Remove Detroit's Freeways?

[Detroitnerd]

We get so caught up sometimes on the subject of building freeways, I thought perhaps I'd raise the topic of "freeway removal." Could this be a net benefit for Detroit? For its suburbs? It may sound outrageous on this forum, but I found a pretty good website that gives an overview of the potential economic benefits.

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

After perusing that, I thought it doesn't sound like so much crazy talk after all.

[ghettopalmetto]

We get so caught up sometimes on the subject of building freeways, I thought perhaps I'd raise the topic of "freeway removal." Could this be a net benefit for Detroit? For its suburbs? It may sound outrageous on this forum, but I found a pretty good website that gives an overview of the potential economic benefits.

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

After perusing that, I thought it doesn't sound like so much crazy talk after all.

I think removal of I-375 and the portion of the Lodge south of I-94 could do wonders for downtown Detroit.

But we'll never see it happen, because the doomsday prophecy of "eternal gridlock" will triumph over reason.

[Detroitnerd]

I think removal of I-375 and the portion of the Lodge south of I-94 could do wonders for downtown Detroit.

But we'll never see it happen, because the doomsday prophecy of "eternal gridlock" will triumph over reason.

Good proposals. Ideally, the retained freeways would girdle the dense area, not drive right through it. I'd also add that I-75 is routed too close to downtown, and the concrete canyon around the CBD hurts it. Why did they do that? To protect the CBD in case of a riot?

[cman710]

That is an interesting concept that could certainly bring benefits to certain locations on certain parts of freeways. On a larger scale, though, I am not entirely sure how this would play out [[or how the author of the article thinks it would).

Would there be no freeways within cities but between cities? If so, I do not think that would necessarily reduce sprawl. In fact, it could increase sprawl, as businesses currently located in central cities could relocate to areas with better freeway access. This would be especially true in a city like Detroit that has such poor public transportation, and less true in cities that already rely heavily on public transportation.

Also, while the author discusses potentially benefits from such an approach, he does not discuss the costs. Without freeways in urban areas, delivery of goods and services in central cities would become more costly and inefficient, raising prices for those consumers even more than they already are. In this respect, that would make the areas that remain near freeways even more comparably desirable than before, possibly encouraging greater sprawl outside central cities.

While this is thought-provoking, I am not convinced that it would be practical or desirable on a large-scale. I think that removing freeways would work best in small amounts, in particular areas in which a freeway is stunting urban development.

[Detroitnerd]

That is an interesting concept that could certainly bring benefits to certain locations on certain parts of freeways. On a larger scale, though, I am not entirely sure how this would play out [[or how the author of the article thinks it would).

Well, it's not an objective essay, that much is certain!

Would there be no freeways within cities but between cities? If so, I do not think that would necessarily reduce sprawl. In fact, it could increase sprawl, as businesses currently located in central cities could relocate to areas with better freeway access. This would be especially true in a city like Detroit that has such poor public transportation, and less true in cities that already rely heavily on public transportation.

There's an interesting little story in the book Asphalt Nation. It's about Eisenhower driving downtown in some mid-sized Midwestern city [[can't recall which one) and he's held up by traffic. So he asks the driver what the hold-up is. They tell him they're building the freeway through the city and the construction is behind the snarl. Eisenhower is surprised, because he thought the interstate system was going to bypass cities, not run through them. [[And this is the guy who signed the legislation creating interstates!)

And that may be what freeways are best at: Facilitating city-to-city travel. Some writers, such as Lewis Mumford, joke that they'd rather see intercity roads that adjoined cities instead of trying to drive them right through the delicate tissue of an old city.

As for the scenario of "businesses currently located in central cities could relocate to areas with better freeway access," you could argue that that's what happened after the freeways were built. Urban freeways like I-94 aren't very good at what they do: Trunk road for people passing through, for people crossing town, for people changing from freeway to freeway, yet built in the 1950s to narrow specifications, prohibitively expensive to enlarge, and surrounded by small parcels that don't fit well with freeway-oriented development. So why develop your supercenter or office tower downtown when there are acres of greenfield in the boonies with bigger parcels? That's been the prevailing trend here for a generation.

