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

[ghettopalmetto]

Incidentally, I live close to work, and take transit and carpool whenever I can. My biggest concern about gas costs is that it is not taxedhigh enough and that the current tax structure allows for what should be a user fee be used as a way to prop up the State's General Fund.

I agree with you 1000% on this. When I was in Eastern Europe a year ago, gasoline was selling for over $6/gallon. Mind you, this was in a nation where the per-capita GDP is one-quarter that of the United States. Meanwhile, we sit here pissing ourselves over $4/gallon--about the same price as milk.

I'd rather we start taxing the shit out of gasoline--as it *is* a finite resource--and dedicate those taxes to start rebuilding rail and transit networks that can be powered by electricity.

[EL Jimbo]

You might want to rethink your 200 vehicle per day comment....

I meant 200 vehicles per lane a day. Woodward has about 20,000 a day total in Detroit according to MDOT.

[EL Jimbo]

Just to add a couple of things.

You need to look at peak hour congestion not 24 hour capacity. For example there are not many people driving around at 3 am. Roads that are congested at AM and PM peaks often are congested in different direction depending upon traffic flow, as traffic move to and from work centers.

The most promising way to handle this issue is by having enforced HOV [[High occupancy vehicle lanes) or reversible lanes or a combination of the two. This way, the limited access roads eat up a lot less real estate for peak hour.

You would never be able to get as much capacity out of an regular arterial than a freway due to signals, turning movements, or speed.

Much of the traffic on Woodward would be local traffic, meaning it would not make sense for it to divert to a freeway. Jimbo may mean 200 per lane off peak [[which compares apples to apples of his lane example) which is a reasonable estimate.

No, I'm not talking off peak. I'm talking about the daily average. 20,000 vehicles per day, divided by 24 hours equals 883 vehicles per hour. Divide that by 4 thru lanes and you get 208 cars per lane per hour on average for the day. That means that the average traffic on Woodward is roughly 10% percent of total capacity [[2,000 vehicles per hour per lane). So unless peak hours are 10x the average, Woodward isn't anywhere near capacity even at peak hours.

[Brian1979]

You may think it is funny, but it is true. Industry standards dictate that capacity is typically calculated as 2,000 cars per lane per hour. So a road with four thru lanes would have a capacity of 8,000 vehicles an hour. multiply that by 24 hours in a day and you get 192,000. At current traffic levels, approximately 200 vehicles per day travel on any given lane of Woodward Avenue.

I'm sorry, but data kicks you sense of humor's ass any day of the week and twice on sunday when it comes to whether or not Woodward is "busy enough as it is" or not.

You are talking about on Woodward not on I-75, I'm sure those numbers for I-75 would be accurate but there is no way that Woodward is going to be built to handle 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour, the traffic would be a disaster, why would you want to put more traffic on Woodward? That doesn't make any sense at all. Urban areas that are vibrant rely on rapid transit not to see how much vehicle traffic they can cramp into an area. Putting 192,000 vehicles on Woodward a day would do nothing but create problems. My sense of humor? I don't know where you are getting that Woodward can handle 192,000 vehicles a day from, those numbers you spew on here aren't from Woodward Avenue.

[ghettopalmetto]

You are talking about on Woodward not on I-75, I'm sure those numbers for I-75 would be accurate but there is no way that Woodward is going to be built to handle 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour, the traffic would be a disaster, why would you want to put more traffic on Woodward? That doesn't make any sense at all. Urban areas that are vibrant rely on rapid transit not to see how much vehicle traffic they can cramp into an area. Putting 192,000 vehicles on Woodward a day would do nothing but create problems. My sense of humor? I don't know where you are getting that Woodward can handle 192,000 vehicles a day from, those numbers you spew on here aren't from Woodward Avenue.

Woodward [[and other similar roadways) have an "acceptable" capacity somewhere in the range of 1000 vphpl, or about half that of an Interstate highway. Thus, an 8-lane wide segment could theoretically handle 192,000 per day.

[EL Jimbo]

You are talking about on Woodward not on I-75, I'm sure those numbers for I-75 would be accurate but there is no way that Woodward is going to be built to handle 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour, the traffic would be a disaster, why would you want to put more traffic on Woodward? That doesn't make any sense at all. Urban areas that are vibrant rely on rapid transit not to see how much vehicle traffic they can cramp into an area. Putting 192,000 vehicles on Woodward a day would do nothing but create problems. My sense of humor? I don't know where you are getting that Woodward can handle 192,000 vehicles a day from, those numbers you spew on here aren't from Woodward Avenue.

