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

[EL Jimbo]

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.

I agree. My thought for them would be 3 lanes in each direction at most with Light Rail or BRT running through the middle with bike lanes on the outside. Also, zone the adjoining area for higher density uses to create dynamic investment opportunities on these busy corridors.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

Sure, I think they could be narrowed into attractive parkways, or boulevarded. Some, such as 75 south of 94, or the Lodge south of 94, or, if that's too much, at the very least I-375, could be partly turned back into land and put back on the tax rolls.

[Detroitnerd]

I agree. My thought for them would be 3 lanes in each direction at most with Light Rail or BRT running through the middle with bike lanes on the outside. Also, zone the adjoining area for higher density uses to create dynamic investment opportunities on these busy corridors.

I'm skeptical about what kind of transit-oriented development you're going to get by running transit down an expressway or boulevard. I think transit works best when people are on a busy street and can hop on a vehicle. Light rail's tendency to produce density and run well amid walkable, dense environments would seem at odds with multi-lane roads that demand throughput and -- this is unavoidable -- produce environments that are not dense and not enticing to walk around.

[EL Jimbo]

I'm skeptical about what kind of transit-oriented development you're going to get by running transit down an expressway or boulevard. I think transit works best when people are on a busy street and can hop on a vehicle. Light rail's tendency to produce density and run well amid walkable, dense environments would seem at odds with multi-lane roads that demand throughput and -- this is unavoidable -- produce environments that are not dense and not enticing to walk around.

If that is the case, then M-1 is destined to fail. How is what I'm proposing any different than M-1? Woodward has a HUGE right-of-way for a surface street. The roads I'm suggesting wouldn't be of similar design.

[ghettopalmetto]

s

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.

The same thing happened with the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco after the 1989 earthquake. It was predicted that mass gridlock would ensue. What the traffic engineers found, however [[through the magic of traffic counts on roadways), was that many of the trips formerly carried by the freeway simply *disappeared*.

Which, if you think about it, makes sense. How many cars per day did I-696 carry before it was constructed? ZERO.

I swear, this country treats freeways like a teenage love affair. We somehow can't imagine what life was like before the freeways, and we can't ever imagine what we'd do without them in our lives--no matter how destructive they may be. So instead, we hang on for dear life, too scared to do anything reasonable for our own well-being.

By now, we're well into the abusive marriage phase. We know that the freeways are expensive, that we have no money for road maintenance, and that we've seen nary a freeway without congestion during rush hour, yet we're too damned afraid to do anything except keep pouring money into freeways. It's really no wonder the Asians and Europeans think we're stupid.

[Detroitnerd]

If that is the case, then M-1 is destined to fail. How is what I'm proposing any different than M-1? Woodward has a HUGE right-of-way for a surface street. The roads I'm suggesting wouldn't be of similar design.

That makes more sense [[although don't get me started on BRT, seriously). Let me rephrase: I'm skeptical about what kind of transit-oriented development you're going to get by running transit down a limited-access road.

[EL Jimbo]

That makes more sense [[although don't get me started on BRT, seriously). Let me rephrase: I'm skeptical about what kind of transit-oriented development you're going to get by running transit down a limited-access road.

i don't think transit on limited access makes a lot of sense. It severely limits the economic impacts from transit. That's why I would bring the freeways up out of their trenches and back to grade level with the rest of the road network. That way they, as new surface arterials, they could interact with the surrounding land uses to promote transit oriented development.

[Detroitnerd]

i don't think transit on limited access makes a lot of sense. It severely limits the economic impacts from transit. That's why I would bring the freeways up out of their trenches and back to grade level with the rest of the road network. That way they, as new surface arterials, they could interact with the surrounding land uses to promote transit oriented development.

OK, I see where you're going with this more clearly now. Actually, I think it's a darn good idea when you put it that way. Heck, if that's what we're shooting for, would it be that much more difficult to pop a subway down there and cover it over? Since we've already gone through the trouble of rerouting all the water and sewerage for the ditch ... well, just a thought ...

[East Detroit]

Warren is better than I-94. Old school.

[EL Jimbo]

OK, I see where you're going with this more clearly now. Actually, I think it's a darn good idea when you put it that way. Heck, if that's what we're shooting for, would it be that much more difficult to pop a subway down there and cover it over? Since we've already gone through the trouble of rerouting all the water and sewerage for the ditch ... well, just a thought ...

