Remove Detroit's Freeways?

[313WX]

And why is McNichols closed?

City Airport.

Other than that, it's an ok route.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

In my opinion, Detroit's city fathers wanted it to go through Detroit. Take a peek at the 1945 Master Plan; you'll find they wanted about a dozen expressways cutting through the city. They saw to it that the Lodge and Davison were built before the Interstate Highway Act. This was due to the prevailing perception that land adjoining expressways would skyrocket in value the same way it had for streetcar lines and rail stops. I can sympathize with them; they didn't know what they were doing to their city.

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.

I've lived just 40 years and seen a lot of things in the never-gonna-happen department just ... happen. Maybe your crystal ball works better than mine.

I like the idea of the Gold Dome, but I think you underestimate the Ilitches' pull in this town.

[Detroitnerd]

City Airport.

Other than that, it's an ok route.

Oh, right. I try to stay away from City Airport.

[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).

[ghettopalmetto]

"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?

Yes, that's right! If you look at any great city in the world, they have a mishmash of freeways all over the damned place! And FREE parking! As far as the eye can see! And no taxes, either! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

EMG--your "outsiders" are already living in places other than Detroit, and SE Michigan's massive freeway system sure as hell ain't bringing 'em in. Why is that? Must be something to the idea that freeways aren't the end-all be-all ever-loving shit of the earth, huh?

[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.

[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. )

[BShea]

Street cars and urban farms. Maybe we should raze most of these unsightly tall buildings, and divvy up the land to farmers, maybe with French names ... they could farm long strips of land that extend outward from the river ... I hear that's been done before.

[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.

[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.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

Yes, Detroit is a troubled city, and many factors have contributed to the state it is in. Nobody is denying that. In many ways, to use that overworked phrase, Detroit was hit by the "perfect storm" of problems. But, by the same token, you can take any individual problem and say that "this wasn't THE REASON" for Detroit's decline.

The fact remains, discontinuing streetcar service really hurt those mom-and-pop shops that lined the routes. And downtown shopping never recovered once it was no longer the hub of a serious rail transit system. And to build every freeway, they had to knock down thousands of homes, hundreds of businesses, scores of apartment buildings, largely so people could bypass the city. These are real actions with real effects. Saying that they weren't the sole reason for Detroit's decline tends to obscure or dismiss these relevant issues.

Your comment about how "investment won't take place" in Detroit seems a little out of date, though. Investment is taking place in the city. I'd draw your attention to all the new businesses opening up in the mid-city area. Quite a bit of investment there, even in a down economy.

The point about Detroit's kleptocratic political class is well-taken. But the answer to that problem is more regionalism, not more isolation. Our region has used Detroit as a toilet for all its problems, is it any surprise that scum rises to the top?

I also don't understand the emphasis on the "image" problem. For a person who wants to get down to the real issues of Detroit's problems, public relations are not as important as transportation policy.

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.

Maybe so. Maybe we should swap crystal balls.

[Retroit]

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.

If you click on the "+" at the top of the screen, it will zoom in. Using data from that map, you'll see that I-94 carries 138,200 cars per day. Now, don't you think that having those cars on surface roads will cause some inconvenience for the residents and businesses in that area. Or, are all those drivers to be expected to take I-696 and I-275?

[Retroit]

...Our region has used Detroit as a toilet for all its problems...

Correction: Detroit has used itself as a toilet for all its problems.

[Danny]

Everyone can't remove Detroit freeways. It's there to accomondate traffic from Downtown to the suburbs and prevent local traffic congestions, even though there are more traffic congestions everywhere.

[ghettopalmetto]

If you click on the "+" at the top of the screen, it will zoom in. Using data from that map, you'll see that I-94 carries 138,200 cars per day. Now, don't you think that having those cars on surface roads will cause some inconvenience for the residents and businesses in that area. Or, are all those drivers to be expected to take I-696 and I-275?

Or maybe those trips just...disappear!

