Can we stick to facts? People on both sides of the issue keep tossing out
unsubstantiated "facts" and speculation.
Astronomy:
I have attempted and failed to do star gazing (with kids taking astronomy
class, multiple nights, multiple weather conditions, with and without moon
rise) in the Glenway Golf Course, Forest Hill Cemetary, and along the SW
Commuter Bike Path. It just can't be done. The major constellations are just
barely visibible, and then only by their brightest stars. Conditions are very
difficult. There is too much light pollution from the surrounding city.
Alternatives to Lighting the Path:
If the city will move capital dollars to operational budget, and then keep
those dollars available it might be possible to install reflective striping,
hand out blinky lights free to "educate" the invisible path users, etc. But I
don't think budgets work this way. Maybe the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood
association can fund these alternatives?
Wildlife:
This corridor is a degraded "natural" area full of invasives/pest species as
well as a few urban-tolerant favored species. I have seen and heard owls, hawks
(and heard reports of coyotes) eight blocks away in my well-lit Toepfer Avenue
developed residential block. Just because there are owls in my backyard does
not qualify my yard or the SW Commuter Bike Path as another city conservation
park. Yes it is nice to have birds in the trees along the path. Will they leave
if there is some modest lighting added? I am not a biologist so can't say. I
don't think there has been a conservation biology study of the wildlife on the
SW Commuter Bike Path.
NIMBYism:
There is probably consensus on at least a desire to reduce CO2 and other
pollution, reduce sprawl and automobile traffic. But this common agreement is
overshadowed by the extreme strident tone of the NIMBY crowd. Instead of
solutions we hear "no" from the most outspoken and least informed NIMBYs. The
SW Commuter Bike Path is a transportation corridor first, a recreational path
second. Part of its construction funding was Federal DOT transporation dollars.
The NIMBYers fought the path when it was first proposed. They complain about
fast bicyclists "whizzing by" on their path where they walk at night. I recall
these same NIMBYs fought to make the path narrower (it is 16' wide near Camp
Randall, but only 12' wide from Commonwealth Avenue west to the beltline; so
now there is less passing room!). They continue to fight other changes, because
it is human nature to resist change. They once had an abandoned railway in
their backyards, effectively turning
their 60' wide 120' deep small urban yards into 300' deep country estates.
They don't want to lose that privacy. So really NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is
very apt in this case (instead of OWL Our Wild Lightless path, maybe it should
be called NIMBY path?). Which is more important? Keeping the dark wooded
backyard in an urban core as a linear conservation park or preventing more
sprawl, more CO2 climate change and fine particulate asthma-causing pollution?
We all need to come together to increase bicycle use and fight against
sprawl-inducing highway construction (like the new Highway 151 Verona
Road project), and work to improve the existing conservation parks and wild
areas outside of the urban core.
Failure of Current Lighting Design:
The current design does not meet DOT standards because the luminares are spaced
too far apart. The proposed LED lighting is too "cold" and makes night vision
worse. These are engineering problems the city can and must address. Closer
spaced lower intensity LED lights probably installed in bollards would be
better. Or use traditional sodium or halogen light bulbs sized and positioned
appropriately.
I plan on cross-posting this on the city's project comment page.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