Those are CURRENT numbers for Woodward. Woodward is already built to that standard. As far as where I'm getting those numbers from, I'm getting them from a friend of mine who's an engineer with MDOT. Those are industry standard calculations. Essentially, it works out to 33 cars per minute per lane. Of course that is an insane amount of cars, but that's why they call it AT CAPACITY. However, we wouldn't be asking Woodward to operate anywhere near capacity. About 90,000 vehicles per day would work. That works out to about 940 cars an hour per lane [[or about 15 cars per lane per minute). That is certainly a reasonable number of cars for a route with 4 thru lanes.

I NEVER said Woodward should be asked to handle 192,000 vehicles a day. The reason I brought that number up is because there were people saying that if the traffic from the freeways was spread evenly among all the surface arterials and the new arterials built where the current freeways exist, there would be gridlock. It was evidence that even at 90,000 vehicles [[about what it would take to balance out traffic) Woodward wouldn't be anywhere remotely close to its maximum capacity. I agree that 192,000 vehicles would be a disaster for Woodward. I will not, however, concede on the point that Detroit could replace its freeways with surface arterials and function just fine without any gridlock.

[Brian1979]

They would not be able to do anything with I-94, I-96 or I-75. With the exception of I-96 which of course ends in Detroit they are through routes that were purposely directed through Detroit. I'm in favor of a tunnel to cap the Fisher between the Lodge and Chrysler and taking out I-375, but not the Lodge south of the Fisher, I'd like to see that still go down to Cobo but a tunnel to cap that as well.

Now as far as Woodward goes I don't think we should be thinking about putting more cars on the street we need to be thinking about rapid transit instead of light rail as well, light rail is a start but Detroit really needs a rapid transit system to get vibrant urban environments. If Detroit had a rapid transit system that covered most of the city then that should be able to create vibrant urban environments. At least cover the area that sits within Grand Boulevard, then after that work out to 8 Mile and you'd see vibrant neighborhoods across the city. Look at the development around subway stations in NYC and Chicago for examples, I'm not saying that Detroit is like either one of these cities but could be close if there was a rapid transit system in place.

[ghettopalmetto]

They would not be able to do anything with I-94, I-96 or I-75. With the exception of I-96 which of course ends in Detroit they are through routes that were purposely directed through Detroit.

Those numbers are mere designations--they're not fixed in stone. And if people were capable of building those roadways, I'm certain people are capable of reconfiguring them as well.

Now as far as Woodward goes I don't think we should be thinking about putting more cars on the street we need to be thinking about rapid transit instead of light rail as well, light rail is a start but Detroit really needs a rapid transit system to get vibrant urban environments. If Detroit had a rapid transit system that covered most of the city then that should be able to create vibrant urban environments. At least cover the area that sits within Grand Boulevard, then after that work out to 8 Mile and you'd see vibrant neighborhoods across the city. Look at the development around subway stations in NYC and Chicago for examples, I'm not saying that Detroit is like either one of these cities but could be close if there was a rapid transit system in place.

Detroit doesn't have the population density to warrant subway/el rapid transit service. The capital costs would be staggering. A busy subway line carries about 10 times as many daily passengers as the 53 Woodward bus. It's just not worth several hundred million dollars per mile when light rail--with adequate fare payment systems, signal timing and lateral separation from auto traffic--can come very close from a speed perspective. Heck--even places like Dallas are seeing shit tons of new investment cropping up at light rail stations, in some cases before the new stations even open!

[EL Jimbo]

They would not be able to do anything with I-94, I-96 or I-75. With the exception of I-96 which of course ends in Detroit they are through routes that were purposely directed through Detroit. I'm in favor of a tunnel to cap the Fisher between the Lodge and Chrysler and taking out I-375, but not the Lodge south of the Fisher, I'd like to see that still go down to Cobo but a tunnel to cap that as well.

