<snark>Glad to know lights stop mugging. If only this technology could be deployed throughout this and other cities.</snark> I ride the path daily, and in the winter, nightly. I'm against lights, but I could live with them if they get installed. I'm pretty sure I can be both anti-light and anti-mugging.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Robbie Webber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.edu >> website; >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
