I think there are sections of the path that are way too dark at night, especially considering that it's downhill heading towards downtown. There are plenty of walkers who use no lights, and some bicyclists who still ride lightless. It seems there are types of lighting that are directed mostly downward (one on the east rail bike path between Russell and Division), so they wouldn't bother neighbors. Most of us also have street lights shining into our houses. It's dangerous to keep a heavily used path so dark.
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Darryl Jordan <[email protected]> wrote: > There seems to be two distinct issues on this thread: > 1) Accommodating increased bicycle traffic, some of which is moving much > faster than casual recreational riders and pedestrians are used to dealing > with. > 2) Lighting for anybody using the path; but mostly for those passing > through because recreational and casual riders usually don't ride at night. > > Increasing the width of the path won't help improve visibility and adding > more lights, or visual aids, won't ease the congestion of the path. > However, it seems that if you are going to make one improvement, it may be > prudent to do both. > > If you increase the width of the path, then people are more likely to ride > (or walk) three or more abreast. Social uses of the path would prefer to > talk side by side that front to back. However, I agree that adding extra > width would make passing less of an issue of speed and personal domain. To > save costs, perhaps add one lane or an occasional passing lane. I also > believe that an alternative route be available for those more comfortable > riding in traffic. > > Lighting doesn't mean airport landing lights. It occurred to me tonight > while riding in the rain and partially obscured eye glasses that brightness > is not the issue. Our eyes will adapt under most lighting conditions. I > would recommend downward directional low output light enough to see the > contrast of the path with the easements and other occupants on the path. > Also I would recommend reflective striping along the edge of the pavement, > or even fence posts to see other users and obstructions by silhouette. I > would even recommend putting a little reflective additives in the pavement > as well. The only condition when this would be a problem if you are riding > the path in direct reflective alignment with the sun. Reflective material > is not cheap but the maintenance should be easier to do than lighting > systems. > > My humble two cents. > Darryl > > --- On *Sat, 12/3/11, Mitchell Nussbaum <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Mitchell Nussbaum <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Bikies] SW Path controversy > To: "India Viola" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Michael Lemberger" <[email protected]>, "Bikies ListServe" < > [email protected]> > Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011, 1:08 PM > > > Unlike most paths in Madison, the SW Path goes through backyards. Before > the path was built, the only outsiders were dog-walkers and (very rare) > trains, so some neighbors were understandably concerned about losing their > peace and privacy. > > Now that the path has been in place for quite a while, I think most > neighbors see it as a neighborhood asset, and they might be willing to > accept reasonable changes, but the changes require some sensitivity -- it's > still a more private place than, for example, most of the Capital City > Trail. > > I use the path fairly often, and it seems to me that some stretches -- > especially the part between Commonwealth and Breese Terrace, where it goes > through a cut -- are really dark at night, but others are not too bad, > because of the ambient light that spreads onto the path. Perhaps we should > look into the possibility of lighting the dark stretches and leaving the > others alone. > > We also need to adjust the lighting level to meet the actual needs of path > users. Bikes travel relatively slowly, so we don't need to see as far in > the distance as motorists do. From my point of view, the appropriate > lighting level is closer to a garden path than a freeway. > > Wider pavement might be nice, but I don't there's much that can be done on > that right of way, unless there's money to widen the cuts, add to the > embankments, and rebuild the bridges and under-passes. Even if money was > available to make those changes, it would be hard to widen the path while > maintaining the beauty of the route. It might make more sense to develop > alternative routes for bikers who want to ride really fast, since they are > the ones who have problems with pedestrians, dog-walkers, and slowpokes > like me. Perhaps we can develop an on-street Southwest route that works > better for bikers than the current alternatives? > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"India Viola" <[email protected]> > *To: *"Michael Lemberger" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"Bikies ListServe" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:51:40 AM > *Subject: *Re: [Bikies] SW Path controversy > > 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]<http://mc/[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://mc/[email protected]> > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > > > -- > WeAreAllMechanics.com > [email protected]<http://mc/[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 > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > -- "However much we like to think of ourselves as something special in world history, in fact industrial societies are subject to the same principles that caused earlier societies to collapse." --Joseph Tainter, *The Collapse of Complex Societies*, 1988
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
