They both could be two way with a left turn lane like several former four lane streets. Although not a thru-street it works well on S. Washington Ave in REOtown. When the traffic is stopped it is two long lines instead of four short wide lines of traffic. It does not seem to impede traffic flow. These streets are part of Business I 96 and 127 I wonder is that why they increased the speed limit? I think that could be looked at again as it has become a much more populated area. It is crazy to mix pedestrians and traffic going 45 to 50 mph. I could really see the limit lowered at Old Grand River Ave, so many people crossing there these days.
I was going to say - why not make them two-lane roads? I feel like that sort of design so close to downtown is a leftover from the (OK, still quite prevalent) mentality that the only thing we need to consider when designing roads is how many cars we can push through every hour.
Again, my question is how you'd rework where they come together at the interchage with I-496 to reform the two-way Cedar Street? It'd be easy to do with Larch, but how about one-way Cedar south of Kalamazoo?
I'd love to see them both turned back into two way roads, but they still have to be able to handle the traffic since Cedar/Larch/N East is the busiest and only continuous north south street through the city.
It looks like it would be difficult to fit more than a three-lane road within the footprint of Larch or Cedar and I'm not sure two three-lane roads would adequately move traffic. If they do a study and find that configuration is good enough then I'm all for it, if not then they have to find another solution. The best solution would probably be to acquire a little bit of land along the one way portion of Cedar and make it either five lanes or four lanes with turnoffs, then make Larch a two-lane side road with on street parking. If that's not feasible then adding an extra northbound lane north of Michigan and an extra southbound lane south of Michigan to one of the streets might be a solution.
Anyone know if Cedar/Larch/N East falls under state jurisdiction in the same way Saginaw/Oakland and most of MLK does? If so then they would have a lot of say in any reconfiguration of that street.
Larch and Cedar south of Michigan are part of the state-controlled Capitol Loop, a state trunkline highway. North and south of Michigan, they are Business Loop (BL) I-96. All are part of the state highway system.
This map is a bit outdated, since BL I-96 has now been switched over to Grand River Avenue where it meets Cedar/Larch.
A rotary or traffic circle could be the answer at Cedar and 496 there is a lot of land there. a circle could bring in the two way Larch and Cedar spin into and out of the five lane S.Cedar, and the highway entrance and exit ramps. Then back to the north you could get onto Larch or Cedar from the circle. Traffic circles have been proven to be the safest way to intersect several roads that come together.
Another way to go would be keep the on ways streets, shifting down to two lanes in each direction, with wider sidewalks protecting pedestrians with higher plantings and curbing. Also take out the parking lane on Larch near the VOA they are little used.
For whatever reason, even though there is literally a construction trailer on the fenced off site, the Gillespie Group still hasn't formally announced this and it's not even in their social media, but the complex's website makes mention that the expansion is finally happening.
The expansion will include 79 additional units with additional amenities including rooftop access, a dog-washing station, a workout room, and riverside patio.
It's surprising that the press release didn't come out last week. Was there a chance that the site work would find an issue preventing construction from starting?
Comments
It looks like it would be difficult to fit more than a three-lane road within the footprint of Larch or Cedar and I'm not sure two three-lane roads would adequately move traffic. If they do a study and find that configuration is good enough then I'm all for it, if not then they have to find another solution. The best solution would probably be to acquire a little bit of land along the one way portion of Cedar and make it either five lanes or four lanes with turnoffs, then make Larch a two-lane side road with on street parking. If that's not feasible then adding an extra northbound lane north of Michigan and an extra southbound lane south of Michigan to one of the streets might be a solution.
Anyone know if Cedar/Larch/N East falls under state jurisdiction in the same way Saginaw/Oakland and most of MLK does? If so then they would have a lot of say in any reconfiguration of that street.
This map is a bit outdated, since BL I-96 has now been switched over to Grand River Avenue where it meets Cedar/Larch.
Another way to go would be keep the on ways streets, shifting down to two lanes in each direction, with wider sidewalks protecting pedestrians with higher plantings and curbing. Also take out the parking lane on Larch near the VOA they are little used.
For whatever reason, even though there is literally a construction trailer on the fenced off site, the Gillespie Group still hasn't formally announced this and it's not even in their social media, but the complex's website makes mention that the expansion is finally happening.
The expansion will include 79 additional units with additional amenities including rooftop access, a dog-washing station, a workout room, and riverside patio.
The LSJ has an article about the Market Place expansion,
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2017/02/13/riverfront-apartments-added-downtown-lansing-marketplace/97853362/
Looks like I spoke a few hours too soon. lol Yeah, they just put the "Coming Spring 2018" sign out, today.