Another way of thinking about transportation is that different tools in the transportation toolbox are suited for different jobs. Want to have a good system for moving goods and people point-to-point between cities? Build good intercity roads. Want to appeal to cosmopolitan types? Put everything within walking distance so little travel is necessary. Want to move large quantities of people into one place without building massive roads and parking structures? Light rail or subways work well.

Instead, we put every demand upon roads and vehicles because that's all we have in our tranportation toolbox. For a generation, our mantra has been "prosperity follows new pavement."

Also, while the author discusses potentially benefits from such an approach, he does not discuss the costs. Without freeways in urban areas, delivery of goods and services in central cities would become more costly and inefficient, raising prices for those consumers even more than they already are. In this respect, that would make the areas that remain near freeways even more comparably desirable than before, possibly encouraging greater sprawl outside central cities.

Well, maybe. But as some of the freeway removal advocates point out, when they've removed freeways some of the predictions were dire: Traffic snarls, disinvestment, etc. But, actually, what happened wasn't as bad as had been predicted. Alternatively, lots of the claims in the old days that freeways would help downtowns turned out to be of doubtful verity.

Now, if we were to dig through that transportation toolbox, we might find other forms of transportation that work better for moving large quantities of people downtown without knocking half of it down for roads and parking.

While this is thought-provoking, I am not convinced that it would be practical or desirable on a large-scale. I think that removing freeways would work best in small amounts, in particular areas in which a freeway is stunting urban development.

Maybe we could try removing those little spurs that block off downtown first. See what happens. Heck, since we're talking about taking whole areas of the city off the grid, it might not be such a radical experiment.

[Gistok]

Urban freeways like I-94 aren't very good at what they do: Trunk road for people passing through, for people crossing town, for people changing from freeway to freeway, yet built in the 1950s to narrow specifications, prohibitively expensive to enlarge, and surrounded by small parcels that don't fit well with freeway-oriented development.

OK, you asked for it... you are bat-shit crazy!

Let me ask this question... north of I-94, what is the major cross-town roadway for getting from the east to the west side? Let's see McNichols [[6 Mile) is closed, so that would leave 7 Mile Rd. [[and Davison to a lesser extent)!!

I-94 does a great job of fixing the problem that the east/west sides of Detroit are poorly connected with cross town roadways. South of I-94 you have the Warren/Forest maze to get you across town, and below that you have to go to downtown to find cross town roads.

So I-94 does a great job of funneling all the cross town traffic that has nowhere else to go [[without the need for a map) between 7 Mile to the north and Warren/Forest to the south.

[Hermod]

Good proposals. Ideally, the retained freeways would girdle the dense area, not drive right through it. I'd also add that I-75 is routed too close to downtown, and the concrete canyon around the CBD hurts it. Why did they do that? To protect the CBD in case of a riot?

The alignment of the freeways was established in the late 1950s before the Watts riot kicked off the 60s orgy.

If you were to pull up the Lodge and the Chrysler south of 8-mile and the Fisher east of Telegraph, you could guarantee the total abandonment of the CBD.

,

[iheartthed]

When I asked this question several months ago people here thought I was bat shit crazy for it.

[Detroitnerd]

When I asked this question several months ago people here thought I was bat shit crazy for it.

It's early days yet. There's plenty of time for people to say I'm bat-shit crazy.

[Retroit]

When I asked this question several months ago people here thought I was bat shit crazy for it.

And some of us still do. http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=3756

For what its worth, here is a map showing daily usage rates on Detroit's major roads:

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

[Detroitnerd]

The alignment of the freeways was established in the late 1950s before the Watts riot kicked off the 60s orgy.

I was kind of joking, but, yes, the chronology would seem to rule it out.

If you were to pull up the Lodge and the Chrysler south of 8-mile and the Fisher east of Telegraph, you could guarantee the total abandonment of the CBD.

That's not necessarily what I was proposing, but an interesting scenario nonetheless. We've made roads and vehicles bear every burden in town, so removing freeways would essentially be removing all high-speed transportation. But what if that weren't the case? What if we had other systems to pick up that slack? If so, we might one day see a city surrounded by roads and park-and-rides. That doesn't sound so bad.

