Somehow, other paths, with just as much traffic of all kinds, seem to function about as well as can be expected for a traffic corridor with people going different speeds. There will always be conflicts, just as there are on roads, when people have different expectations of the appropriate speed, clearance, notification of passing, and even use of the corridor. There are no more conflicts on the SW Path than on other such corridors.
The difference? The other corridors are already lit, maybe by the standards outlined by the author, maybe not. I haven't checked. In my opinion, and having attended the hearing and testified, the conflicts are being used as an excuse to not light the path. Truthfully, I trust out City Engineering Dept more on this issue than the author, who I believe has an ulterior motive. I can haul out just as many expert witnesses to refute everything he said. One of those people is Mike Rewey, who the author probably worked for, and who also served on the committee to draft the Dark Skies ordinance. I have biked on many paths with intermittent lighting - the UW Lake Shore Path just tonight. And I can say from personal experience that I prefer any light to no light when biking, especially when biking in a fairly isolated area with brush or other nearby obstructions where human or animal surprises could be waiting to dart out. Why not poles closer together? Because the people objecting don't want MORE lights, they want NO lights. Why not taller poles? Because people want shorter and less noticeable poles, or rather, NO lights. Why not bollards? Because City Engineering are worried about the snow plows hitting them, vandalism, cost or more fixtures, etc. Quite honestly, the opponents have hauled out every excuse and idea to stop lights being installed. When one idea is discredited, they test out another one. This is just the latest excuse: Bicyclists are dangerous, and we shouldn't encourage them by installing lights. As I said before, just wait until someone gets mugged, not hit by a bicyclist, but hut over the head by a nasty person that has learned that dark paths are a great place to lie in wait for someone with a few dollars in their wallet or an iPhone. Then my neighbors will be screaming for lights. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst State Smart Transportation Initiative www.ssti.us 608-263-9984 (o) [email protected] On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:07 PM, George Perkins <[email protected]>wrote: > In case you missed this expert testimony by David S. Liebl on the SW > Commuter Bike Path Lighting project (given at the public meeting held > 7/19/2012. - No, I didn't attend myself.) See below. > > Can someone explain why the city engineers on this project did not follow > the WisDOT Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual in their initial > design, > and when this oversight was identified (by me and others last December), > they still did not follow the WisDOT guidance during the redesign? > > George > > > Expert Testimony: > > Cross-posting from the City of Madison Southwest Bike Path Lighting, > Beltline to Breese Terrace project page > (http://www.cityofmadison.com/bikemadison/planning/project.cfm?id=41) > > Posted: 07/20/2012 > The lighting design for the Southwest Bike Path between Breese Terrace and > the Beltline Highway, if built as described at the July 19 public meeting, > will create an unsafe situation for both bikers and other users of the > path. > While City staff have been diligent in trying to resolve user and neighbor > conflict through a technical solution (lighting design), the result will > not > satisfy the expectations of either group, and can be expected to raise the > level of hazard for nighttime users of the path. The Southwest Bike Path is > foremost a problem of multi-user conflict, and this must be resolved before > an appropriate lighting design can be created (or not). > > My qualifications for providing an opinion on this situation include the > following: Since 1999 I have served as a statewide outreach specialist on > outdoor lighting for the UW-Cooperative Extension. This nationally > recognized work has included creating the darkskywisconsin.uwex.eduwebsite; > conducting outdoor lighting demonstration projects; writing model outdoor > lighting code and ordinance language; authoring section 4-13 (Lighting) of > the WisDOT Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual; serving on the 2004 > committee to revise MGO10.085 (Outdoor Lighting); and facilitating the > resolution of numerous conflicts around the state caused by outdoor > lighting. I have also served as a facilitator for master planning and > multi-user recreational trail conflict resolution for the Wisconsin > Department of Natural Resources. > > I understand from the public and official comments at this and the December > 12, 2011 public meeting, that the current multi-user policy for this path > was an accommodation to the various interests involved in the decision to > convert from a railway to a transportation corridor. I also understand that > allowing commuting cyclists, recreational cyclist, pedestrians, runners, > in-line skaters, children and pet owners to all use the same narrow strip > of > pavement has resulted in numerous conflicts and mishaps. In my opinion, the > City must first either dedicate the path to bicycle only transportation, or > provide separation between cyclists and other users, which will require > reconstructing the path. There is no lighting design that will resolve the > current multi-user conflict, as is evident by the number of incidents > taking > place in daylight. > > I have been impressed by Traffic Engineering's willingness to investigate > new lighting approaches in an effort to accommodate the concerns of > adjoining property owners. Unfortunately, improving photometric cutoff to > avoid spill light and glare has further sacrificed lighting uniformity > along > the path. The pattern of abrupt transition between lit and unlit sections > of > the path is more hazardous than if the path were unlit. Both cyclists > travelling at speed and pedestrians will be confronted by visual "dead > zones" where objects, animals, intruders or other path users cannot be > seen. > A situation made worse as the human eye has difficulty adjusting quickly to > changes in illumination. > > The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) DG-5-1994 > Recommended Lighting for Walkways and Class 1 Bikeways is the industry > design standard for bike path lighting. These guidelines emphasize the need > for continuous surface lighting, and are reproduced in Table 4-9 of the > WisDOT handbook. Sufficient lighting uniformity can be achieved by either > increasing pole height, decreasing pole spacing, using luminaires (light > fixtures) that provide a wider photometric spread, or using alternatives to > pole mounted luminaires (e.g. bollards or surface mount lighting). Each of > these options present their own particular disadvantages to users, > neighbors, maintenance crews, or the taxpayer (due to increased cost). > > I urge reconsideration of the apparent decision (by Alder Solomon) to move > forward with the existing lighting design, and rather work to resolve the > primary issue of user designation for the Southwest Bike Path. When that > has > been resolved, a way forward that meets the need for safe nighttime use of > the path, whether it be technical or policy, should become apparent. > > David S. Liebl > UW Madison - Engineering Professional Development > UW - Cooperative Extension > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [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
