TBH I think the reason why they won't connect the trail here is because a few wealthy well-connected residents along that stretch don't want it there. I'm not going to let this issue go, I just don't have the time or the energy to get involved at that level right now. That time is coming though.
It's a big gap in the trail system- both that, and the gap from Waverly/Jolly to the south expansion about 1/2 a mile south on Waverly. Fill those and you have a great, large loop
The issue the city rep gave was that the steep embankment on the north side of Moores River Dr from Moores Park to MLK would cause them to either build a retaining wall to place the trail at street level (which they did recently near to extend it to Cambridge), or build a boardwalk; he said those options were "too expensive", I didn't get the impression any real estimates or engineering had taken place. Once past Riverside Park the trail would have to exist as a widened sidewalk along Moores River Dr, there's a sidewalk there now except for a gap of maybe five or six houses, how easy that would be to build would depend on easements. They could also narrow the street down a bit to accommodate the wider trail as they did on the aforementioned new section that ends at Cambridge. Long story short: there are options.
It's very disappointing to still see that gap on Waverly still exist, that'd seem to be some real low hanging fruit. I'd like to think there's a good excuse for them to have not, easement issues are the only thing I can think of but looking at the potential route that just doesn't seem likely.
@MichMatters I get your point and generally agree but that's a rather unnecessary interjection, especially in this three-page thread on a near complete project.
Signage has been put up, and it's nice. There are vertical signs on the northeast corner of the senior building at Larch and Erie, and one on the southwest corner of the 'workforce' building on Cedar with nice, clean fonts. They are marquee-like.
Comments
It's very disappointing to still see that gap on Waverly still exist, that'd seem to be some real low hanging fruit. I'd like to think there's a good excuse for them to have not, easement issues are the only thing I can think of but looking at the potential route that just doesn't seem likely.
Streets & Transit
Natural Lansing: Parks, Forestry and Nature