What if all the freeways within the city limits were turned into boulevards?

**EL Jimbo** · April-12-11, 11:59 AM

Saw this interesting thing on planetizen and it made me wonder, what if we got rid of all the freeways East of 275 and south of 696 and turned them into boulevards? Do you think we would have gridlock? could it work? Would this be in the best interest of the city?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/48878

**Detroitnerd** · April-12-11, 12:09 PM

It's an interesting proposition. I do think traffic should be routed AROUND the city. The old Ford freeway isn't really a good freeway; lots of motorists don't like how slow and narrow it is; but it might make a much better PARKWAY.

**j to the jeremy** · April-12-11, 12:13 PM

True, although one reason it's so slow even without a lot of traffic is because it is one of the only quick crosstown "routes" in the city. Loads of people stay in the right lane and use it to drive for two or three exits instead of navigating one-ways or driving down to Mack.

I think converting the Lodge south of 94 and 75 south of 94 would be nice transformations.

**Brian1979** · April-12-11, 12:18 PM

Some of them but not all of them. I would say the Davison, Southfield and some of the Lodge would work for that purpose but you can't uproute an Interstate highway and make it into a boulevard.

**Russix** · April-12-11, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

Saw this interesting thing on planetizen and it made me wonder, what if we got rid of all the freeways East of 275 and south of 696 and turned them into boulevards? Do you think we would have gridlock? could it work? Would this be in the best interest of the city?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/48878

Thats a pretty big area, what about east of 96 and south of 94? I trade a I-94 super freeway through Midtown for a downtown not entrenched in freeway moats.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-12-11, 12:36 PM

If the City ripped down all the freeways at once, it would have to pay back the federal money from the FHWA used in the last 30 years to maintain them. It would also have to build the boulevards to replace them. Under today's funding scenario this is not the way to win friends in DC.

I would suggest waiting until each road lived to near the end of its life cycle and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that lays out the benefits and negatives to doing this and be prepared for any mitigation strategies.

**Detroitnerd** · April-12-11, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Russix

Thats a pretty big area, what about east of 96 and south of 94? I trade a I-94 super freeway through Midtown for a downtown not entrenched in freeway moats.

I would hate to see 94 expanded just as New Center and Midtown are starting to grow together. We need to place these interstates outside the city if at all possible. They just create dead zones where little development happens -- at least in the city proper.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-12-11, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It's an interesting proposition. I do think traffic should be routed AROUND the city. The old Ford freeway isn't really a good freeway; lots of motorists don't like how slow and narrow it is; but it might make a much better PARKWAY.

Better rethink that. The bypass killed many a city during the days of highway and freeway expansion of the 1960's.

**EastsideAl** · April-12-11, 12:46 PM

Yes, we want to bring more traffic and people TO the city, rather than to route them around us.

**Detroitnerd** · April-12-11, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Better rethink that. The bypass killed many a city during the days of highway and freeway expansion of the 1960's.

Yes, because that's where money and development occurred at the time. You can show map after map of U.S. counties that grew during that time and every one of them had an interstate going right through it. But times are changing. And cities are special, and especially deserving of protection from routing every single person between Port Huron and Chicago and Mackinaw and Toledo right through the delicate urban environment.

Again, what we need is a comprehensive transportation system, one that takes cars off our roads and puts pedestrians on the street. For 50 years now we've tried building freeways right to our downtown. How has that worked as a development strategy?

At some point, you got to hang up the freeway-love and plan a real, comprehensive transportation system that nourishes a city instead of knocking it down so people can drive right through it.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-12-11, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Yes, because that's where money and development occurred at the time. You can show map after map of U.S. counties that grew during that time and every one of them had an interstate going right through it. But times are changing. And cities are special, and especially deserving of protection from routing every single person between Port Huron and Chicago and Mackinaw and Toledo right through the delicate urban environment.

Again, what we need is a comprehensive transportation system, one that takes cars off our roads and puts pedestrians on the street. For 50 years now we've tried building freeways right to our downtown. How has that worked as a development strategy?

At some point, you got to hang up the freeway-love and plan a real, comprehensive transportation system that nourishes a city instead of knocking it down so people can drive right through it.

This is why we now have NEPA and EJ.

**Detroitnerd** · April-12-11, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

This is why we now have NEPA and EJ.

Yes, but these are reactive frameworks, or good ways for people to respond to bad plans. What's lacking is a mechanism that produces good plans in the first place.

Oh, well. I guess these sort of wide-ranging discussions are as good a start as any.

**DetroitPlanner** · April-12-11, 01:16 PM

Maybe we can turn I-96 and I-94 interchange into a round about? How about one where I-75 and I-96 meet too? This is cool! Lets do it! I'm going to float these by my boss.

**Danny** · April-12-11, 01:23 PM

Not a very good ideal. If have have freeways turn back into to boulevards and streets. It could mean traffic problems not to mentioned billions of dollars to covering up and deep freeway roads. I suggest turning freeways into mass trasit lines will solve not only traffic problems but also help save the enviroment and create greenspaces.

**Russix** · April-12-11, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I would hate to see 94 expanded just as New Center and Midtown are starting to grow together. We need to place these interstates outside the city if at all possible. They just create dead zones where little development happens -- at least in the city proper.

I'd hate to see it expanded too, but replacing it with something like the Davidson west of the Lodge is worse. The last mile downtown spur segments could be elminated without the bottlenecking of removing a major crosstown thoroughfare. The Jefferies and Fisher Freeway should converve onto Michigan Ave on the west side of downtown while routing 75 along 96 over 94 to 75 again. I'm curious to see what a Vernor Blvd[[Fisher), 4th St Blvd[[Lodge) and Hasting St Blvd[[Chrysler) would look like through midtown/downtown. We are going to have more luck with this than some city-wide freeway demolishing campaign.

