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

[royce]

I've looked at the overlays. It's clear to me that Second Avenue will become a two-way, allowing for motorists, used to taking Third Avenue, to get over the Ford Freeway and back to the Wayne State area. The Third Avenue traffic, like motorists coming from Henry Ford Health Systems site and Fourth Avenue residents, looks like it will have to use a service drive that will take motorists all the way to Trumbull. The overlay doesn't account for the University Prep schools. The high school is where the Wayne State Extention lot is located. The elementary school is the building right off the Ford/Lodge entrance ramp heading north. The elementary school would have to be torn down.

My biggest concern is where does the new eastbound exit ramp off the Ford to Midtown/Cultural Center take motorists? The overlays appear to have that ramp coming up at Beaubien or curving along the service drive, paralleling I-75. Seems like an inefficient way to get to the Cultural Center and back to Woodward.

[Detroitnerd]

I've looked at the overlays. It's clear to me that Second Avenue will become a two-way, allowing for motorists, used to taking Third Avenue, to get over the Ford Freeway and back to the Wayne State area. The Third Avenue traffic, like motorists coming from Henry Ford Health Systems site and Fourth Avenue residents, looks like it will have to use a service drive that will take motorists all the way to Trumbull. The overlay doesn't account for the University Prep schools. The high school is where the Wayne State Extention lot is located. The elementary school is the building right off the Ford/Lodge entrance ramp heading north. The elementary school would have to be torn down.

My thoughts exactly. This is an off-the-shelf plan dusted off from BEFORE Midtown and New Center started taking off. I say that because areas that have been developed do not appear on the surface overlay, including that school, which would have to be torn down even though it's not even 10 years old yet.

Which comes back to the point that there's no local input, no awareness of what's going on here. And it doesn't help that they're using outdated map overlays that don't show exactly how much stuff would be knocked down, or how busy service drives with screaming fast traffic [[ever see anybody obey those strict 25 mph speed limits?) will hurtle by school kids. It's dishonest and augurs ill for transparency.

[royce]

I went back and read the Crain's article. If the Beaubien bridge and the Piquette/Ferry bridges are to be removed, then that eastbound exit ramp will probably take motorists all the way to Warren. Ferry will probably be blocked off from this service drive as well and opened only to local traffic heading up to that point. As someone mentioned earlier, this would be bad for pedestrian/bike access to the east and north.

[dnvn522]

This sort encapsulates what I was trying to ask before: CAN the $1.8 billion intended for this be spent on road maintenance rather than the I-94 or some other major project?

Since no one else will answer, I'll give it a shot.


The simple answer is "no". No one could decide to simply use those funds for road maintenance. But it's more complex than that. Most of the simple maintenance projects have no federal funds. So 90% of that dollar amount would simply stay with the feds. The rest is from a different template than the maintenance projects, so it might also go some place else...but in theory, those could be moved by someone with the proper authority [[governor/legislature) to be used for maintenance or other road/transit uses.

[bartock]

Since no one else will answer, I'll give it a shot.


The simple answer is "no". No one could decide to simply use those funds for road maintenance. But it's more complex than that. Most of the simple maintenance projects have no federal funds. So 90% of that dollar amount would simply stay with the feds. The rest is from a different template than the maintenance projects, so it might also go some place else...but in theory, those could be moved by someone with the proper authority [[governor/legislature) to be used for maintenance or other road/transit uses.

THANKS - so it sounds like even assuming MDOT wanted to put all possible dollars towards mainenance or other transit used, and had the governor and legislative backing necessary, 90% of the potential funds are still distributed at the discretion of the Fed, at least as a general proposition.

[Hermod]

Since no one else will answer, I'll give it a shot.


The simple answer is "no". No one could decide to simply use those funds for road maintenance. But it's more complex than that. Most of the simple maintenance projects have no federal funds. So 90% of that dollar amount would simply stay with the feds. The rest is from a different template than the maintenance projects, so it might also go some place else...but in theory, those could be moved by someone with the proper authority [[governor/legislature) to be used for maintenance or other road/transit uses.

A lot of times, the highway construction moeny comes from the feds with a lot of strings. Congressman Porco de Lardo specifies that Michigan will get X amount of dollars for the purpose of building a four lane highway from his home to his golf course. The money is tied up in a specific earmark. I do not know if the funds for I-94 are specifically earmarked or are a part of a bulk allocation for Michigan. If earmarked, they cannot be reprogamed for another highway project.

[EastsideAl]

An incredibly stupid and wasteful plan. What this city and this area badly needs is much better TRANSIT - not more and bigger roads. Our freeways just need to be maintained, not massively upgraded like this plan would do - and especially not massively upgraded to meet a "reality" that is 21 years out of date [[have any of these people seen the "congestion" on the streets around our freeways lately? - hint: there isn't any). Repair the bridges, fill the potholes, keep the surface reasonably smooth, clean the shoulders, mow the grass...

And we sure as hell don't need to do any more cutting off of parts of the city from one another. The fabric of this city was done more than enough damage in the original building of the freeways. If anything, we should be building more bridges, not tearing bridges out.

