Just saw the signs on my ride in this morning. Bluff/Kendall betweenBlackhawk
Ave and roughly Farley will be chip-sealed starting today through 8/3.
Probably a good idea to avoid this stretch for quite a while until all the
chips seal to the road and not the inside of your tubes.
Josh
From: Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]>
To: 'George Perkins' <[email protected]>; 'Dane County Bicycle
Transportation Alliance' <[email protected]>
Cc: "Ellingson, Susan" <[email protected]>; "'Phair, Matthew'"
<[email protected]>; "'Clear, Mark'" <[email protected]>;
"'Solomon, Brian'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] SW Commuter Bike Path Lighting and WisDOT Wisconsin
Bicycle Facility Design Manual
I did attend the meeting and I did listen as intently as I could to the
presentations of Traffic Engineers Dryer and Smith. Both are Professional
Engineers registered in Wisconsin and both have years of experience in
lighting design. I regard them to be "experts."
It is a good idea to adhere to design manuals, particularly when the
designer cannot rely on years of experience of design, installation,
maintenance, and outcomes. But it is very common to obtain design
exceptions to the policy manual, as was the case on the recent Badger Trail
and is the case on the Lower Yahara Trail. (George, I think that this
information may address your question.)
In this case, the Professional Engineers prepared a design that would
improve the safety of the public and try to meet the expressed - perhaps not
the real - concerns of the public.
I do appreciate that Dave Liebl has had a number of administrative positions
with the University but I was unable to verify that he is a registered
Professional Engineer. I believe his background is astronomy. Regardless,
suggesting that this interstate bike path should be closed to all but bike
traffic is just not helpful. I am afraid Dave is just inadvertently
stirring the pot.
Larry D. Nelson, P.E.
1506 Cameron Drive
Madison, WI 53711
608 630 6532 (C)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Perkins
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:08 PM
To: Dane County Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Subject: [Bikies] SW Commuter Bike Path Lighting and WisDOT Wisconsin
Bicycle Facility Design Manual
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
