I-94 Expansion Project [[Roadway to Detroit's Future)

**Wesley Mouch** · June-25-12, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Wesley: If it's economic development you're looking for, freeway expansion isn't a really good job engine. But transit is. I don't have the job multipliers handy right now, but expansion jobs are temporary and unskilled. Transit, esp. light rail transit, produces more and better jobs.

Anyway, if it's economic development for Detroit you're interested in, creating a cavern between Midtown and New Center is counterproductive, as is taking hundreds of acres of land OFF the tax rolls forever to devote it to two-lane service drives. It may not be the good deal for Detroit you seem to think it is.

They don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Let's do both.

If I could pick one, it would be transit.

I think your 'transit blinders' are on a little too tight. Sure, the jobs in expansion are fleeting -- as are any infrastructure improvement. I don't like 'prevailing wage' laws -- but I'm sure they'll be used here to ensure happiness for the union management.

But that's beside the point. The jobs aren't from a little bit of improvement work -- but from the results. Fewer delays traversing the city or passing through. When you do transit [[and transportation) right, you plant the seeds for private sectory jobs in the future.

**Detroitnerd** · June-25-12, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

They don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Let's do both.

So you want to spend billions of dollars to create a barrier between two parts of town, one of which is enjoying a resurgence. And, oh, yeah, we'll do that other thing too [[even though no political will exists to get that job done -- but, wait! I'm in favor of it! I'm also in favor of pigs with wings, hell freezing over, unicorns that fart rainbows and a balanced federal budget).

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I think your 'transit blinders' are on a little too tight. Sure, the jobs in expansion are fleeting -- as are any infrastructure improvement. I don't like 'prevailing wage' laws -- but I'm sure they'll be used here to ensure happiness for the union management.

But that's beside the point. The jobs aren't from a little bit of improvement work -- but from the results. Fewer delays traversing the city or passing through. ...

I think your blind spots are a little too dangerous. You want to generate jobs for Detroit by building a way to move more traffic through Detroit, very little of which will stop in Detroit, at expense to Detroit, taking land away from Detroit, stalling development in Detroit, so that somebody from Dearborn can get to Saint Clair Shores a little faster? [[Even though there's ample proof that that won't even happen.)

I agree with you sometimes. Sometimes I disagree with you. Whether I agree or not, I generally think you're a pretty bright person.

Here, though, I really think you have no idea what you're talking about.

**Detroitnerd** · June-18-13, 12:06 PM

Model D, booster of Detroit business, comes out against I-94 expansion, urges people to show up and let MDOT know this plan is not wanted or needed.

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/opinion613.aspx

**brizee** · June-18-13, 12:37 PM

I've only been half paying attention to this project. I thought they were just trying to add a lane in each direction.

They're trying to more than fucking DOUBLE this thing?

Jesus.

How come phrases like "boondoggle" and "train/rail/road to nowhere" aren't being flung around?

**Detroitnerd** · June-18-13, 01:08 PM

Boondoggles are what you call high-speed rail or rapid transit.

When you want to build a 14-lane concrete canyon for $2.8 billion in the middle of the most resurgent part of the city, it's called "the future."

**Bham1982** · June-18-13, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Model D, booster of Detroit business, comes out against I-94 expansion, urges people to show up and let MDOT know this plan is not wanted or needed.

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/opinion613.aspx

That pretty much clinches it. If Model D thinks it's a bad idea, it almost certainly makes sense for the region.

Model D doesn't care about moving commerce through the region. They're more concerned with the literally dozens of bicyclists along the I-94 corridor.

**Detroitnerd** · June-18-13, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Model D doesn't care about moving commerce through the region. They're more concerned with the literally dozens of bicyclists along the I-94 corridor.

I think you were just so horrified that your monocle fell out.

**MSUguy** · June-18-13, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

That pretty much clinches it. If Model D thinks it's a bad idea, it almost certainly makes sense for the region.

Model D doesn't care about moving commerce through the region. They're more concerned with the literally dozens of bicyclists along the I-94 corridor.

You really think neighborhoods that have grown in part because they are friendly to non motorized transit by making those connections worse? In other places they have gone great expense in doing things like building freeway caps, because they realized the importance of keeping pedestrian connections
"The Michigan Department of Transportation plans to remove the rail bridges over I-75 [to accommodate a new I-94 interchange]," Todd Scott of the Michigan trails and Greenways Alliance tells Mode Shift in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if MDOT did that, but the bigger issue is their removal of the Piquette and Ferry Street bridges over I-75."