[EL Jimbo]

An incredibly stupid and wasteful plan. What this city and this area badly needs is much better TRANSIT - not more and bigger roads. Our freeways just need to be maintained, not massively upgraded like this plan would do - and especially not massively upgraded to meet a "reality" that is 21 years out of date [[have any of these people seen the "congestion" on the streets around our freeways lately? - hint: there isn't any). Repair the bridges, fill the potholes, keep the surface reasonably smooth, clean the shoulders, mow the grass...

And we sure as hell don't need to do any more cutting off of parts of the city from one another. The fabric of this city was done more than enough damage in the original building of the freeways. If anything, we should be building more bridges, not tearing bridges out.

That's great and all. I wish the money could be spent on transit too. However, the fact of the matter is that the Federal money probably CAN'T be used for transit.

As far as what to do with I-94, I think some of you fail to realize that part of I-94 has is NOT a modern freeway. There are many federal design standards that simply aren't being met. This also poses a problem with the Feds. FHWA isn't going to approve the release of the federal funds for even major fixes to the current I-94 pavement in that a area without requiring money to be spent on accomplishing those upgrades.

Basically MDOT is left with a choice, either do the complete reconstruction, expansion and modernization or let I-94 crumble because you can't leverage any federal funding for repairs. Between those two choices, for the safety of the public, MDOT will spend the money.

As far as the plans, I'm sure there will be MUCH public input and the plans are not set in stone. the plans will change before shovels hit the dirt.

[ghettopalmetto]

Since no one else will answer, I'll give it a shot.


The simple answer is "no". No one could decide to simply use those funds for road maintenance. But it's more complex than that. Most of the simple maintenance projects have no federal funds. So 90% of that dollar amount would simply stay with the feds. The rest is from a different template than the maintenance projects, so it might also go some place else...but in theory, those could be moved by someone with the proper authority [[governor/legislature) to be used for maintenance or other road/transit uses.

You are correct. The federal money in question [[I'm not sure when or how that money is supposed to magically materialize, as the Highway Trust Fund is insolvent.) has to be applied toward capital works, and not maintenance.

What this disaster of a project proposes, however, is to add MORE pavement to MDOT's massive maintenance backlog. Who the hell is going to pay for that?

And has anyone noticed how the federal government still pays a 90% share toward freeway construction, while transit is lucky for the feds to pick up 50% of the tab? You'd think when third-world nations like China start building high-speed rail, we might reconsider our naive 1950s paradigm.

[Hermod]

I'm sure you can just dust off the preliminary scope of work that MDOT released in 1997 or 1998. Road building agencies, er, "Departments of Transportation" aren't usually too keen on letting things like "research" and "information" or "money" get in the way of plans they've had on the shelf for decades.

Always have something on the shelf. You never know when money will pop up for "shovel ready" projects. The first guy ready to go can grab the money.

[ghettopalmetto]

Always have something on the shelf. You never know when money will pop up for "shovel ready" projects. The first guy ready to go can grab the money.

Sure! Never mind whether the project is necessary or not!

[EastsideAl]

You know, it might just be about time under the Obama administration to finally change our federal highway funding priorities.

Federal money really needs to be spent on maintaining infrastructure like freeways - not building more of them. And, of course, the U.S. really needs to get into the 21st century [[or, more accurately, the second half of the 20th century) and start moving resources away from new auto-centric projects and towards constructing much more mass transit infrastructure, such as high-speed rail.

[malmarson]

How about how this widening would effect some one like me? I live right across from the Chene Trombley market, and my brother's resale shop is right off the 1-94 service drive. [[Anybody ever notice it?)

He's slowly but surely taken over care of our block over the years. So, what happens when the powers that be take over a place we've fought for to keep nice in the 'urban prairee?

[Hermod]

How about how this widening would effect some one like me? I live right across from the Chene Trombley market, and my brother's resale shop is right off the 1-94 service drive. [[Anybody ever notice it?)

He's slowly but surely taken over care of our block over the years. So, what happens when the powers that be take over a place we've fought for to keep nice in the 'urban prairee?

Same thing that happened to my great-grandfathers house on Putnam when they built the original expressway. My mother spent a lot of time finding new digs for my spinster great-aunt.

[Detroitnerd]

How about how this widening would effect some one like me? I live right across from the Chene Trombley market, and my brother's resale shop is right off the 1-94 service drive. [[Anybody ever notice it?)

He's slowly but surely taken over care of our block over the years. So, what happens when the powers that be take over a place we've fought for to keep nice in the 'urban prairee?

Hey, malmarson: Is that the shop on the southwest corner of Mt. Elliot and I-94?

[malmarson]

Yup. Bargain Dollar Resale's been there since 1983. [[Who says a small business that's not a bar or a gas station can't exist in the old Poletown area?)

I know Chene Trombley's the more obvious store-and the one that will probably pick up more a fight if the widening gets off the ground-but Chene Trombley's not the only long running successful business. How about Dan and Vi's on Chene, also?

I do wonder-there is more expansion potential on the north side of 1-94. Maybe they'll cut a deal with GM for some of their underused land at the edges of the Poletown plant.

