Michael, This is just my opinion, and I'm open to hear the counter argument.
I don't use this path regularly at night, but when I took a class out at Research Park I found myself on it once a week in the dark. I have standard issue bike lights- the kind that light me up and also light up a small portion of what is in front of me. They don't have battery packs, they don't cost more than $20-30 each, and they don't blind oncoming bikes/peds. I am a very confident cyclist, even at night, but I found myself quite nervous on the path. At night there were various path users with varying degrees of lighting. There were also kids innocuously but completely unlit hanging out on the path. I could not see more than what my light shown on, and I found myself feeling like I was using the path at night for transport and there is a somewhat steep or brambly embankment on either side for a good stretch of it. I couldn't see well enough to feel that I could maintain a decent speed (not esp fast, just enough to keep me warm and get me from pt. A to pt. B), especially if it was rainy. Reflective paint would be helpful on the sides of the path to see the edges. I sent out a message back then to Bikies wondering why there wasn't any lighting on the path. It makes it feel desolate and unsafe as compared to the paths downtown and on the east side of town. I think that the same arguments that are used for lighting roads within a city can be used for lighting the SW Path. If the light can be directed onto the path, it would make the path much more user friendly after dark, which is any time after 4pm these days- well within regular commuting hours. -India On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Michael Lemberger <[email protected]>wrote: > On Dec 2, Steve Goldstein wrote: > > > The high volume of traffic on the path is a measure of its success. Many > of those enjoying that success are neighbors, including homeowners along > the path. My guess is that there's a lot less opposition from homeowners > now than there was before the path was built: This path is one of the > things that makes the neighborhoods that it passes through attractive. > > > > There's clearly a need for widening the path. That need is obvious to > anyone who uses it. I think there would be overwhelming support for > widening it. > > I very much agree with the idea of widening the path (to 10 or 12 feet > from Commonwealth to the Beltline at a bare minimum...whatever its width > current width from Breeze to Commonwealth). Use just seems to keep going > up, particularly with the opening of the Badger trail. > > I also agree that there will be enthusiastic support for doing so. At > least as much, if not more, than there will be opposition. It obviously > adds to the neighborhoods—something not lost on those looking to sell a > home, for example: > > <http://www.fsbomadison.com/details.asp?ID=15255> > > On Dec 2, Robert F. Nagel wrote: > > > seems like 1 ped lane ought to be enough, that's all there is by monona > terrace, there's even room for people to fish from the ped lane > > I agree with this. I don't see why a pedestrian facility would need to be > directional. Seems like two five-foot bike lanes and a five-foot pedestrian > lane ought to be plenty. I'm curious what the best-practice recommendation > or standard would be? > > For what it's worth, I oppose lighting this path. I'm curious what the > arguments are in favor...is there anything posted on line that enumerates > them? > > Michael Lemberger > Madison > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > -- WeAreAllMechanics.com [email protected] Stay connected- Follow WAAM on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/We.Are.All.Mechanics>
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
