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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

How much of the traffic on the Capital Beltway would you say is truckers travelling thousands of miles up-and-down the East Coast, versus regular turkeys making their daily commutes?

[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.

[BShea]

Keep in mind that the The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was also designed to carry armored vehicles and troops in times of war.

Commerce and commuting are not the sole purpose of the system.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/b...interstate.htm

I know it's easy to laugh off any notion that the highways would ever be needed to move military forces -- maybe make a Red Dawn joke -- but lots of political, economic and social experts said in 1914 that world war was impossible because of all the trade ties between nations.

[Detroitnerd]

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

Haha. Well, um, thanks, I guess.

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)!!

Well, Mack/MLK is south of I-94, but it's a solid crosstown thoroughfare without the annoying one-way orientations. I guess Davison, to my mind, is still the quickest way to drive from one side of town to the other. And why is McNichols closed?

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.

It's true, Detroit never had a good system of crosstown thoroughfares [[probably something we inherited from the ribbon-shaped private claims and the odd alignment of the 10,000-acre tract smack in the middle.

But consider that for a long time we DID have a good system of crosstown streetcars. We gave them up and pushed for high-speed roads instead. And that's when we did some sensible things [[bulldozing Myrtle through to Woodward, for instance) and a lot of questionable things [[routing I-75 on Vernor Highway).

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.

It is a handy route for people who don't want to consult a map, but when you consider that it handles through traffic, switching traffic, short-trip traffic ... well, that's a lot of jobs to give one road. [[And that's not to mention the thousands of demolitions that went into building it.) Ideally, we should put some other transportation option in place to pick up the slack and promote density -- if we build dense enough, maybe we won't need to take all those crosstown trips.

[casscorridor]

Keep in mind that the The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was also designed to carry armored vehicles and troops in times of war.

Commerce and commuting are not the sole purpose of the system.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/b...interstate.htm

I know it's easy to laugh off any notion that the highways would ever be needed to move military forces -- maybe make a Red Dawn joke -- but lots of political, economic and social experts said in 1914 that world war was impossible because of all the trade ties between nations.

keep in mind he got the idea from Adolph Hitler.

[Detroitnerd]

Keep in mind that the The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was also designed to carry armored vehicles and troops in times of war.

Commerce and commuting are not the sole purpose of the system.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/b...interstate.htm

I know it's easy to laugh off any notion that the highways would ever be needed to move military forces -- maybe make a Red Dawn joke -- but lots of political, economic and social experts said in 1914 that world war was impossible because of all the trade ties between nations.

Interesting point. I guess I can understand this rationale in the context of the road between, say, Washington and Alaska or between the Rouge Plant and Willow Run [[both built 1942-1943), but I find it harder to understand the military rationale for roads that bisect and trisect large cities.

[313WX]

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)!!

8 Mile, and to a lesser extent, Mack.

Granted, some folks in the neighborhoods bordering 8 Mile simply take a 5/10 minute ride up to I-696, which is considerably faster than all the routes before-mentioned. Personally, the Warren and [[especially) the Hazel Park police have been pissing me off with their obsessive patrolling of 8 Mile, so that's how I discovered I-696.

[Hermod]

I know it's easy to laugh off any notion that the highways would ever be needed to move military forces -- maybe make a Red Dawn joke -- but lots of political, economic and social experts said in 1914 that world war was impossible because of all the trade ties between nations.

In the 1962 Cuban Crisis, the army company that I was assigned to made a short notice240 mile move from Camp Pickett, VA to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. The interstates hadn't been built at that time and it was rough keeping the 56 truck convoy together passing through towns with stop lights. Every sizable town we passed through, we would have to pull over on the shoulder outside of town and recollect the convoy.

[BShea]

Interesting point. I guess I can understand this rationale in the context of the road between, say, Washington and Alaska or between the Rouge Plant and Willow Run [[both built 1942-1943), but I find it harder to understand the military rationale for roads that bisect and trisect large cities.

Interesting question, and it may never be answered because I'd guess there were numerous project managers for the various highways in various cities and states, and the rationales on how the roads were laid out in their different cities probably hinged on various local critieria and reasons.

Anyway, this is pretty much an academic debate around here. The Ilitches would have a far better shot at getting an entirely publicly-funded arena made out of gold before politicians would try to sell taxpayers on the notion of tearing down freeways as a sort of environmental/hyper-local economic/social justice effort because it would be inconvenient to drive. Never going to happen.