[Detroitnerd]

Yup. Bargain Dollar Resale's been there since 1983. [[Who says a small business that's not a bar or a gas station can't exist in the old Poletown area?)

Well how about that? I bike by there often, although I've never gone in. [[Just window shopping -- or is that "fence shopping"?) Nice to make the connection.

[detroitsgwenivere]

I do wonder-there is more expansion potential on the north side of 1-94. Maybe they'll cut a deal with GM for some of their underused land at the edges of the Poletown plant.

Maybe theres more expansion potential on the eastside. Not so on the west side. But I REALLY like your idea about the GM plant. Wouldn't that be supremely ironic if they lost some of their Poletown property to eminent domain?

[malmarson]

Hey, I've lived here in the old Poletown neighborhood my entire 50+ year life. I saw 'across the bridge"-across I-94-go down over 1980-1982, as that area of Poletown disappeared into the GM plant. I already saw one emminent domain takeover. Shoot, my brother has some of the furniture from Immaculete Conception's rectory. I don't really want to be a part of this part of Poletown's destruction....

[Gistok]

FYI, many of the cross-bridges along I-94 have already been completely updated. Gratiot was recently re-done when they did its construction a few years ago.

Very good point... however....

The Woodward and Gratiot bridges were both rebuilt in recent years... and yet they would not require another rebuild. Both bridges can handle 4 lanes of traffic underneath them as they currently exist.

The Gratiot exit consists of two 1/4 cloverleafs.... and the east and west bound exit starts before the Gratiot bridge... and then they continue under the bridge and then make their 1/4 circle bend. This means that there are 4 lanes of traffic already going under that bridge [[only one of the lanes is an exit lane). By changing the configuration of the entrance/exit ramps to match most of the I-94 ramps [[in order to have a service drive right next to the freeway)... the exits would be before the Gratiot bridge, and not after it. So I don't see any changes required for the Gratiot bridge over I-94, only the exits/entrances would require major changes and relocations.

The Woodward bridge is different, but it too can handle 4 lanes of traffic underneath it. Currently the eastbound exit and westbound entrance onto I-94 end and start at John R [[requiring a loop-around on the service drive to get to Woodward). So both lanes go underneath the Woodward bridge [[as a 4th lane). So that means that the Woodward bridge would not have to be rebuilt... only the location of the entrance/exit ramps.

And on the far east side... the [[rather strange) Conner Ave. Interchange over I-94 would also not have to be modified. Only the eastbound exit and west bound entrance would have to be slightly modified to make the end/beginning of the 4th lane of I-94. The 4th lane of I-94 will end at that spot.

Last year I noticed that some work was done on the Van Dyke bridge [[they closed the freeway down to 1 lane during many weekends). Rather than replace the bridge, they only redid part of the bridge roadway.

I haven't checked the other bridges [[it was dark when I was checking for old vs. new bridges)... so maybe MDOT did at least something right in order to prevent the rebuilding [[for a 2nd time) of relatively new bridges.

But that said... I still think that the steep price tag doesn't warrant the net gain in traffic flow.

[EastSider]

Originally Posted by 313WX
FYI, many of the cross-bridges along I-94 have already been completely updated. Gratiot was recently re-done when they did its construction a few years ago.

Not true. Most of the bridges between Conner and roughly Woodward only had surface patching and some limited painting done to them in the last 10 years. The exception is Gratiot. Witness the plywood and 2-by-4s still mounted under the bridge decks, including Van Dyke.

[Gistok]

[/i]

Not true. Most of the bridges between Conner and roughly Woodward only had surface patching and some limited painting done to them in the last 10 years. The exception is Gratiot. Witness the plywood and 2-by-4s still mounted under the bridge decks, including Van Dyke.

Just checked that out... very true... only other major bridge that was rebuilt [[quite some time ago) was the East Grand Blvd. bridge... and it too has 4 lanes clearance underneath it [[due to its' proximatey to the Mt. Elliott exit, the ramps west of Mt. Elliott go underneath the East Grand Blvd. bridge.

So the 3 widest roadway bridges over I-94 span 4 lanes [[note: the West Grand Blvd. bridge is west of I-96 and therefore outside the zone).

[Mackinaw]

Fight the widening.

Pointless.

[East Detroit]

FYI, many of the cross-bridges along I-94 have already been completely updated. Gratiot was recently re-done when they did its construction a few years ago.

Try driving from Woodward to Conner on I-94. Just about every bridge is rusting [[and they gave up painting) and the sides of the concrete have been chiseled to help stop pieces from falling onto the cars below.

[East Detroit]

Avoiding heavier areas of activity is normal in any place. It doesn't mean that area is broken or inefficient.

It is a very strong indicator that something is wrong when people avoid I-94 for 4 hours a day because the speed is 0-20mph, and instead opt for Warren, Gratiot, etc. That indicates it is the road and not the particular region [[aka Manhattan).

And it is the only freeway in Metro Detroit that is as ridiculous on a daily basis.

Once again, try driving it [[on the Eastside) during rush hours.