up something in Detroit? We're blowing ourselves up in slow motion already.

**tallboy66** · December-12-09, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

But wasn't pointless even in 1942? I mean if you want to build a crosstown expressway [[actually the original name for the Ford Fwy) then why didn't they build it? The Davison goes nowhere!

I wasn't around in 1942 but back then Madison Hgts. was rural and that's the problem with Detroit focusing on the past, the Thanksgiving day half time was about Motown and featured a 60's era Mustang

I mean that's all well and good but move along because it's NOT the 60's anymore and they tore down the Motown bldg. to make a gravel parking lot for a one day Superbowl event!

*end rant*

**EastsideAl** · December-12-09, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by jeduncan

I'm gonna skip the debate, and cut straight to the point: It's not going to happen.

No, it's not. And certainly the loudest objectors to a plan like this would come from downtown Detroit itself. Between city government, remaining business and office building owners, restaurateurs and bar operators, entertainment venues, sports franchises, and casinos can you imagine the uproar if someone actually tried something like this?