Now as far as Woodward goes I don't think we should be thinking about putting more cars on the street we need to be thinking about rapid transit instead of light rail as well, light rail is a start but Detroit really needs a rapid transit system to get vibrant urban environments. If Detroit had a rapid transit system that covered most of the city then that should be able to create vibrant urban environments. At least cover the area that sits within Grand Boulevard, then after that work out to 8 Mile and you'd see vibrant neighborhoods across the city. Look at the development around subway stations in NYC and Chicago for examples, I'm not saying that Detroit is like either one of these cities but could be close if there was a rapid transit system in place.

Woodward is currently running at 10% of its capacity. It can handle PLENTY more traffic and still be acceptable for light rail down the corridor. It doesn't have to be this all or nothing thing you know.

Also, as far as Civic Center Dr going under Cobo, That can still happen. You can keep the tunnel, but once it comes up the other end heading towards the Lodge, bring it up the hill and back up to grade.

[Brian1979]

Woodward is currently running at 10% of its capacity. It can handle PLENTY more traffic and still be acceptable for light rail down the corridor. It doesn't have to be this all or nothing thing you know.

Also, as far as Civic Center Dr going under Cobo, That can still happen. You can keep the tunnel, but once it comes up the other end heading towards the Lodge, bring it up the hill and back up to grade.

I understand that Woodward can handle more traffic than it currently does, I just don't think 192,000 sounds like a logical number. I'm all for the light rail running down the center of Woodward, how many lanes are going to be taken away from Woodward to fit light rail in the center? I can see it being two lanes in each direction like a boulevard setup.

Turning the Lodge into a boulevard south of the Fisher wouldn't be a bad idea, it could still handle the traffic flow that it does on the freeway part. I really want to see 375 turned into a boulevard though that one is a must in my opinion, all 375 is is a scrapped out leg of I-75 that was suppose to hug the river down to SW Detroit, they actually made it to Jefferson before scrapping the idea, now turn it into a boulevard and Hastings Street sounds like the perfect name for it. I'm not against your idea of turning some of the freeways into boulevards, just not as many as you'd like to see.

[Brian1979]

Those numbers are mere designations--they're not fixed in stone. And if people were capable of building those roadways, I'm certain people are capable of reconfiguring them as well.



Detroit doesn't have the population density to warrant subway/el rapid transit service. The capital costs would be staggering. A busy subway line carries about 10 times as many daily passengers as the 53 Woodward bus. It's just not worth several hundred million dollars per mile when light rail--with adequate fare payment systems, signal timing and lateral separation from auto traffic--can come very close from a speed perspective. Heck--even places like Dallas are seeing shit tons of new investment cropping up at light rail stations, in some cases before the new stations even open!

I have always thought that I-75 should enter Detroit like it does at 8 Mile and come down to the Ford Freeway and run on the Ford Freeway over to the Jeffries Freeway and down the Jeffries to reconnect with itself where the Jeffries empties into the Fisher. Turn the leg from the Ford to Jefferson into a boulevard and re-create Hastings Street, the Fisher would be taken out and replaced with Vernor Highway, which would be a boulevard. I guess the problem here would be Interstate highway access into downtown Detroit. I have always wanted to see downtown, midtown, Corktown and Lafayette Park interconnected without the freeways.

Now as for the rapid transit, Cleveland has roughly the same density that Detroit does, it's half the size in both population and area and has a serviceable rapid transit system. It doesn't have to run to 8 Mile and Grand River or 8 Mile and Gratiot, what I'm saying is run it out to Grand Boulevard. I think what they have in Cleveland would work in Detroit.

Here is what Cleveland's system looks like:

[EL Jimbo]

I understand that Woodward can handle more traffic than it currently does, I just don't think 192,000 sounds like a logical number. I'm all for the light rail running down the center of Woodward, how many lanes are going to be taken away from Woodward to fit light rail in the center? I can see it being two lanes in each direction like a boulevard setup.

Turning the Lodge into a boulevard south of the Fisher wouldn't be a bad idea, it could still handle the traffic flow that it does on the freeway part. I really want to see 375 turned into a boulevard though that one is a must in my opinion, all 375 is is a scrapped out leg of I-75 that was suppose to hug the river down to SW Detroit, they actually made it to Jefferson before scrapping the idea, now turn it into a boulevard and Hastings Street sounds like the perfect name for it. I'm not against your idea of turning some of the freeways into boulevards, just not as many as you'd like to see.

