It's Back! I-94 rebuild in Detroit returns

**rooms222** · April-06-10, 05:36 PM

It's already twenty + years in the making, but it hasn't come to pass....The proposed widening and rebuilding of I-94 in Detroit has come back again....

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/100409943

**Jason** · April-06-10, 06:18 PM

Maybe it will go away again, or they'll only finish some of the phases.

I don't like how they'll be getting rid of some of the bridges in midtown. I think you'd really want to connect that area as much as possible. Also, they'll be getting rid of some of the bridges on I-75, meaning that there will be no way to cross the highway basically between Grand Boulevard and Warren.

The entire thing seems really expensive too, and I didn't even realize that it was such a big problem. Not that there aren't improvements that could be warranted, but this is a massive project.

And for 1.5-1.8 billion you could build quite a large light rail system, or you could fix cobo, or you could fund schools or police, or you could demolish crack houses, or do so many things. I know most of the money is federal, but it still seems like a waste.

And the public input is about the aesthetics? What does that even mean? What kind of bushes to plant?

**Ray1936** · April-06-10, 06:40 PM

I don't understand. If nobody lives or works in Detroit any more, where does all the bloomin' traffic come from?

**313WX** · April-06-10, 06:52 PM

This will be a waste of money. It's amazing that in the worst reccession of this century with a stagnant/shrinking regional population that we're sitll building infrastructure as if growth is exploding.

While I-94 does get somewhat congested during peak rush hours [[in/out of downtown), it's usually stop/go and [[I think) bearable.

**Russix** · April-06-10, 06:58 PM

This freeway should be put in a tunnel between 10 and 75.

**dtowncitylover** · April-06-10, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Russix

This freeway should be put in a tunnel between 10 and 75.

The Lodge thank you.

lilpup · April-06-10, 07:27 PM

A 21-year-old study regarding this should be deemed obsolete and anything planned beyond maintenance and repair thrown out.

**wolverine** · April-06-10, 08:31 PM

I really don't understand why this is necessary. Just put up with the traffic jams like the rest of the world.

**EL Jimbo** · April-06-10, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I really don't understand why this is necessary. Just put up with the traffic jams like the rest of the world.

because traffic jams = economic inefficiency

countless millions, if not billions of dollars are lost in wasted time and fuel sitting in traffic. The efficient movement of people and goods is an economic generator in and of itself. If one region or country can move people and goods faster and cheaper then they have a competitive advantage over other locales. Part of the economic boom that occurred in this country post WWII was in part to the massive investment that was made in our transportation system via the Interstate Highway system.

Now I don't exactly think that the continued solution is to "build our way out" of congestion through highway expansion alone. In fact a comprehensive transportation solution is required. However, the fact of the matter remains that any investment in our transportation network is paid back and some in increased economic activity and efficiency.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-06-10, 09:09 PM

Welcome to MDOT, where the 1950s never ended!

**ghettopalmetto** · April-06-10, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

because traffic jams = economic inefficiency

countless millions, if not billions of dollars are lost in wasted time and fuel sitting in traffic. The efficient movement of people and goods is an economic generator in and of itself. If one region or country can move people and goods faster and cheaper then they have a competitive advantage over other locales. Part of the economic boom that occurred in this country post WWII was in part to the massive investment that was made in our transportation system via the Interstate Highway system.

Now I don't exactly think that the continued solution is to "build our way out" of congestion through highway expansion alone. In fact a comprehensive transportation solution is required. However, the fact of the matter remains that any investment in our transportation network is paid back and some in increased economic activity and efficiency.

I take it you've never been to Atlanta or Los Angeles.

**MikeM** · April-06-10, 10:13 PM

If they would standarize the Lodge interchange that would go a long way toward reducing the jams. Maybe get rid of the Lodge exit on westbound I-94 and the Chrysler exit on eastbound I-94.

**Gistok** · April-06-10, 11:25 PM

I bet L. Brooks Patterson is having a fit after reading that Crain's article....

It's interesting that the eastbound Harper. Ave. bridge [[near the Packard Plant) will be removed, therefore cutting eastbound folks off from the Harper Ave. commercial district [[near the Eastown Theatre). Is there enough room between Harper in that area and the Freeway to add a westbound service drive without damaging what little commercial zone is left there?

**wolverine** · April-07-10, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

because traffic jams = economic inefficiency

countless millions, if not billions of dollars are lost in wasted time and fuel sitting in traffic. The efficient movement of people and goods is an economic generator in and of itself. If one region or country can move people and goods faster and cheaper then they have a competitive advantage over other locales. Part of the economic boom that occurred in this country post WWII was in part to the massive investment that was made in our transportation system via the Interstate Highway system.

