Bailey, the logic of the high priests here is that increasing road capacity induces an increase in road usage. Businesses locate along the freeway. More people get in the habit of using that new, faster road. And this builds on itself until the new, higher capacity roadway is just as 'congested' as the old road.
Look at M-59. I don't live out these in that god-forsaken land of sprawl, but I have seen it over the last decades. Driving from Utica to Gratiot during rush hour remains miserable. A lot more cars move, but perhaps not much faster.
The congregation here believes that if you don't build new freeways, the existing traffic simply finds a diverse route to and through the city. In the old days, streets like Second, Third, and John R were fitted out with timed lights to become very efficient. Why? Because Woodward became congested -- even at its obscene width. The Lodge and Chrysler 'solved' this -- but also took the traffic away from Woodward. One might argue that if this traffic had stayed on Woodward, the streetscape might have remained more viable.
The church also ignores that much of the traffic on our freeways isn't commuters, but it commerce. Trucks. They have an answer for that. More trains.
Also, they ignore that there are a lot of people and trucks simply passing through. Their answer to that is to send them away. They don't understand that traffic and congestion are a normal part of a viable community. Downtown Royal Oak is congested, as is true with Ann Arbor. Why? Because people want to be there. Why? Because other people are there. Its a feedback loop. If you keep your freeways running efficiently, then visitors and commerce will come and congest your world. And you shall truly be joyous unto the lord of commerce. And thou shalt be vilified by those who see in petcoke an environmental disaster, rather than a sign of Detroit's comeback.
Bookmarks