That wouldn't be a bad idea. that would also allow for the use of heavier gauge rail and higher speeds. Also, the lines under the former Lodge, Ford and Chrysler Freeways could have their Detroit Terminus at the Amtrak station in New Center to link up with the M-1. From there, you could run the lines as far out as Pontiac and Mt. Clemens if you wanted to.

[Augustiner]

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.

Is "navigating the one-ways" a problem for people? Serious question. AFAIK, the only reason they were converted to paired one-ways in the first place was to make them into better crosstown routes for through traffic. If that's actually something that prevents people from using them that way, then first off that's ironic, and second off maybe someone ought to think about making Warren two-way again. Personally, the light timing on Forest/Warren bothers me a lot more than the paired one-way configuration in terms of using it as a crosstown route.

[mwilbert]

People who can't deal with paired one-ways are really too feeble to be controlling large motorized objects.

[Augustiner]

People who can't deal with paired one-ways are really too feeble to be controlling large motorized objects.

I think that's true of a pretty large percentage of drivers in metro Detroit. All the more reason to build better transit and get them off the road.

[313WX]

In the midst of this discussion we're ignoring the elephant in the room.

It's not that Metro Detroiters aren't aware of the alternative routes throughout the city but the thing is they want to get into downtown/midtown/new center areas, take care of their business, and get out as fast as possible to their cozy suburban cul-de-sac/mcmansion without driving through perceived "unsafe" or "blighted" areas. This is the case in every major city, but it's triple fold in Metro Detroit. That's exactly why at the end of a Tigers or Red Wings game you always see the routes to I-75/I-94/I-96/M-10 gridlocked while the surface streets are still virtually empty.

So I highly doubt any of this being discussed is ever going to happen. While ideally it would be cheaper to do what some of you are proposing, unless suburbanites feel comfortable driving through the city without freeways then they will be more than willing to subsidize them.

[EL Jimbo]

In the midst of this discussion we're ignoring the elephant in the room.

It's not that Metro Detroiters aren't aware of the alternative routes throughout the city but the thing is they want to get into downtown/midtown/new center areas, take care of their business, and get out as fast as possible to their cozy suburban cul-de-sac/mcmansion without driving through perceived "unsafe" or "blighted" areas. This is the case in every major city, but it's triple fold in Metro Detroit. That's exactly why at the end of a Tigers or Red Wings game you always see the routes to I-75/I-94/I-96/M-10 gridlocked while the surface streets are still virtually empty.

So I highly doubt any of this being discussed is ever going to happen. While ideally it would be cheaper to do what some of you are proposing, unless suburbanites feel comfortable driving through the city without freeways then they will be more than willing to subsidize them.

Tough. At least within the city limits, the only two public stakeholders are MDOT and the city of Detroit. The suburbs would have to just suck it up and deal with it.

[Gistok]

Tough it would be if the city had to pay back all those fed dollars as well...

What would be the point to turing these streets to boulevards? Just look at eastbound I-94... it follows Harper the entire length in Detroit. In fact most of the way the back alleys of businesses face the freeway service drives. So what do they do now... have 10 lane street level service drives facing back alleys on one side and residential side streets on the other? Or do you propose tearing down more residential areas for "potential" commercial strips?

If I-94 were turned into a boulevard... just how many "local" residents would even take Harper with a wider less congested I-94 Boulevard less than a block away. It would kill another ailing commercial strip in Detroit, by giving them a "non-freeway" bypass. At least with the freeways the exit/entrance ramps are about a mile or more apart, and local traffic would avoid using it. But adding the convenience of getting on and off the boulevard would damage local nearby commercial areas.

WIth the exception of the Jeffries, none of the other freeways-turned-boulevards are wide enough for any developable land to become retail or commercial along the boulevard strips.

I just don't understand the purpose of this idea.... except to slow down traffic from getting in and out of the city.

[EL Jimbo]

Tough it would be if the city had to pay back all those fed dollars as well...

What would be the point to turing these streets to boulevards? Just look at eastbound I-94... it follows Harper the entire length in Detroit. In fact most of the way the back alleys of businesses face the freeway service drives. So what do they do now... have 10 lane street level service drives facing back alleys on one side and residential side streets on the other? Or do you propose tearing down more residential areas for "potential" commercial strips?

If I-94 were turned into a boulevard... just how many "local" residents would even take Harper with a wider less congested I-94 Boulevard less than a block away. It would kill another ailing commercial strip in Detroit, by giving them a "non-freeway" bypass. At least with the freeways the exit/entrance ramps are about a mile or more apart, and local traffic would avoid using it. But adding the convenience of getting on and off the boulevard would damage local nearby commercial areas.