**mwilbert** · April-12-11, 01:31 PM

I don't know about boulevards, but I'd be happy if the got rid of the freeways south of the Fisher.

**iheartthed** · April-12-11, 01:38 PM

The only one that I would say absolutely needs to stay is I-75 from the Ambassador Bridge south. Other than that I really don't see the purpose of having so many freeway lanes running through the city.

**Russix** · April-12-11, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

...
I would suggest waiting until each road lived to near the end of its life cycle and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that lays out the benefits and negatives to doing this and be prepared for any mitigation strategies.

Thats pretty much the process. Building a boulevard is 25% the cost of rebuilding a freeway. This has been done repeatedly with freeways that run through downtown areas. Another thing I picked up on this website is that traffic no longer congests along on/off ramps but spreads out more evenly along the traffic grid. http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/index.html

**EL Jimbo** · April-12-11, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't know about boulevards, but I'd be happy if the got rid of the freeways south of the Fisher.

You would have to put SOMETHING in there. The radial corridors in and out of downtown couldn't handle the traffic if those routes simply went away.

**Detroitnerd** · April-12-11, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

You would have to put SOMETHING in there. The radial corridors in and out of downtown couldn't handle the traffic if those routes simply went away.

I think that a comprehensive transit plan could work. There are some points in its favor.

Where capacity shrinks, congestion shrinks. This is the inverse of "induced demand."

If we could take through-traffic and route it around the city, it would relieve the burden on our urban crosstown routes.

Don't forget: A comprehensive mass transit plan with light rail, commuter rail and feeder buses will take thousands of cars off these roads per day.

And: Our radial corridors were widened -- at great expense -- in the 1920s. And we've since added or expanded a few decent crosstown thoroughfares.

**EL Jimbo** · April-12-11, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Not a very good ideal. If have have freeways turn back into to boulevards and streets. It could mean traffic problems not to mentioned billions of dollars to covering up and deep freeway roads. I suggest turning freeways into mass trasit lines will solve not only traffic problems but also help save the enviroment and create greenspaces.

I don't think there would be major traffic problems at all. the main surface spokes [[Jefferson, Gratiot, Woodward, Grand River, Michigan, and Fort) are drastically underutilized. According to MDOT's website, the busiest surface route that is MDOT owned inside the city limits is Gratiot [[peaking at 26,000 vehicles per day). Compare that to Telegraph Road in Bloomfield Township which handles over 73,000 vehicles per day).

Even if you assume that Telegraph is running at 80% of capacity in that stretch, that would imply that the capacity is around 90,000 vehicles per day is a rough estimate for that road and one similar to it [[like the previously mentioned spokes). Those 6 routes, plus other existing surface routes [[Telegraph, Ford Rd, Groesbeck Highway, Van Dyke, and 8 Mile), and converted freeways [[Ford, Chrysler, Jeffries, Lodge, Fisher, and the Davison) would create a network of 17 high volume corridors each with a capacity of nearly 100,000 vehicles each.

That's MORE than enough to handle the traffic. Think about it. If Detroit wasn't gridlock in 1950 without most of the freeways and with 1 million more people then it wouldn't be gridlock now. Also, Having additional corridors would create opportunities for transit as well.

I think the benefits are definitely worth looking into.

**EL Jimbo** · April-12-11, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I think that a comprehensive transit plan could work. There are some points in its favor.

Where capacity shrinks, congestion shrinks. This is the inverse of "induced demand."

If we could take through-traffic and route it around the city, it would relieve the burden on our urban crosstown routes.

Don't forget: A comprehensive mass transit plan with light rail, commuter rail and feeder buses will take thousands of cars off these roads per day.

And: Our radial corridors were widened -- at great expense -- in the 1920s. And we've since added or expanded a few decent crosstown thoroughfares.

Transit certainly has to be a part of it, but even with getting rid of thousands of cars a day, the existing freeways carry HUNDREDS of thousands of vehicles per day. That excess traffic has to go somewhere. hence, you couldn't simply get rid of the freeways as roads. I just think boulevards or some other form of surface street might be more appropriate.

**mwilbert** · April-12-11, 02:04 PM

You would have to put SOMETHING in there. The radial corridors in and out of downtown couldn't handle the traffic if those routes simply went away.

I'm not saying they couldn't be boulevards; I'm just not sure what they should be. At-grade streets/boulevards would be much better than the freeways, but I don't want eight-lane streets either.

**Detroitnerd** · April-12-11, 02:05 PM

There's this story recounted in Asphalt Nation where President Eisenhower is stopped outside of some Midwestern city and he's like, "Why are we being held up?" They say it's because they're building the freeway through the city. Eisenhower was stunned: The very president who had signed the 1956 Interstate Highway Act had no idea they intended to run freeways THROUGH cities. And they probably shouldn't have. The gravy boat was just too rich for city fathers to resist a money grab -- that wound up doing very little for transportation or development for these cities' residents.

**iheartthed** · April-12-11, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

Transit certainly has to be a part of it, but even with getting rid of thousands of cars a day, the existing freeways carry HUNDREDS of thousands of vehicles per day. That excess traffic has to go somewhere. hence, you couldn't simply get rid of the freeways as roads. I just think boulevards or some other form of surface street might be more appropriate.

From the video, what I found interesting is that after the West Side Highway in Manhattan collapsed the traffic was just absorbed into the already existing street network. I believe this was before West Street was restored too. So neither the highway or it's replacement was vital to the traffic flow in Manhattan, despite it being very heavily used while it existed.