It might not sound like a logical number to you, but it IS a logical number. No offense to you, but I'm going to trust my engineer buddy's opinion on this.

[Brian1979]

What part of Woodward is this on? The part through Midtown I believe has four lanes in each direction, then there are parts that have two lanes in each direction and three lanes in each direction. If this is on the four lane in each direction stretch it makes more sense. I thought that Woodward was three lanes in each direction in Midtown but now that I look at it it's four.

[EL Jimbo]

What part of Woodward is this on? The part through Midtown I believe has four lanes in each direction, then there are parts that have two lanes in each direction and three lanes in each direction. If this is on the four lane in each direction stretch it makes more sense. I thought that Woodward was three lanes in each direction in Midtown but now that I look at it it's four.

I know Woodward isn't consistent in its lane width, so I took the narrowest sections of Woodward north of GCP. The sections that are 4 lanes each way would have a daily capacity of 384,000 vehicles [[2000 cars per lane x 8 thru lanes x 24 hrs in a day). However, the capacity on the 9 lane stretches of Woodward would be irrelevant for this hypothetical scenario if the 5 lane stretches of Woodward couldn't handle the traffic as well.

[Hermod]

I know Woodward isn't consistent in its lane width, so I took the narrowest sections of Woodward north of GCP. The sections that are 4 lanes each way would have a daily capacity of 384,000 vehicles [[2000 cars per lane x 8 thru lanes x 24 hrs in a day). However, the capacity on the 9 lane stretches of Woodward would be irrelevant for this hypothetical scenario if the 5 lane stretches of Woodward couldn't handle the traffic as well.

Your engineering buddy is right that the theoretical capacity of highways is 2,000 cars per lane per hour. However, there are "reduction factors" which must be used in any calculation of capacity. These include:

Lane width [[any lane less than 12 feet wide)
Width of right shoulder
Frequency of interchanges
Percentage of vehicles larger than a passenger car
Surge factors

Now you can add in the signaled intersections and the unsignaled intersections on Woodward plus the Detroit jaywalkers and your capacity will be further reduced.

[EL Jimbo]

Your engineering buddy is right that the theoretical capacity of highways is 2,000 cars per lane per hour. However, there are "reduction factors" which must be used in any calculation of capacity. These include:

Lane width [[any lane less than 12 feet wide)
Width of right shoulder
Frequency of interchanges
Percentage of vehicles larger than a passenger car
Surge factors

Now you can add in the signaled intersections and the unsignaled intersections on Woodward plus the Detroit jaywalkers and your capacity will be further reduced.

I know. However, I highly doubt, even with all those factors calculated in, I still think there is enough capacity on Woodward for this proposal. Even if those things cut capacity by 50%, there would still enough capacity to handle 90,000 vehicles on Woodward.

Also, as far as "Detroit jaywalkers" are concerned. Part of the reason they exist is because of how underutilized the surface arterials are. If traffic conditions altered, they'll cross at crosswalks.

[ghettopalmetto]

I know. However, I highly doubt, even with all those factors calculated in, I still think there is enough capacity on Woodward for this proposal. Even if those things cut capacity by 50%, there would still enough capacity to handle 90,000 vehicles on Woodward.

Also, as far as "Detroit jaywalkers" are concerned. Part of the reason they exist is because of how underutilized the surface arterials are. If traffic conditions altered, they'll cross at crosswalks.

I don't know that the capacity of Woodward Avenue is even a relevant consideration. There is much empirical evidence, both in Europe and the United States, that elimination of roadway capacity [[i.e. freeways) actually reduces the total number of car trips, with negligible impacts on the remaining roadway network.

Essentially, it's the reverse of "induced demand", which is the number of additional car trips generated by construction of new roadway capacity. Think of the level of traffic on 10 Mile Road before the completion of I-696 versus the level of traffic on the freeway itself.

Here are several case studies from the United States: http://www.seattle.gov/transportatio...%20removal.pdf

[Hermod]

I know. However, I highly doubt, even with all those factors calculated in, I still think there is enough capacity on Woodward for this proposal. Even if those things cut capacity by 50%, there would still enough capacity to handle 90,000 vehicles on Woodward.

Also, as far as "Detroit jaywalkers" are concerned. Part of the reason they exist is because of how underutilized the surface arterials are. If traffic conditions altered, they'll cross at crosswalks.