Now I don't exactly think that the continued solution is to "build our way out" of congestion through highway expansion alone. In fact a comprehensive transportation solution is required. However, the fact of the matter remains that any investment in our transportation network is paid back and some in increased economic activity and efficiency.

Incorrect. Congestion is a sign of economic vitality. It's a myth that traffic congestion creates economic loss.....a scapegoat because lost hours is something easily measurable. But you can't measure habit. You modify a commute in any way and people [[or movement off goods) will schedule accordingly Not to mention many congestion incidents are a result of disabled vehicles or accidents, which in our current time there is no solutions too. And you can't create efficiency by continuing to add lanes. Have you considered induced demand, triple convergence? C'mon man are you just going to look at things from the surface or dig a bit deeper into the problem.

**Gistok** · April-07-10, 12:58 AM

If this goes thru as planned... we'll see one of the few allowable uses [[in Michigan) of... EMINENT DOMAIN

Chuck_MI · April-07-10, 01:46 AM

No need for anybody to get their panties in a bunch. Matching funds are required for the project to go forth. Matching dollars from the state and municipality of Detroit are not going to happen in the near future. The project is dead without local money spent. It won't happen.

**Hermod** · April-07-10, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Chuck_MI

No need for anybody to get their panties in a bunch. Matching funds are required for the project to go forth. Matching dollars from the state and municipality of Detroit are not going to happen in the near future. The project is dead without local money spent. It won't happen.

90% federal [[gas tax), 7.5% state [[gas tax), 1.25% county, and 1.25% city. Who wants to throw away the 98.75% "outside money"? Detroit will find a way to pony up their share.

**gnome** · April-07-10, 05:37 AM

that explains why tony soave bought up all that property bordering 94

**EL Jimbo** · April-07-10, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I take it you've never been to Atlanta or Los Angeles.

Never been to LA but I've been through Atlanta many times. I know that both cities have lots of traffic and congestion because of their very active local economies. I also know that both cities are not standing pat because "congestion is good". Both cities have invested heavily in improving both the capacity and choices of transportation in the area. through freeway expansion and widening, creation of HOV/HOT lanes, and improvements in mass transit. They realize that if they wish to continue their growth, they must provide the infrastructure to support it.

**Gsgeorge** · April-07-10, 06:24 AM

Wow, what an astonishingly terrible waste of money & bad ideas all around on the reconstruction. Removing the Third, John R and Beaubien bridges-- are you kidding me!?! Removing the Harper Bridge? Piquette & Ferry over I-75? All terrible plans. I can't tell you how many times I take these bridges over the freeway by bike or car.

What will happen to the historic Fourth Street neighborhood [[I-94 & the Lodge), which narrowly escaped destruction during the freeways' original construction? What about residents who live along the freeway? All to save a few minutes in traffic?

Detroit's population is decreasing... I would imagine this has an effect on traffic as well. I can't remember the last time I was really 'stuck' in Rush Hour traffic in the city limits of Detroit. Sure, I-94 btw I-75 and the Lodge can slow down during peak hours, but so what? Do they really expect that adding a lane will smooth things out? How in God's name are studies from 1989 still at all relevant at this stage? Detroit has changed dramatically since then, and its population has dropped significantly.

Finally, why is spending $1.5 BILLION dollars on a freaking freeway expansion so ho-hum to MDOT, but dropping a few mil on the Woodward Light Rail or a regional transit system so impossibly difficult?

This is a really backwards, outdated, overpriced, and ultimately harmful proposal from our brilliant Department of Transportation.

**EL Jimbo** · April-07-10, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

Incorrect. Congestion is a sign of economic vitality. It's a myth that traffic congestion creates economic loss.....a scapegoat because lost hours is something easily measurable. But you can't measure habit. You modify a commute in any way and people [[or movement off goods) will schedule accordingly Not to mention many congestion incidents are a result of disabled vehicles or accidents, which in our current time there is no solutions too. And you can't create efficiency by continuing to add lanes. Have you considered induced demand, triple convergence? C'mon man are you just going to look at things from the surface or dig a bit deeper into the problem.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you that congestion is a sign of economic vitality. It shows that there are a lot of people and goods being moved about. However, it is also a sign that economic growth has begun to exceed the capacity of the transportation system to support continued growth. By improving the efficiency of transportation to alleviate congestion, you open up opportunities for continued economic growth.

