Highway Cap Model for I-75

[DetroitPlanner]

FHWA and MDOT are not going to pay to build retail spaces. This is out of thier mission. In order to get this to work, you are going to need the place to be located where it makes economic sense. I don;t know how many of you have been to Columbus to see this, but it is located on what we could consider Columbus' Woodward [[Old US-23). To the north is the burgeoning area of OSU students and a few blocks to the South is Downtown. It is also located directly next to the convention center. Hence there is a lot of foot traffic in the area.

To sell this to MDOT or FHWA you are going to need to justify that it will make money and either build it as part of a bridge reconstruction with a private company partnership or to have MDOT be the landord and charge rent for the space. Typically it costs about $2 million just to re-deck a road of this size. In order to redeck the existing structure and to widen the bridge to accommodate retail on both sides, it could cost up to about $15 million, or $13 million more than the re-decking just of the engineering, footings, decking and right of way. In either scenario, the private partner or MDOT would need to charge a pretty high rent in order to make this work. It would cost considerably more than it would cost to build the same amount of retail on a piece of land that does not have a bridge under it. Take a look at the amount of abandoned retail there is in many of these areas. You will see that this is going to be a hard sell.

Eastern Market could be a partner but it would be economically risky for both partners.

Remember every dollar MDOT spends on this stuff is one less dollar available to resurface roads or build transit down a street they own like Woodward. Do you really want your Transportation agency to be investing in dogs just because they look pretty?

[Wesley Mouch]

FHWA and MDOT are not going to pay to build retail spaces. This is out of thier mission. ... Remember every dollar MDOT spends on this stuff is one less dollar available to resurface roads or build transit down a street they own like Woodward. Do you really want your Transportation agency to be investing in dogs just because they look pretty?

Libertarian speaking here, and seldom eager to ask government to do more, but this approach makes sense.

Sure, its expensive. So are new roads. And we don't have money. True.

But if the idea is good, removes some of the blight caused by the construction in the first place, and commerce can be aided [[purpose of the road in the first place, btw), then I think you first decide that this is what you want your roads to look like, and then you lobby for federal support. And you might never get it.

Sure better way to spend money than ADA curbs, don't you think.

[DetroitPlanner]

Libertarian speaking here, and seldom eager to ask government to do more, but this approach makes sense.

Sure, its expensive. So are new roads. And we don't have money. True.

But if the idea is good, removes some of the blight caused by the construction in the first place, and commerce can be aided [[purpose of the road in the first place, btw), then I think you first decide that this is what you want your roads to look like, and then you lobby for federal support. And you might never get it.

Sure better way to spend money than ADA curbs, don't you think.

Sure its a great idea, but the last thing you want is the government spending money on this only to have the stores empty or have other businesses complain how MDOT has subsidized the new businesses that are taking traffic away from their door.

[EL Jimbo]

OK. What if you built government facilities there such as a police or fire station in that space so that you would open up other land in the downtown area for redevelopment?

[Scottathew]

OK. What if you built government facilities there such as a police or fire station in that space so that you would open up other land in the downtown area for redevelopment?

There is land all over Detroit that's "ready for development".

I like this concept, it would just need to be implemented as a public\private partnership. There's a public benefit of rejoining two areas with contiguous retail and housing, and the private benefit of adding more space to a growing area of Detroit.

Putting public buildings on there would be a waste, in my opinion.

[Wesley Mouch]

Sure its a great idea, but the last thing you want is the government spending money on this only to have the stores empty or have other businesses complain how MDOT has subsidized the new businesses that are taking traffic away from their door.

Dont' think the government should build anything. Just the sub-structure to enable the land to be developed at a cost that is comparable to any other regular land in the area. [[Allow me to dream of a competent government that could/would do such a thing without subsidizing it to someone's benefit. Somehow, government has turned into a plaything for business and selfish interests.)

[canuck]

Dont' think the government should build anything. Just the sub-structure to enable the land to be developed at a cost that is comparable to any other regular land in the area. [[Allow me to dream of a competent government that could/would do such a thing without subsidizing it to someone's benefit. Somehow, government has turned into a plaything for business and selfish interests.)

Yep, you are so right. Ten years ago there was a similar restructuring of a highway in downtown Montreal to extend the Convention center westward and build the ten story CDP headquarters
on top.The result was the CDP HQ, [[a government investment fund) had been projected to cost 100 million or so dollars. The building is like a skyscraper lying on one of its sides over 3 small city blocks for less weight. It ended up costing 400 million because of structural design and build issues that needed addressing. So, I guess if you need to spend money wisely in this economy; dont build over a viaduct when there is all that vacant land in need of attention, just pick one of the parking lots, that will do the trick.

Incidentally there is talk of extending the coverage of highway 720 in downtown Montreal, and Richard Bergeron, the mayor's main opponent is against this, he favors developing the empty lots around the freeway first and not burden the taxpayer with as he says "sterile expenditures". He is an urban planner and a major proponent of tramway in the city. I am not myself in favor of this in Montreal because the subway and suburban rail are a better bang for the buck with our weather.