[Hermod]

Good proposals. Ideally, the retained freeways would girdle the dense area, not drive right through it. I'd also add that I-75 is routed too close to downtown, and the concrete canyon around the CBD hurts it. Why did they do that? To protect the CBD in case of a riot?

The good folks of Washington, DC did not want the interstate and its through traffic running through the middle of the city. The solution was a beltway which would route the through traffic [[south to northwest, south to northeast, and vice-versa) around the city through rural Virginia and Maryland. Every beltway exit has become a city into itself. In 1956, Tyson's Corner in Virginia was a country crossroads with two gas stations and a general store. Today, Tyson's Corner has more square feet of office space [[occupied) than Miami-Dade County. A similar situation [[though not of that magnitude) exists at all of the other beltway exits. The Beltway has boecome the "main street" of the area and they are talking of building an "outer beltway" to route traffic around the area.

[ghettopalmetto]

In 1956, Tyson's Corner in Virginia was a country crossroads with two gas stations and a general store. Today, Tyson's Corner has more square feet of office space [[occupied) than Miami-Dade County.

Today, Tyson's Corner is also one of the biggest traffic clusterfucks on earth.

And if Maryland and Virginia think that an outer beltway is going to do anything other than waste money, they need to pull their heads out of the ass of the 1950s and visit Houston.

[Hermod]

Today, Tyson's Corner is also one of the biggest traffic clusterfucks on earth.

And if Maryland and Virginia think that an outer beltway is going to do anything other than waste money, they need to pull their heads out of the ass of the 1950s and visit Houston.

Remember that Washington DC metro area has a problem the Houston and Detroit do not have. There is major north-south car and truck traffic passing THROUGH the area with no stopping there. It is also a major junction where the northbound traffic from Florida and the southeast [[I-95 all the way) and the Atlanta area [[I-85 to I-95) either go north east on I-95 to New York, New Jersey, and New England [[I-95) or go northwest to Breezewood and the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

They do need an outer beltway. The problem is that an outer beltway will only spawn more edge cities. They have been talking having an outer beltway with very few exits.

I lived in northern Virginia from 1985 to 1994. Tyson's Corner is really not that bad to negotiate except during the Christmas shopping season. Now the Seven Corners intersection is another story. You have to know what you are doing there and there is no interstate. The worst interstate area there is the Springfield "mixing bowl". I had to negotiate that every day from 1989 to 1992.

[Detroitnerd]

The good folks of Washington, DC did not want the interstate and its through traffic running through the middle of the city. The solution was a beltway which would route the through traffic [[south to northwest, south to northeast, and vice-versa) around the city through rural Virginia and Maryland. Every beltway exit has become a city into itself. In 1956, Tyson's Corner in Virginia was a country crossroads with two gas stations and a general store. Today, Tyson's Corner has more square feet of office space [[occupied) than Miami-Dade County. A similar situation [[though not of that magnitude) exists at all of the other beltway exits. The Beltway has boecome the "main street" of the area and they are talking of building an "outer beltway" to route traffic around the area.

I think this is the "Edge City" effect, where a beltway meets a spoke road and spawns freeway-oriented development. But I should point out that these places are in deep trouble these days. They are trying, at great cost, to try to retrofit Tyson's Corners to today's growing demand for walkable environments. Whether it will be a success or an ungainly hybrid is anybody's guess.

Troy is a similar environment to Tyson's Corners and it's in trouble too. They used to get all the development they wanted, and even turned down a number of development deals over the years. But last year, they resorted to tax breaks to keep Kelly Services in town. The move toward a transit center is a good one. But for Americans, the argument that a freeway is a "main street" and a mall is "downtown" doesn't hold as much water as it used to, and that is part of the problem these places face.

Some people, though, don't care about or need "main streets" or "downtowns." That Joel Garreau guy couldn't praise "Edge Cities" enough. [[It's kind of weird to read his book today, as he wrote it at the zenith of car culture.) He seems proud that "no cities of the old style were built after 1915, the year the millionth Model T came off the line." But, to my mind, what he's saying is that "no new downtowns were built after 1915." As a nation, have we lost the ability to create downtowns? To me, that's a little scary.

[ghettopalmetto]

As a nation, have we lost the ability to create downtowns? To me, that's a little scary.