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

[BShea]

The fact remains, discontinuing streetcar service really hurt those mom-and-pop shops that lined the routes. And downtown shopping never recovered once it was no longer the hub of a serious rail transit system. And to build every freeway, they had to knock down thousands of homes, hundreds of businesses, scores of apartment buildings, largely so people could bypass the city. These are real actions with real effects.

I suspect the subsistence commerce from those shops was hurt a lot more by the development of competition in the form of grocery chains, which could offer more goods at cheaper prices. Flash freeze packaging hurt, too, which I believe became mainstream in the 1940s-50s [[hence, TV dinners).

I also thought a lot of the large highways followed existing roads, meaning that the impact on homes/biz wasn't as bad as if they were brand new roads.

Again, this is academic. Unless you're talking a short, insignificant stretch of roadway, then there is simply no money or political will to do this. It would involve telling people what amounts to "We elites believe you people drive too much, and for you're own good we're going to make it harder for you to get from Point A to Point B in your stinky, unhealthy car. You need to walk more, take public transit and eat better food at neighborhood stores owned by you neighbors. Losing these roads will make that happen."

And while it probably would make some of that happen, it would be massively politically unpopular. Americans love their conveniences and their crappy food. And most don't buy into the notion of quaint urban life in Sims-style communes. Instead, Detroit is seen as a big, nasty, dirty, dangerous place with race, crime, political, social and economic problems that are so catastrophic as to be existential in question. The schools are broken almost beyond repair. Israeli-style settler enclaves is how some see some of the urban development ideas.

This is just me talking as a downtown resident. I'm all for hearing ideas, but it feels like this one needs a splash of reality [[if the thinking is that it could be done on any sort of real scale). Detroit isn't a European city, nor West Coast place. Things are how they are here, and I think that until basic city service and education are fixed, and the political class is reformed, all these ideas are words on a forum. That said, all the little things going on do add up, and they're great, but this one just seems too politically toxic.

[Detroitnerd]

If you click on the "+" at the top of the screen, it will zoom in. Using data from that map, you'll see that I-94 carries 138,200 cars per day. Now, don't you think that having those cars on surface roads will cause some inconvenience for the residents and businesses in that area. Or, are all those drivers to be expected to take I-696 and I-275?

I tried zooming it, but it seemed that every time I did it it took forever to redraw it all.

On to those 138,200 cars per day: I think you're joking with me, right? I think I've pretty consistently said that if we want to de-emphasize or remove freeways, it has to go hand in hand with emphasizing rail transit to take cars off the road.

Anyway, now that you mention it, I will say that Detroit's main thoroughfares are underused. It often surprises me how motorists insist on using the freeway for everything, lining up along Mack to wait for their chance to get on I-75 after a ball game or market day. It'd be faster to go up Woodward and get on the freeway out there, but few people seem to do it.

If I had a magic wand, I'd have the freeway bypass the city. If the route were like I-275 and I-696, so be it, with very few exits. Mumford called the idea a "townless road" -- he's a lot more eloquent about it than I am.

A funny thing about looking at traffic figures: They are often used to justify the roads that are there. But I wonder how many of those people are going into the city. Or out of the city. If they're not going to Detroit, wouldn't they rather go around on a modern freeway instead of going through an urban cut built in the 1950s?

[ghettopalmetto]

A funny thing happens in places without freeways: you start building things closer together. So, instead of hopping on the freeway and driving 5 miles to buy a gallon of milk, you walk 5 blocks down the street. Instead of slogging 30 miles to work, maybe you take a bus 3 miles.

Amazing, isn't it?

It's almost like we forgot how cities functioned for thousands of years, and history began in 1945.

[ghettopalmetto]

Things are how they are here.

And for that, both you and Detroit fail.

If people thought that way about Detroit in the 1940s, there wouldn't be any damned freeways--maybe not anywhere in the United States. The difference is, the people then didn't understand what the negative effects would be. We do know what the negative effects of such ham-handed policies are, yet we continue to accept them because "we just don't feel like" dealing with them.

[bailey]

A funny thing happens in places without freeways: you start building things closer together. So, instead of hopping on the freeway and driving 5 miles to buy a gallon of milk, you walk 5 blocks down the street. Instead of slogging 30 miles to work, maybe you take a bus 3 miles.

