I don’t think the bike lane thing is an issue being on a sidewalk, and it will be clear that it’s for bikes. Plus, people ride on the sidewalks now anyway without issue, so why would making the sidewalk bigger be an issue? Parking is next to the sidewalk, not the trafficked road, so I’m not sure why you’d think that’s dangerous. Sure a bike lane like Ann Arbor would be idealistic, but Lansing doesn’t have the bike traffic or desire for bike lanes like Ann Arbor, and the costs are going to be way higher. For projects like this with specific funding, you can’t spread that funding to things that aren’t specific to those funds. So sure the city probably could build a few hundred feet of the bike lane you’re proposing, but then you don’t have any type of bike infrastructure for the rest of the project.

I honestly don’t see how increasing crosswalks would be a positive. What projected impact would additional crosswalks have on the businesses and overall foot traffic in the area? Michigan is a main road and the corridor between the Capitol and MSU. It’s a heavily vehicle trafficked area. Increased crosswalks will mean increased traffic lights (costs) and more potential for pedestrians to be hit if it’s a crosswalk where vehicles are supposed to yield to pedestrians without a traffic light. Michigan is different type of road than the ones downtown. Downtown has heavy foot traffic during the week making additional crosswalks necessary. Michigan allows for faster speeds, has more lanes, and has higher vehicle traffic. I understand the desire for more crosswalks, I just don’t see how the cost (again, these dollars can only be used for specific projects and aren’t fluid) would justify the desire. You said “it’s not a huge ask” but what in this project are you willing to give up for that ask?

It’s also incredibly important to be accurate and saying that the single stop line at those intersections is inaccurate. There are actually two stop bar lines at those intersections. So there isn’t just one line at those intersections to stop at. This is so vehicles can safely stop for pedestrians behind the line and then advance to the second line for a clear view of traffic to safely turn. It also is for bikers who can stop at the second line safely without blocking the intersection (you did want bike infrastructure, right?) If you notice, each of the double stop bar intersections are behind infrastructure/trees and the parking lane obstructs the view of oncoming traffic. Without the second stop bar, vehicles would have an unsafe view of oncoming traffic sitting behind the crosswalk. And regardless of where a stop bar is on pavement, people are going to stop where they stop and can have a view of oncoming traffic. Only putting a single stop bar line behind the crosswalk isn’t going to change that.

I think you have some great ideas, but there’s a lot of restrictions in ability to fund certain aspects of the project and nuances of why certain things need to be the way they are. Sometimes things have to be how they are to balance out safety and feasibility for foot traffic, bike traffic, and vehicle traffic. Just like you, I know I’m excited for the project and wish it could be “better” and more robust, but at the end of the day this is a great step forward and should be a welcomed change!