Jimbo, study this. All of the limiting factors are cumulative. Dividing capacity by 1.2 then by 1.5, then by 2.0 then by 1.2 again lowers it pretty fast.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn.cfm


It reminds me of a situation forty plus years ago in Vietnam. I was running a rock quarry and they were on my butt about only producing about 10 per cent of the capacity of my two 75 TPH rock crushers.

I got out the manual and started doing calculations. The 75 TPH was based on crushing limestone a 3.5in minus size in the jaw crushers and running it into the roll crushers to produce 1.5in minus size.

I was crushing basalt instead of limestone. They wanted me to produce "fines" for asphalt. After applying all of the factors in the manual, I was running right at peak theoretical capacity.

I still had a fight with them. They questioned every factor and i said each time "is the book wrong?" and "are you telling me this rock is not basalt?" and "what size do you want me to produce?"

.

[Brian1979]

I know Woodward isn't consistent in its lane width, so I took the narrowest sections of Woodward north of GCP. The sections that are 4 lanes each way would have a daily capacity of 384,000 vehicles [[2000 cars per lane x 8 thru lanes x 24 hrs in a day). However, the capacity on the 9 lane stretches of Woodward would be irrelevant for this hypothetical scenario if the 5 lane stretches of Woodward couldn't handle the traffic as well.

Yikes I couldn't imagine that much traffic on Woodward.

[EL Jimbo]

Yikes I couldn't imagine that much traffic on Woodward.

Well you would never get that much..ever. For the very reasons hermod is pointing out. However, by using the base number for capacity calculations, Woodward, in theory, could handle that many vehicles. But that, as I said, is theoretical. If traffic from freeway was redistributed equally, it Woodward would only need to run about 90,000 vehicles a day.

[Hermod]

Well you would never get that much..ever. For the very reasons hermod is pointing out. However, by using the base number for capacity calculations, Woodward, in theory, could handle that many vehicles. But that, as I said, is theoretical. If traffic from freeway was redistributed equally, it Woodward would only need to run about 90,000 vehicles a day.

Did you ever read the book "Why Do Buses Come in Threes?" for fun?

Those cars using Wooward will not be flowing at a steady rate spread out through the 24 hours. They tend to come in bunches, one way in the morning and the other way at night.

[EL Jimbo]

Did you ever read the book "Why Do Buses Come in Threes?" for fun?

Those cars using Wooward will not be flowing at a steady rate spread out through the 24 hours. They tend to come in bunches, one way in the morning and the other way at night.

I never said they would. Unfortunately, I don't have access to what peak traffic flow is on Detroit roads. I'm sure they can be found somewhere publicly, but I don't know where to find it. Without that, I'm basing things as best as I can on average daily traffic maps I found on MDOT's website. I apologize for not being able to do more in depth statistical analysis, but for a discussion that is hypothetical anyway, I feel I'm doing a fairly admirable job here.

[iheartthed]

Did you ever read the book "Why Do Buses Come in Threes?" for fun?

Those cars using Wooward will not be flowing at a steady rate spread out through the 24 hours. They tend to come in bunches, one way in the morning and the other way at night.

Even if you assumed that those 20,000 cars were all traveling the same direction, and all traveling during the 6 hours traditionally defined as rush hour, Woodward would only get to about 83% of it's 2,000 vehicle per lane capacity. Obviously this is an extreme assumption but it does vividly illustrate how under-utilized Woodward is... I'm guessing that Woodward probably doesn't get much above 30% capacity at any point during an average day.

[Brian1979]

Well you would never get that much..ever. For the very reasons hermod is pointing out. However, by using the base number for capacity calculations, Woodward, in theory, could handle that many vehicles. But that, as I said, is theoretical. If traffic from freeway was redistributed equally, it Woodward would only need to run about 90,000 vehicles a day.

I agree that Woodward would have no problem running 90,000 vehicles a day. Now since Woodward has such a capacity I was wondering is it safe to say that downtown Detroit could have a max population of around 65,000 or so?

[Detroitnerd]

I agree that Woodward would have no problem running 90,000 vehicles a day. Now since Woodward has such a capacity I was wondering is it safe to say that downtown Detroit could have a max population of around 65,000 or so?

I had heard the daytime CBD work force was around 100,000.