Just to be clear, the light at Council Bluff is not the type that is being proposed. To see the one currently proposed, go to Ken Golden's house - 2904 Gregory St. It's pretty easy to find, because it is the first light NOT at an intersection or exit ramp on the SW path as you travel west. Also, Ken has a sign in front of his house inviting people to walk up his driveway and view the light as a homeowner would. FWIW, he was the alder when the path first went in, and has always been in favor of lights. His house backs up on and is below the path.
In think Arthur's point about judging by one light is useful. I had a hard time figuring out how it would all look by looking at the light behind Ken's house. And I made the mistake of staring straight up at the light, which is a terrible way to judge whether a certain type of lighting is appropriate for a certain setting. WRT bollards: Traffic Engineering has given the following reasons for not using bollards: 1. They would be 4x as expensive because of the need to install more or them, closer together to get sufficient light. Several people have argued that the current budget for lights is too much to spend in tough economic times, even though they don't seem to be concerned about the road budget. However, do we really want to spend four times the amount currently budgeted? 2. Concerns that they would be hit by snowplows in winter. 3. Concerns that they would be much easier to vandalize than light placed higher. 4. They would be placed either between the paved and unpaved portion of the trail - which would be better for lighting, but would then take up space on the shoulder and create a safety issue lest someone hit one while passing on the crowded trail - or off to the side, where the light would not be shed as well on the path. Also, all the dog walkers would probably end up getting their leashes tangled around the bollards. Bollards work better in areas where there is already ambient lighting - such as Brittingham Park. Bollards are generally a bad idea along the side of paths that are pretty dark in general. I don't want an obstacle that close to the path. this is the reason the DOT tends to cut back trees near roads - so that there is a "clear zone" for safety in case you run off the road. With the amount of congestion on that path, I think that is a legitimate reason. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst State Smart Transportation Initiative www.ssti.us 608-263-9984 (o) 608-225-0002 (c) [email protected] On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:28 AM, David Long <[email protected]> wrote: > This issue is not simply bike advocates VS NIMBY homeowners, nor is it > Lights VS No-Lights folks. The folks who have *actually* seen the > proposed lighting at Council Bluff will likely understand my meaning. > Whatever you feel about whether bike paths should be lit by riders or by an > external source, I think most bikers who experiences the test light > adjacent Council Bluff will agree that it is *awful*. > > As a long time BFW member and commuter on the SW Path since '03, I really > hope bike advocacy groups don't rally members to blindly support this > poorly conceived lighting plan. Until a vastly better design is proposed, I > much prefer to keep on using my LED bike light for my evening commute. The > handful of neighborhood bikers I've talked to agree. > > If you haven't already, please take some time to check out the test lights > and pass along your suggestions to [email protected] before the > Dec 11 hearing > > Dave Long > > ...and no, I'm not an adjacent homeowner > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
