As long as the only two proposals being considered are "all" or "nothing," there will be vitriol.
--- 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 Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Troy Thiel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