"After removing these bridges, there will be a mile of impassable expressway," Scott continues. "This will significantly isolate parts of the Milwaukee Junction, Midtown, and Poletown East — something MDOT did to Mexicantown decades ago." This "error" was only recently corrected by construction of the Bagley pedestrian bridge, according to Scott." http://wearemodeshift.org/semcog-vot...-75-expansions

**Khorasaurus** · June-19-13, 08:58 AM

Wasn't the Piquette bridge just replaced within the past decade or so?

Where are the Tea Party types to protest this absurd spending?

**Honky Tonk** · June-19-13, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Wasn't the Piquette bridge just replaced within the past decade or so?

Where are the Tea Party types to protest this absurd spending?

Wrong forum.......

**Khorasaurus** · June-19-13, 09:22 AM

I'm not saying I expect Tea Party types here, but you'd think the Tea Party types would be just as up in arms about this as people who care about the impacted neighborhoods, walkability, public transit, etc.

I mean we're talking about 2.7 billion dollars in obviously wasteful spending, including tearing down bridges that were built less than 10 years ago.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-19-13, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

I'm not saying I expect Tea Party types here, but you'd think the Tea Party types would be just as up in arms about this as people who care about the impacted neighborhoods, walkability, public transit, etc.

I mean we're talking about 2.7 billion dollars in obviously wasteful spending, including tearing down bridges that were built less than 10 years ago.

MDOT's an expect in stupidity and I do expect that they'll completely botch this up -- but why is this 'obviously wasteful'? It'll only be wasteful is we fight against any improvement rather than channel efforts to make this improvement useful. Efficient vehicular transportation is good. Efficient pedestrian transportation is good. Efficient bicycle transportation is good. Urban connectivity is good. We must hold MDOT to high standards in those areas they suck. They clearly don't understand anything that doesn't roll on rubber.

**Khorasaurus** · June-19-13, 11:06 AM

It's wasteful because they could spend 10% of the projected 2.7 billion and have a modernized, safer, more efficient I-94.

Then there would be approximately 2.4 billion left to spend on other transportation needs.

Also, it's not clear to me why the Piquette bridge needs to come down, even under MDOT's current plan. Same thing with the Canfield pedestrian bridge and a few others.

**Gistok** · June-19-13, 06:15 PM

OK... how many of you even know that there already is a 3 lane service drive along both sides of the freeway between Woodward & I-75?? So lets not say we're going from 6 to 14 lanes... were only going from 12 to 14 lanes. West of Woodward is another story... in fact I doubt that there is ANY service drive along I-94 west of Woodward. Only the east side has been "blessed" with such a luxury over the last 50 years.

And the guy with the dogs in that article... did he even mention what store or business he would be impacted going to, by not being able to walk to on the New Center side of I-94?? I didn't hear him make more than a generic claim that it will impact pedestrians... but if there is nothing to walk over to... what's the point of his complaint, except to complain??

The freeway expansion is happening as we speak... and no bridges have in the past been needlessly fixed... in fact I've never even seen a Piquette Bridge over I-94... I never knew it took a bend southwards...

While I agree that the 2 billion could be spent way better than on I-94... the question is not a matter of spending it on A or on B.... not if option B is not politically feasible... so the devil is within the details....

I don't mind MDOT widening the roadway to 4 lanes along that stretch of freeway... but they could possibly do that at a fraction of the cost by putting up straight walls [[elimination of the grassy embankment), and eliminating the need to add service drives and a right exiting Lodge interchange. Some of that is just frivolous...

**Honky Tonk** · June-19-13, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

but they could possibly do that at a fraction of the cost by putting up straight walls [[elimination of the grassy embankment), and eliminating the need to add service drives and a right exiting Lodge interchange. Some of that is just frivolous...

But we've ALWAYS done it that way!

**Khorasaurus** · June-19-13, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

And the guy with the dogs in that article... did he even mention what store or business he would be impacted going to, by not being able to walk to on the New Center side of I-94?? I didn't hear him make more than a generic claim that it will impact pedestrians... but if there is nothing to walk over to... what's the point of his complaint, except to complain??

The freeway expansion is happening as we speak... and no bridges have in the past been needlessly fixed... in fact I've never even seen a Piquette Bridge over I-94... I never knew it took a bend southwards...

