FWIW, I'm not necessarily arguing that the lights currently offered by City Enginering are the correct ones for the path. I'm simply pointing out that some on the list aren't grasping that lights that only light the asphalt itself - those that outline the edges or do not illuminate the area adjacent to the path - are also not the right ones.
As can be expected on a list populated by, actually indeed created for, people intensely interested in transportation bicycling, I think the Bikies sometimes forgot that not everyone is as confident, highly skilled, and well equipped as us. I also wish to encourage, perhaps entice, new people to try traveling by bike, and sometimes that means thinking like a newbie. I know from my many conversation with people about this path, as well as research and surveys on why people don't bike at night, why they give up biking in winter, and why they don't use certain path/streets/routes, that a feeling of safety - including adequate lighting - is an important factor. I do think compromise is possible. However IMHO, inadequate landscaping lights, as used in other, better lit areas, is not the correct answer. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst State Smart Transportation Initiative www.ssti.us 608-263-9984 (o) [email protected] On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Troy Thiel <[email protected]> wrote: > Robbie, > > Clearly, the compromise that would improve the use and enjoyment by > neighbors of the corridor is something you're not grasping. In obvious > disagreement with your illogical assertion, light does not remove risk from > collisions...bad judgement/driving/decisions does. There are multitudes of > car and other collisions in broad daylight. Clearly a lit path..even > subtlely/respectfully and strategically...would be a marked improvement for > users to see each other and increase enjoyment and use of this tremendous > asset...and for those entering it, there would be enough light to see other > users....and due to the lack of bright street like highway lights...speeds > would be a bit slower and the path less bright to nearby homes. > > Someone smart once said, the art of public policy is compromise...we > should see if that's possible here. I'm not convinced that's happened > yet....and don't feel like I'm the only one. > > Troy Thiel > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Robbie Webber <[email protected]> > *To:* Bikies <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 11:29 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Bikies] Fwd: SW Commuter Bike Path Lighting and WisDOT > Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual > > Robert seems to have left out part of my answer to him: > > Besides being more expensive and possibly prone to damage, whether > intentional or not, > > 3. This area has basically no ambient light (from streetlights, houses, > businesses, etc.) Smaller lights would not provide sufficient illumination > to light the path and provide a feeling of safety. The path you mention has > considerable ambient light from other sources, so lights to illuminate the > path and general area are not as necessary. > > Robert had mentioned the path that runs along the Yahara River. That area > has considerable ambient light: businesses, street lights, lights in the > mooring area on the river, park lights towards Lake Monona, etc. The SW > Path has none of that. This also addresses one of the other suggestions on > this list: light the edges of the path. > > Lighting the ASPHALT or GROUND does not provide the appropriate amount of > light to see the area adjacent to the path - where animals or humans may > dart out suddenly. We do not use runway lights along the sides of sidewalks > and streets. We light the area so that people walking or driving can see > the area immediately off the sidewalk or street. This is the reason I use a > high-powered light with a broad beam pattern: The LED lights, regardless of > how many LEDs they add, simply do not provide the field of view that I want > while biking in a dark area. (A broad beam pattern also makes me more > visible to drivers on side streets as I approach, but that is a different > issue.) > > Most of our neighbors, friends, and family would freak out if they had to > walk down a dark street, why are we assuming that biking or walking down a > dark path - with even fewer people around to provide a sense of security - > would cause any less stress? Those of you with less-confident bicyclists in > your lives should ask those dear ones to go out, alone, after dark on this > path. Once your family member, best friend, SO, or other more-timid > bicyclist returns from the solo trip, ask him/her how it felt to be on the > dark path alone, even with a good light. > > I think this might change your perspective a bit. I know one male friend > definitely changed his mind after thinking of how his wife - definitely not > as confident on a bike as he is - would react to that scenario. > > > Robbie Webber > Transportation Policy Analyst > State Smart Transportation Initiative > www.ssti.us > 608-263-9984 (o) > [email protected] > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]>wrote: > > Sounds very sensible to me. What I'm hearing is that the city wants to > scatter some bright lights because they think it will be cheaper than the > subdued lighting, which would require more poles to provide adequate > lighting. They also claim that the shorter poles will be vandalized and hit > by snow plows. Why a shorter pole with subdued light would be more likely > to be vandalized than a taller pole with bright light that the neighbors > hate is totally beyond me. And, I don't think anybody would object to > incorporating flags in the design to give additional notice to the snow > plow drivers. > > --- > > 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 10:43 PM, George Perkins <[email protected]>wrote: > > When I originally wondered (on this list, to my Alder, and to the City > project site) why the city hasn’t considered a design that follows the DOT > guidelines for lighting a bike and pedestrian path, I never really did get > a satisfactory answer. The City may have had this discussion internally, > but for whatever reason has not made it a public discussion. If the SW path > is going to be given lighting, then let’s do it right. The powerpoint > presentation on the project web site only off-handedly indicates bollard > style lamp posts are a maintenance problem, but doesn’t substantiate that > concern with facts and figures. If there are valid reasons why DOT lighting > guidelines don’t make sense from an engineering (physical and social), I’d > like to hear them and the city should lobby to have the DOT guidelines > updated accordingly. Perhaps a good lighting design would cost more and > budgets are tight. Let’s not do it wrong just to spend the money in this > year’s budget and wind up with an inferior (or unsafe) result. If doing it > right costs more, maybe the path can be lit in stages, do what you can with > the money on hand, leave the rest until later?**** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