Amazing, isn't it?

yeah, but in detroit, to rectify that, we have proposed a 3 mile train line with 15 stops because walking 4 blocks [[or across the street if we're looking at Millender Center/RenCen people mover as our guide) is out.of.the.question.

..... and history began in 1945.

...which is pretty much that last time Detroit functioned like a real city.

[Detroitnerd]

I suspect the subsistence commerce from those shops was hurt a lot more by the development of competition in the form of grocery chains, which could offer more goods at cheaper prices. Flash freeze packaging hurt, too, which I believe became mainstream in the 1940s-50s [[hence, TV dinners).

I also thought a lot of the large highways followed existing roads, meaning that the impact on homes/biz wasn't as bad as if they were brand new roads.

Oh, sure. I agree. I am not saying that building freeways and discontinuing streetcar service are responsible for everything. There were so many factors! But I suspect that one of the major obstacles to seeing our problems clearly is to say that there's just too much noise to figure out what happened. I suspect people who say that really aren't all that interested in figuring it out in the first place.

Again, this is academic. Unless you're talking a short, insignificant stretch of roadway, then there is simply no money or political will to do this. It would involve telling people what amounts to "We elites believe you people drive too much, and for you're own good we're going to make it harder for you to get from Point A to Point B in your stinky, unhealthy car. You need to walk more, take public transit and eat better food at neighborhood stores owned by you neighbors. Losing these roads will make that happen."

Haha. OK, mister: You are not in charge of the public relations for this.

Seriously, though, this is not about lecturing people on their perceived shortcomings. It's about offering the people choices in how to get around. And maybe looking back and saying, "Hmmm, maybe ripping down thousands of buildings and routing all the regional traffic right through town wasn't such a hot idea after all."

And while it probably would make some of that happen, it would be massively politically unpopular. Americans love their conveniences and their crappy food. And most don't buy into the notion of quaint urban life in Sims-style communes. Instead, Detroit is seen as a big, nasty, dirty, dangerous place with race, crime, political, social and economic problems that are so catastrophic as to be existential in question. The schools are broken almost beyond repair. Israeli-style settler enclaves is how some see some of the urban development ideas.

Haha. Yes, BShea, not all Americans want to live in Detroit. Detroit has a lot of problems. Since we both live here, we're intimately familiar with most of them. But the generation that turned its back on Detroit is aging out of the picture. And attitudes about cities are changing. A growing segment of the population does desire to live in an urban environment, does desire transportation choices, does want local food, does want to spend their money at local businesses. And they're willing to pay a premium for it. That's heartening. And the market is in the process of responding to that.

This is just me talking as a downtown resident. I'm all for hearing ideas, but it feels like this one needs a splash of reality [[if the thinking is that it could be done on any sort of real scale). Detroit isn't a European city, nor West Coast place. Things are how they are here, and I think that until basic city service and education are fixed, and the political class is reformed, all these ideas are words on a forum. That said, all the little things going on do add up, and they're great, but this one just seems too politically toxic.

I appreciate your candor and your insights, though I think there's a difference between seeing things for what they are and the spirit of resignation some people have. Yes, Detroit has problems, but they can't be battled by saying, "That's how they are." It takes creativity, commitment and a hell of a lot of hard work. And, yeah, a dose of reality.

The thing is, dismissing Detroit "until it fixes its problems" is a dead-ender. We all have to transform Detroit, and the proper tool is regionalism, not isolation. It may be 100 years before Detroit finally gets the regional government it deserves, but that's how the house gets cleaned.

I know, file all this stuff under "Snowball's Chance." But a lot of things from the Never Gonna Happen Dep't. get done, and it all starts with a bunch of people idly talking about it. Who knows?

[Retroit]

Or maybe those trips just...disappear!

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

Is this a fair comparison? Embarcadero was 1.2 miles of dead-ended freeway, it was unsightly [[elevated 55 feet tall), and was damaged by the earthquake.