I think we have. When we do try to replicate a downtown or town center, we end up with these gaudy, overcommercialized "lifestyle centers", which is really just a mall with a different spatial arrangement.

We need wholesale zoning changes if we want to get anywhere.

[casscorridor]

The three highest priority places for total freeway removal are:

1. I-375 [[Chrysler Fwy south of the Fisher) [[along wit the remaking of Hastings Street in this section, along with the remaking of Jefferson Ave into a pedestrian friendly street)
2. Fisher Fwy spur through Eastern Market to Gratiot Ave.
3. Lodge Fwy south of the Fisher. [[one note on this, keep the tunnel under Cobo, and use it for an avenue/boulevard or even a rail right-of-way... a transit station under cobo???)

Some freeways sections that have had devastating affects, that would benifit from removal, but since it is so costly, perhaps mitigation efforts such as adding bridges, pedestrian crossways and parks build over the freeway:

1. Fisher Fwy from the Jefferies Fwy to the Chrysler Fwy. [[most important)
2. Fisher Fwy along Fort Street
3. Jefferies Fwy along Grand River Ave
4. Ford Fwy along Michigan Ave
5. Ford Fwy along Harper Ave

Most of the Chrysler Fwy north of Downtown is already built, and although 50 years ago it destroyed Hastings Street, it is now long gone and removing the freeway won't really do anything. I think this is an important one to keep. Along with the Lodge at least from New Center.

-- I don't think any freeways in the suburbs should be removed, as the suburbs were built around the freeways. They rely on them [[sort of how Detroit neighborhoods relyed on streetcars). I think applies to the suburban portians of the city of Detroit as well. Rather, a policy should be enacted that no new freeways will be built! Anywhere! Transit systems cost less, are easier to upgrade and expand, and are much more sustainable and compatible to an urban environment.

Quick question: do the freeways HAVE to connect to one another? Could the Fisher Fwy be removed past the Jefferies in Downtown? Couldn't 75 just be rerouted via the Jefferies and Ford? That may be asking a little bit too much. But I could see it being removed and replaced with a rebuilt Vernor Ave. It would still be high-capacity like Woodward. Remember, many of our major aveneus such as Grand River are emptied out cos a freeway runs along them. But that is a good oportunity for light-rail to take over without interference from motorists.

[EMG]

We get so caught up sometimes on the subject of building freeways, I thought perhaps I'd raise the topic of "freeway removal." Could this be a net benefit for Detroit? For its suburbs? It may sound outrageous on this forum, but I found a pretty good website that gives an overview of the potential economic benefits.

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

After perusing that, I thought it doesn't sound like so much crazy talk after all.

First thought that comes to my mind is it would just add one more reason to the list of why outsiders who have a choice would avoid seeking employment in the city.

"I already have to pay income taxes to a city that I don't live in? And get gouged for parking that is usually free at suburban employers? And now on top of everything else I've got to double my commute time driving past burned out ruins on sidestreets because there are no more freeways?

[Detroitnerd]

First thought that comes to my mind is it would just add one more reason to the list of why outsiders who have a choice would avoid seeking employment in the city.

"I already have to pay income taxes to a city that I don't live in? And get gouged for parking that is usually free at suburban employers? And now on top of everything else I've got to double my commute time driving past burned out ruins on sidestreets because there are no more freeways?

Haha. Maybe that's the perception. But Detroit already went through a period of road-widening in the 1920s that left us some pretty darn good spoke roads. If we were to line them with serious mass transit [[streetcars, light rail vehicles, subways, etc.), we could see more investment and less burned-out hulks.

Heck, one of the reasons Grand River Avenue looks so darn awful is because they ripped out the streetcar tracks and built a freeway one block away. In that instance, you could argue that the freeway contributed to the presence of those burned-out hulks; could removing the freeway and restoring rail transit reverse this in the long term?

[313WX]

Heck, one of the reasons Grand River Avenue looks so darn awful is because they ripped out the streetcar tracks and built a freeway one block away. In a sense, the freeways contributed to the presence of those burned-out hulks; could removing the freeway and restoring rail transit reverse this in the long term?

Not really.

Remember most neighborhoods through the 70s [[including commercial strips along the avenues) remained relatively stable, even 20 years after the freeways were built and the street cars were ripped apart.

