The End of Detroit... [Plan to widen I-94, I-75]

[iheartthed]

What do you feel about this? I fell asleep reading it. I also looked up the guy on goog;e and found some obscure thing about him criticizing Robert Bobb and saying he does shoddy work to give the money to Romney! Take it for what its worth, I never heard of him before.

I was wondering if it was written by the same guy from the thread on here about removing I-375?

[canuck]

Could you name these cities that have stopped investing in road improvements? Because I see road widening all over the place, wherever I travel.

Why push road widening in a city with such pressing problems with depopulation, brownfields, unloved buildings and such?

[Gistok]

Thanks for the map Jason... but interestingly enough, based on traffic volumes... Gratiot, rather than Woodward, should have been the first light rail line.

Also, no matter how you look at I-375... it CANNOT be removed north of Lafayette. And potential traffic backups onto I-75 would be unsafe for I-75 thru traffic.

[Bham1982]

Why push road widening in a city with such pressing problems with depopulation, brownfields, unloved buildings and such?

Well, for one, that money can't be used for any of these things.

[canuck]

Could not agree more. Detroit's reluctance to move into the modern age will be it's undoing. Insane.

There's no way Detroit will ever compete with other modern cities for the brightest talent if we don't have modern shit! A commitment to modern transportation, light rail would be a game changer.

I would also want to make sure some of the fabrication and assembly jobs are in Michigan since so much needs to be built...

[canuck]

Well, for one, that money can't be used for any of these things.

That sounds like a gamble to me, you know; like taking 5 grand on a trip to Vegas to burn.

[Bham1982]

That sounds like a gamble to me, you know; like taking 5 grand on a trip to Vegas to burn.

I don't get the analogy. It's a gamble to use federal monies for things other than tearing down vacant buildings?

[canuck]

I don't get the analogy. It's a gamble to use federal monies for things other than tearing down vacant buildings?

No, rather building on transit in this day and age instead of splurging on a sea of asphalt. That is a big gamble.

[Bham1982]

No, rather building on transit in this day and age instead of splurging on a sea of asphalt. That is a big gamble.

It's a false choice. Those are different pots of money.

And you think improving an existing road is a "big gamble" but the People Mover, downtown trolley, and the like were "sure bets"?

[canuck]

It's a false choice. Those are different pots of money.

And you think improving an existing road is a "big gamble" but the People Mover, downtown trolley, and the like were "sure bets"?

I dont think the People Mover in its present form and capacity has anything to do with mass transit. The trolley maybe; you choose.

But there is sufficient evidence to conclude a highway widening is a gamble.

Heck, even in my city, the Quebec Ministry of Transportation decided on the demolition and reconstruction of the A-20 into the core of Montreal to rebuild a wider spaghetti of overhead lanes in spite of the fact our mayor pleaded for a smaller scheme.

[Jason]

Thanks for the map Jason... but interestingly enough, based on traffic volumes... Gratiot, rather than Woodward, should have been the first light rail line.

Also, no matter how you look at I-375... it CANNOT be removed north of Lafayette. And potential traffic backups onto I-75 would be unsafe for I-75 thru traffic.

iirc Gratiot has not only more car traffic but also more bus traffic. If light rail was entirely about reducing congestion or about providing accessibility to poor carless people, then gratiot would have been the first choice. But while light rail is about those things, it's also about urbanism and real estate development, which is more concerned with overall accessibility, efficiency, affordability, and economic vitality, rather than accessibility specifically for the poor. Although I think in the plan that has since been scrapped, Gratiot was chosen to be the 2nd light rail line, and i think it's currently supposed to be brt.


And I think it *might* be possible to surface it in time for Gratiot. There's enough space for the Madison ramp. I think it would have to be looked at by a professional to really know how far it could go.

[Wesley Mouch]

I would also want to make sure some of the fabrication and assembly jobs are in Michigan since so much needs to be built...

Warning Will Robinson! Protectionist thinking harms everyone. Danger.

The jobs should be where the taxpayers get the most benefit.

It is NEVER a good idea to specify local procurement. Its always a good idea forindividuals to buy locally. Its always bad for governments.

Danger.

[canuck]

I dont know how to take this. Is this a fear induced by Dr Smith or the robot???

Thank you for the step back in time, WM; I used to watch "Perdus dans l'espace" et la famille Robinson back in the sixties, en français...