Whether it be the interstate highway system, the Panama Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad, or the roads of ancient Rome, for thousands of years nations have invested in improving transportation to reduce time and money spent moving goods and people for the sake of economic expansion. Otherwise, why invest in transportation at all? If congestion is desired, why invest in transportation at all?

Bottom line is that congestion is a only a sign of economic vitality and improving the transportation system is a creator of economic vitality. If the area you live in is congested it means it is nearing the limits of how much economic activity it can support. If you want further growth you must invest in increasing capacity.

**EL Jimbo** · April-07-10, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

Wow, what an astonishingly terrible waste of money & bad ideas all around on the reconstruction. Removing the Third, John R and Beaubien bridges-- are you kidding me!?! Removing the Harper Bridge? Piquette & Ferry over I-75? All terrible plans. I can't tell you how many times I take these bridges over the freeway by bike or car.

What will happen to the historic Fourth Street neighborhood [[I-94 & the Lodge), which narrowly escaped destruction during the freeways' original construction? What about residents who live along the freeway? All to save a few minutes in traffic?

Detroit's population is decreasing... I would imagine this has an effect on traffic as well. I can't remember the last time I was really 'stuck' in Rush Hour traffic in the city limits of Detroit. Sure, I-94 btw I-75 and the Lodge can slow down during peak hours, but so what? Do they really expect that adding a lane will smooth things out? How in God's name are studies from 1989 still at all relevant at this stage? Detroit has changed dramatically since then, and its population has dropped significantly.

Finally, why is spending $1.5 BILLION dollars on a freaking freeway expansion so ho-hum to MDOT, but dropping a few mil on the Woodward Light Rail or a regional transit system so impossibly difficult?

This is a really backwards, outdated, overpriced, and ultimately harmful proposal from our brilliant Department of Transportation.

Well for one local transit is not one of the assets that MDOT is supposed to maintain. They have an advisory/support role with local transit agencies, but that is it. Also keep in mind that unlike the transit services, I-94 is their responsibility. They are tasked with its operation and maintenance. The one thing not mentioned in the article is that I-94 through Detroit is not a modern freeway. It has been so long since it has been updated that there are many modern design and safety features that have yet to be incorporated.

MDOT IS providing support and help to the M-1 rail project [[as well as access to the right-of-way since MDOT does own the majority of Woodward Avenue that the rail line will travel on). However, as a manager of its own assets, MDOT has to invest money in the maintenance, upkeep, and improvement of those assets before it considers providing funding for assets they are not responsible for. Plus there is that whole thing where most of the money is coming from matching federal funding that likely wouldn't transfer to a transit project.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-07-10, 08:08 AM

What I don't understand is:

Why is it necessary to "modernize" I-94 through Detroit? To me, this sounds like code for "make sure traffic can fly through at 95 miles an hour".

Why is it necessary to add more lanes?

Why is it necessary to spend well over a billion dollars on a project with negligible economic, and negative environmental, impact?

Yet people wonder why Michigan has become such an economic joke. Maybe it's because the state believes in sinking scarce resources into new freeways instead of addressing real problems.

**bailey** · April-07-10, 08:45 AM

[quote=ghettopalmetto;135795]What I don't understand is:

Why is it necessary to "modernize" I-94 through Detroit? To me, this sounds like code for "make sure traffic can fly through at 95 miles an hour".

and what is wrong with that? they finally raised the 696 speed limit to 70 about 10 years after they should have. Lets get 94 moving!

Why is it necessary to add more lanes?

because of the incredibly stupid and ridiculously short entrance lanes. Especially now that everyone is going to be going 95 mph. not like anyone is getting off.

Why is it necessary to spend well over a billion dollars on a project with negligible economic, and negative environmental, impact?

because it's 90% federal dollas. The Congressmommy is running for re-election ya know. She didn't just come up here.

Yet people wonder why Michigan has become such an economic joke. Maybe it's because the state believes in sinking scarce resources into new freeways instead of addressing real problems.

and yet the state has been run by a Democratic administration for two full terms. Probably still Engler's fault though.

**Detroitnerd** · April-07-10, 08:52 AM

What is my suggestion for the project? It's simple. Don't do it. The original cut through the city was responsible for the destruction of hundreds of buildings, the evacuation of scores of businesses, the relocation of thousands of people with negligible economic impact, other than businesses moving out. Why are we trying to enlarge the problem 50 years later? This is insanity!

"MDOT hasnâ€™t yet identified how it will pay for the entire project, which is estimated at $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion."

This is bullshit. Can we organize to stop this thing? Or are these meetings limited to, as another poster joked, picking out what kinds of shrubs they'll plant?