I'm with you Robert..not only that but ANOTHER often found on path strategy
should be considered..inground lights...you can control their affect and impact
to be very low above 3 or 4 feet...where their purpose is simply to light the
path enough to see it..and any shadows/other users on it....see here for an
example... http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/catalog/servlet/Navigation?storeId=0&langId=-1&catalogId=1&N=5yc1vZbvnoZ1z11611#/?c=1&1z11611=1z11611
meanwhile, it would be nice to see the vitriol in the dialogue end
Troy Thiel
________________________________
From: Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]>
To: bikies <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: [Bikies] Fwd: SW Commuter Bike Path Lighting and WisDOT Wisconsin
Bicycle Facility Design Manual
It seems that the rubber on the southwest bike path lighting issue is about to
meet the road. Not sure whether it will be happening or not, but I have never
heard anybody mention lights like the ones on the Waunona Way/Bridge Road/Lake
Monona Bike Path connector. I'm sure many, if not all, of you have ridden
around Lake Monona at some point. Perhaps many of you have ridden around it at
dusk, dawn, or at night. I know I have.
On this connector, which is between the Yahara River south outlet and formerly
Simpson Street, now Lake Point Dr., there are short metal posts with light
through amber lenses near the tops of these posts. The path is sufficiently
illuminated and I can't imagine nearby human or owl residents have any reason
to have a problem with these lights.
Have lights like these been considered? If not, could they be?
Note: I tried to post this earlier this week, but it doesn't seem to have gone
through. In the meantime, Robbie Webber informed me that this proposal was
considered and rejected. I think it should be resurrected and implemented. Your
thoughts?
---
Robert F. Nagel, Attorney
Law Offices of Robert Nagel
[email protected]
www.nagel-law.com
Thirty on the Square, 10th Floor
30 W. Mifflin St., Suite 1001
Madison, WI 53703
608-255-1501 office
608-255-1504 fax
608-438-9501 cell
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