WIth the exception of the Jeffries, none of the other freeways-turned-boulevards are wide enough for any developable land to become retail or commercial along the boulevard strips.

I just don't understand the purpose of this idea.... except to slow down traffic from getting in and out of the city.

1. The city doesn't own the expressways, so the expenses would be MDOT's issue. Not CoD's.

2. As far as purpose, there are several:

- it seems that most people feel that freeways create barriers between areas and destroy the fabric of an urban layout. By replacing those freeways with grade level, full access roads, it breaks down those barriers

- Long term maintenance costs for MDOT would be cheaper without the issues of dealing with overpasses, pump stations, concrete median barriers, and retaining walls.

-It would open up development opportunities along a corridor that would actually see enough traffic to generate business. Perhaps Harper Ave businesses struggle because all the traffic [[meaning all the customers) don't even know they exist because they are blowing right by them on I-94.

Clearly the current transportation/land use plan isn't working. Why should we be that upset if making changes that would improve the overall level of opportunity because it would interrupt something that is barely functional at best.

3. I don't see the issue with the width either. Including the service drives, I-94 uses at least 150' of right of way or more at any given point in the city. Compare that to Gratiot Avenue, which would be an example of the type of road I'm suggesting, uses only 108' [[14' sidewalks on each side plus 90' of pavement that includes 6 through lanes, a center turn lane, and 2 parking lanes). The right of way that MDOT owns for I-94 would be more than enough to handle something like that.

[CLAUDE G]

The issue is that you can't go back and say that people where able to get around in the 1940's and 1950's before we had freeways.

60 years ago people lived in the city, due to the fact their jobs where in the city or within a short driving distance.

When the freeways where built, it gave people a reason to live farther away from home and lead to the expansion of the suburbs.

You remove the freeways, and now you created a problem for the people who rely on the freeways to get to and from work everyday, and with the condition of the neighborhoods in Detroit, people are not going to strart to move back into the city.

The only way to get rid of freeways is to do what Boston did with the big dig, and put it all underground.

[Hermod]

That makes more sense [[although don't get me started on BRT, seriously). Let me rephrase: I'm skeptical about what kind of transit-oriented development you're going to get by running transit down a limited-access road.

Same thing as you get with a subway with limited stops [[e.g. Washington Metro) where stops have offices, apartments, and shopping spring up near them [[except where they run down the middle of an expressway).

You also get a lot of development around interchanges of a beltway or ring road.

[Hermod]

Tough. At least within the city limits, the only two public stakeholders are MDOT and the city of Detroit. The suburbs would have to just suck it up and deal with it.

They do deal with it. If the commute becomes too intolerable, they lobby their boss to move the office out of the now difficult to access inner city to a suburban officeplex. They quit going to sports venues and entertainment in the city because "it is too much trouble".

Start jacking GM around too much and they just might decide that GM Tech Center has room for all the "clerks and jerks" in RenCen to work.

[EL Jimbo]

I think people are making WAY to big a deal about the commute issue. I just don't see how it would be that big of a deal. I looked at two commutes Pontiac-Downtown and Mt Clemens-Downtown. Taking the freeway [[I-75 and I-94 respectively) took about 35 minutes according to Google Maps. For both commutes, taking surface arterials [[Woodward Avenue and Gratiot/Groesbeck respectively) only added an additional 12 minutes to the trip. Is 24 minutes a day REALLY enough for such the type of public outcry some people predict would happen from suburbanites? I think not.

[East Detroit]

I think people are making WAY to big a deal about the commute issue. I just don't see how it would be that big of a deal.

What is your commute and time of day, just for reference?

[mwilbert]

24 minutes a day is a lot, and that assumes that people who aren't using the freeways don't congest the alternate routes. I think Detroit does have more highways than it needs, especially in the core, but I don't think it would be practical or even desirable to remove all of them.

[EL Jimbo]

What is your commute and time of day, just for reference?

15 minutes. 6 AM. But I live outside the region.

[EL Jimbo]

24 minutes a day is a lot, and that assumes that people who aren't using the freeways don't congest the alternate routes. I think Detroit does have more highways than it needs, especially in the core, but I don't think it would be practical or even desirable to remove all of them.

I'm not suggesting we remove those corridors entirely. My point is that I don't think the congestion would be that bad as the current surface arterials are running at only about 20% of capacity at the moment. That's more than enough cushion to handle any additional traffic from downgrading the freeways to surface corridors. I don't think you would actually see congestion. The streets would be busy [[which is good for businesses as more drivers equals more customers), but I don't think you'd have actual congestion.