I hope the libertarian in us doesnt make us turn our backs on our immediate neighbors though. There is a case for attracting investment in manufacturing if you look at the historical/technical base Michigan offers.

[Wesley Mouch]

I dont know how to take this. Is this a fear induced by Dr Smith or the robot???

Thank you for the step back in time, WM; I used to watch "Perdus dans l'espace" et la famille Robinson back in the sixties, en français...

I hope the libertarian in us doesnt make us turn our backs on our immediate neighbors though. There is a case for attracting investment in manufacturing if you look at the historical/technical base Michigan offers.

Quand on doit utilizer le .... plus local... on a oblier pour quo le gouvernament existe. Il exist pour service le resident, ne pour enrichement du certain gens.

Tout le programme qui demand quelque chose, donc 'danger'! Je vais utilize avec le bureaucrat corrupt.

Je ponce toujour Docteur Smith et le Quebeqois.

Ich glaube... oops... I very much like to see money spent locally. But it never works out as a real benefit -- only a great talking point for politicians and a favor to be handed out.

When you give money to a local firm, you probably also have rules that will end up giving the money not to the best local firm, but the one that's the most politically connected. These laws get written in ways that favor individual firms, not the best firms. So while some local firm is getting the work, its probably not the best local firm. Because you've decided that local is more important than good. Weaker suppliers are usually best at morphing to appear to be just what you've written into your law. Voila. Everyone's happy. The politician. The vendor. And the legion of bureaucrats wrote work to enforce the rules. Who's unhappy. The taxpayer who ends up fleeced. Think Executive Order 22. I watched that rule and how it was manipulated by the politically connected. It feeds corruption. Danger.

Stay focused on quality instead. The world will end up a better place, and your local firms will be high quality too.

[canuck]

The corrupt ones can also be the most competent ones, the best positioned companies to deliver. The biggest engineering firm in Canada is Montreal based SNC Lavalin. It is now excluded from bidding on any World Bank project beacuse of corruption in many countries around the world. On a local basis, a scandal involving the MUHC hospital and its CEO who had headed the Detroit Medical Center just before moving to Montreal. The same company dropped kickbacks to the tune of 34 million dollars to get the 1.5 billion dollar project. Even the tightest ruled call processes for bidding are prone to this kind of rigging...

[GP For Life]

Do you feel better now?

The "international trade artery" bit is a line of bullshit MDOT came out with after the new bridge was proposed in 2004. The I-94 widening proposal dates to at least 1998. So it makes you wonder why MDOT would suddenly attach this "international trade" tagline if the I-94 widening were so desirable on its own merits.

This project is an expensive dumpster fire. And there's no justifiable reason to widen either of these two freeways, other than, "Well, we drew some lines on a map a couple decades ago."

If this widening is so important to international trade, where's the new 10-lane freeway with service drives through the middle of Buffalo?

Oh, and Cleveland is about to start container shipping to Europe in March. Maybe they had better hurry up and widen all their freeways too. You know, just in case.

You are just consistently wrong and ill-informed.

[Detroitnerd]

You are just consistently wrong and ill-informed.

Remember, GP: You have to snap your heels together three times and be wearing the red shoes for your bullshit to become true.

[dtowncitylover]

This may not have to do with anything here but I sort of see parallels, does anyone know the reason behind the local/express lanes on the Jeffries? At the height of a normal rush hour without any big accidents or inclement weather, the only traffic seems to be on the eastbound side getting onto the Southfield. I just don't get why the Jeffries was thought of as so important and well traveled to warrant express lanes.

Why wasn't the Lodge, Chrysler or Ford built with express lanes as those seem to be the popular commuter freeways into the city?

[DetroitPlanner]

This may not have to do with anything here but I sort of see parallels, does anyone know the reason behind the local/express lanes on the Jeffries? At the height of a normal rush hour without any big accidents or inclement weather, the only traffic seems to be on the eastbound side getting onto the Southfield. I just don't get why the Jeffries was thought of as so important and well traveled to warrant express lanes.

Why wasn't the Lodge, Chrysler or Ford built with express lanes as those seem to be the popular commuter freeways into the city?