Even if we did have the freeways removed, Detrot would still have those same problems that caused the commercial stripis and neighborhood to "bomb out" in the first place [[we know what they are).

[Detroitnerd]

Not really.

Remember most neighborhoods through the 70s [[including commercial strips along the avenues) remained relatively stable, even 20 years after the freeways were built and the street cars were ripped apart.

Even if we did have the freeways removed, Detrot would still have those same problems that caused the commercial stripis and neighborhood to "bomb out" in the first place [[we know what they are).

Disinvestment is a long-term process. It doesn't happen right away, but as you remove critical services from a city thoroughfare while investing in bypassing it and building new farther and farther away from it, the effect is cumulative.

And nobody seems to be saying that removing freeways is a magical "silver bullet" that will turn Detroit into a land of sunshine and soap bubbles. But if we were to build up our rail transit infrastructure while de-emphasizing and perhaps removing some freeways, it could help unite neighborhoods that were cut off from each other and could spur some transit-oriented development. And that would be a plus.

[313WX]

Disinvestment is a long-term process. It doesn't happen right away, but as you remove critical services from a city thoroughfare while investing in bypassing it and building new farther and farther away from it, the effect is cumulative.

And nobody seems to be saying that removing freeways is a magical "silver bullet" that will turn Detroit into a land of sunshine and soap bubbles. But if we were to build up our rail transit infrastructure while de-emphasizing and perhaps removing some freeways, it could help unite neighborhoods that were cut off from each other and could spur some transit-oriented development. And that would be a plus.

I agree.

But my point was the freeways & street car removal weren't the reasons why mass disinvestment took place in Detroit [[and why investment won't take place). An insult, yes, but not the cause. Until Detroit can solve it's civic problems and create a better public image of itself, no one's investing here, freeway or no freeway. One can always build around the freeways if they really want to.

In addition, while the traffic volume may be lower than it should be now, that's mainly because of the current economic conditions [[not a decrease in population regionally). Once people start working and commuting again, the freeways should be at full use again.

[casscorridor]

Haha. Maybe that's the perception. But Detroit already went through a period of road-widening in the 1920s that left us some pretty darn good spoke roads. If we were to line them with serious mass transit [[streetcars, light rail vehicles, subways, etc.), we could see more investment and less burned-out hulks.

Heck, one of the reasons Grand River Avenue looks so darn awful is because they ripped out the streetcar tracks and built a freeway one block away. In that instance, you could argue that the freeway contributed to the presence of those burned-out hulks; could removing the freeway and restoring rail transit reverse this in the long term?

absolutely. I think that is one of the primary reasons. what is crazy is how in a decade so much changed. the freeways were built, the streetcar tracks ripped out, public housing projects built, downtown torn apart. even crazier how just years before the "spoke" avenues were widened. Part of the problem was the nature of how the city was built, especially the post 1915 expansion, where the city nearly doubled in geographic size, and developed a very suburban character. Entire neighborhoods went up overnight. Those were the new parts of the city, where the wealthy and middle class were moving, so the freeways were probably built to accommodate them, along with the very new suburbs.

I defiantly would support tearing out part of the Jefferies freeway when, going eastbound, it meets Grand River Ave [[right after the spur to Davison), the freeway would merge with Grand River just east of Oakman Blvd, west of Livernois. It could be a mistake, and lead to traffic, but it certianly would make a statement about where the urban core of the region starts [[the pre-1915 city limits). Maybe we could even use the right of way left from the freeway for a transit line, or a greenway park.

[Retroit]

Most people that use the freeway are going long distances. They are not interested in taking the boutique-lined surface roads of Detroit. The freeways will exist as long as they are being used [[not that I actually expected anyone to click on the link of road utilization that I posted. )

[Detroitnerd]

Most people that use the freeway are going long distances. They are not interested in taking the boutique-lined surface roads of Detroit. The freeways will exist as long as they are being used [[not that I actually expected anyone to click on the link of road utilization that I posted. )

Oh, I agree. That's why I think it's probably better to route freeways around a city rather than through it. That way the area dedicated to roads gets used by people who are actually going to or from the city.

I used that link but it's such a huge file I had a hard time zooming in at all.