Your first paragraph is kind of chicken and egg...maybe there's nothing to walk to in Techtown because...it's hard to walk there from places where people live?

The Piquette bridge is obviously over I-75. And it's being removed for this I-94 expansion for some reason. Same with the Ferry bridge over I-75 and the Canfield pedestrian bridge over the Lodge. There has got to be a way to design these improvements so bridges over other roads don't have to be removed.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-24-13, 07:56 AM

But look! They're going to use ornamental railings on the bridges! Let me say it again: ornamental railings.

What a great context-sensitive solution!

Can we draw pictures of more pedestrians that will never actually exist?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...s_323667_7.pdf

**Honky Tonk** · June-24-13, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

But look! They're going to use ornamental railings on the bridges! Let me say it again: ornamental railings.

What a great context-sensitive solution!

Can we draw pictures of more pedestrians that will never actually exist?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...s_323667_7.pdf

Yes! Let's put them right next to the drawings of buildings that will never actually be built.

**Junkin4Life** · June-24-13, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

The Piquette bridge is obviously over I-75. And it's being removed for this I-94 expansion for some reason. Same with the Ferry bridge over I-75 and the Canfield pedestrian bridge over the Lodge. There has got to be a way to design these improvements so bridges over other roads don't have to be removed.

Canfield pedestrian bridge over the Lodge being removed???

It is nowhere near the expansion project of I-94. Don't they mean the Merrick pedestrian bridge being removed?

**Khorasaurus** · June-24-13, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Junkin4Life

Canfield pedestrian bridge over the Lodge being removed???

It is nowhere near the expansion project of I-94. Don't they mean the Merrick pedestrian bridge being removed?

See here: http://wearemodeshift.org/i-94-freew...ouse-demo-list

I've also seen it in MDOT's Environmental Impact Study for the project with my own eyes. I have NO IDEA why that bridge would have to be removed, but there it is on the list.

**Junkin4Life** · June-25-13, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

See here: http://wearemodeshift.org/i-94-freew...ouse-demo-list

I've also seen it in MDOT's Environmental Impact Study for the project with my own eyes. I have NO IDEA why that bridge would have to be removed, but there it is on the list.

I noticed that... BUT....They made an error. I was on Google maps to find the Canfield pedestrian bridge. It's between Forest and Myrtle [[Martin Luther King Blvd). The Merrick Pedestrian Bridge is between Warren and I-94. SO.. It's basically an error. IOW...It's the Merrick Ave pedestrian bridge, not Canfield

**Junkin4Life** · June-25-13, 10:02 AM

One other thing I want to add along, I thank GOD the overpass on West Grand Blvd over I-94 is getting a makeover

**Khorasaurus** · June-25-13, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Junkin4Life

I noticed that... BUT....They made an error. I was on Google maps to find the Canfield pedestrian bridge. It's between Forest and Myrtle [[Martin Luther King Blvd). The Merrick Pedestrian Bridge is between Warren and I-94. SO.. It's basically an error. IOW...It's the Merrick Ave pedestrian bridge, not Canfield

Huh. You're probably right [[hopefully). I wonder if WSU will pay for a new Merrick bridge. I have to imagine they want that connection to their athletic facilities.

It stinks that they might have to do that, though. 2.7 billion and we can't even rebuild some of these bridges to fit over the new roadway?

**ghettopalmetto** · June-25-13, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Huh. You're probably right [[hopefully). I wonder if WSU will pay for a new Merrick bridge. I have to imagine they want that connection to their athletic facilities.

It stinks that they might have to do that, though. 2.7 billion and we can't even rebuild some of these bridges to fit over the new roadway?

It's not that the bridges won't fit, as it is the bridges would have to be completely re-engineered. The relationship between span length and bending moment, and span length and deflection is nonlinear. An increase in span length increases the bending moment in the supporting girders to the 2nd power. An increase in span length increases the deflection in the supporting girders to the 4th power.

**Khorasaurus** · June-25-13, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

It's not that the bridges won't fit, as it is the bridges would have to be completely re-engineered. The relationship between span length and bending moment, and span length and deflection is nonlinear. An increase in span length increases the bending moment in the supporting girders to the 2nd power. An increase in span length increases the deflection in the supporting girders to the 4th power.

I'm talking about building an entirely new pedestrian bridge, not extending the existing one. With 2.7 billion dollars, building a new one should be a drop in the bucket.