Would you want to widen the Lodge Chrysler or Ford just to have express lanes? All were built considerably earlier than the Jeffries which opened in the mid-1970's. Freeway design changes over time. One of the major issues with I-94 are the left hand entrances and exits. These make the freeway operate poorly. For example, if you get on the freeway at Lodge and Forest, you will never be able to make it to WB I-94 without making dangerous weaving. This is why it is prohibited. The future design with right hand exits and entrances will allow for this movement and reduce the traffic using the Trumbull WB freeway entrance. The local lanes are what are referred to as a collector/distributor system. These were put in to reduce the weaving that often occurs that makes multi-lane freeways operate at less than optimal capacity. http://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strateg...Roads-1-Pg.pdf

[dtowncitylover]

Thanks for the response DetroitPlanner. That answers why the other three couldn't have been built with local/express, but why was 96 built with local/express? Why not 275 or 696 as they were built within the same time frames, and frankly more "deserving" of the local/express design?

[Novine]

There wasn't the level of sprawl/development in those areas back in the 1970s and the engineers obviously failed to foresee the amount of traffic that would eventually end up using those freeways.

[ghettopalmetto]

There wasn't the level of sprawl/development in those areas back in the 1970s and the engineers obviously failed to foresee the amount of traffic that would eventually end up using those freeways.

But induced demand doesn't exist!

[DetroitPlanner]

Thanks for the response DetroitPlanner. That answers why the other three couldn't have been built with local/express, but why was 96 built with local/express? Why not 275 or 696 as they were built within the same time frames, and frankly more "deserving" of the local/express design?

The capacity of I-96 and the travel flows E of Telegraph have huge volumes of traffic. Since the area is much more dense than I-275, there are more people on the freeway that use it for short trips. Local lanes allow those trips to stay local and not weave into the express lanes. This is why the posted speed is also lower in the local lanes. I-696 was actually planned around the same time. The newest section is only about ten years newer than I-96 through Detroit. It ran into substantial delays and had to be redesigned several times to mitigate impacts on Conservative Jewish Congregations, the Zoo, and the City of Royal Oak. I-696 is also relatively close to many crosstown routes which help for the shorter trips.

Much of I-96 W of Davison flowed through rail yards, parks, or Brightmoor. My suspicion is that Brightmoor residents were happy to get a paycheck to move as this was never a nice area. W of Outer Drive the space was always there for the freeway.

I-275 was never expected to get the kind of traffic that it currently has, particularly S of I-96. You can tell this by the rural spacing of the exit ramps [[more than one mile per). Since it has very few exits, it does not get as much weaving. It does however have a left exit at I -96 which is not ideal. This is the same for I-696 W of Telegraph where there is only really one full exit at Orchard Lake. This is the reason why that particular interchange is always backing up or has higher than expected rear-end accidents.

[Wesley Mouch]

Thanks for the response DetroitPlanner. That answers why the other three couldn't have been built with local/express, but why was 96 built with local/express? Why not 275 or 696 as they were built within the same time frames, and frankly more "deserving" of the local/express design?

If I recall, in the 1950s, Detroit's master plan called for making the Davison a true cross-town freeway. The scale of the Davison exit from the Jeffries strongly suggests that they expected a connector to the Davison to be put through. To the east, Davison would have connected to the Mound Freeway. Mound would have become a freeway too. Look at the 696/Mound interchange. It would have made it down to 94.

I believe they predicted traffic volume assuming that the Davison was going to be a major cross-town route -- probably to relieve volume on the Ford.

[[Incidentally, I also heard that the Feds were willing to building a rapid transit right-of-way into the freeway, if the city would chip in for land acquisition. City said no. I don't know this to be true -- but it was a reliable city employee who worked in that field.)

[DetroitPlanner]

If I recall, in the 1950s, Detroit's master plan called for making the Davison a true cross-town freeway. The scale of the Davison exit from the Jeffries strongly suggests that they expected a connector to the Davison to be put through. To the east, Davison would have connected to the Mound Freeway. Mound would have become a freeway too. Look at the 696/Mound interchange. It would have made it down to 94.

I believe they predicted traffic volume assuming that the Davison was going to be a major cross-town route -- probably to relieve volume on the Ford.

Davison still acts as a great crosstown route regardless if it is a freeway or not. It would have been perfect all the way to the Pointes, but some fool decided to close down McNichols and allow giant airplanes to land at DET. The planes have been gone for years, yet the road remains closed.