I didn't say your "own data", I said "facts" such as information on pricing, energy use, etc. that would dispute what the city claims, e.g., from vendors like those you referenced in your email. And if you are going to make a claim that your not "drinking the Kool-Aid" the City is offering, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence supporting your thesis just like you do in court. Don't expect me to agree with you because you have a hunch or feeling about something. Provide me with facts to the contrary; you haven't done that.
The web pages of bollards you linked in your last email actually undermine your argument. Here are the facts. The lowest wattage bollard I saw on the two web pages was an 8W LED. The LED the City is proposing for use on 20 foot poles is 53W. The City is proposing to use 68 poles for the SW Path lighting project and estimates that 670 bollards would be needed to provide camparable lighting of the path. 8W x 670 bollards=5360W total for bollards. 53W x 68 poles=3604W total for poles. The LEDs on poles clearly use less energy. Furthermore, I couldn't find information on the light output for the 8W LED bollard so this bollard may not have enough light output for use on a bike path. Most bollards use 35-100W with some using up to 150W so the energy advantage for the pole-mounted LED could be considerably larger. The cheapest LED bollard for which I found a price was $240 but this bollard did not have louvers to keep light out of your eyes. The cheapest LED bollard with louvers was $640 and had two 7.5W LEDs (15W total). $240 x 670 bollards=$160,800 just for the cheapest bollards without labor. $640 x 670 bollards=$428,800 just for the louvered bollards without labor. Cost for the City's plan with 53W LEDs on 20 foot poles: $250,000-$300,000. The City's plan looks like a bargain to me. So again I ask, do you have facts that dispute the city's data on these issues? Mark On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]>wrote: > Here's a page of bollards > > > http://www.accessfixtures.com/Bollard-Lights-s/4.htm?searching=Y&sort=5&cat=4&show=120&page=1 > > > and some more > > http://www.uniquelighting.com/product_pages/Bollards.htm > > I don't think the city was serious about this alternative. The city's > report seem more anecdotal than data-driven, especially as it regards > ruling out bollards. No, I don't have my own data. I don't think it's > reasonable to expect that I would. > > --- > > 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 Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Mark Shahan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What part of the "Kool-Aid" aren't you drinking? The cost? The number >> of lights required? The Vandalism? The energy use? The potential >> interference with path users? Do you have facts that dispute the city's >> data on these issues? >> >> Mark >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I've read it. I'm just not drinking the Kool Aid. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 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 Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Mark Shahan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Mark Shahan <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Bikies] Second thoughts on SW Path Lighting >>>> To: "Robert F. Nagel" <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> You apparently have not read the material the City has put out on this >>>> project or some recent posts to this list. Bollards would require about >>>> ten times as many lights, would cost over $1 million, and use more energy. >>>> Bollards also don't provide the same type of vertical illumination that >>>> overhead lights provide. Furthermore, bollards are prone to vandalism and >>>> damage by snow plows resulting in much higher maintenance costs. It is >>>> amazing to me that people who have been objecting to lighting the SW path >>>> on the grounds of costs and energy use keep pushing bollards because >>>> bollards would be even worse by these criteria. Brittingham Park has >>>> bollards and the City's experience with the bollards there is partly why >>>> the City is against using them on the SW path. More information on >>>> bollards and the lighting project can be found here: >>>> http://www.cityofmadison.com/bikeMadison/documents/swpathlighting071912presentation.pdf. >>>> Finally, this project will be on the agenda of the Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor >>>> Vehicle Commission on *Monday, December 10th at 5:00 p.m.*, 210 Martin >>>> Luther King, Jr. Blvd., City-County Building Room 201 (Council Chambers). >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Robert F. Nagel >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know I've thrown this out there before as have others, but I don't >>>>> recall if you weighed-in or not. What about bollards? >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> 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 Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Ross, Arthur >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's difficult to get a feel for what the path will look and feel >>>>>> like from a single, or two, lights. To get a better idea of what the >>>>>> lighting will be like ride or walk the Cannonball path whee the same >>>>>> fixture has been installed. The easiest access to the Cannonball Path is >>>>>> at Post Road between Todd Drive and Leopold Elementary School. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please provide constructive critique. Using a term like "awful" does >>>>>> not tell us anything. What do like or dislike about the lighting? What >>>>>> would you prefer? Remember the path is not just for bicyclists who are >>>>>> required to use lights at night to be seen by others, but also by >>>>>> pedestrians, runners, and other non-motorized users. >>>>>> >>>>>> Arthur Ross, Pedestrian-Bicycle Coordinator >>>>>> City of Madison, Traffic Engineering Division >>>>>> 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd., Suite 100 >>>>>> PO Box 2986 >>>>>> Madison, WI 53701-2986 >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: [email protected] [ >>>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of David Long [ >>>>>> [email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:28 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: [Bikies] Second thoughts on SW Path Lighting >>>>>> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>> <mailto:[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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark N. Shahan ------ __o >>>> 607 Piper Drive ------- _`\<,_ >>>> Madison, WI 53711-1338 ---- (*)/ (*) >>>> (608) 274-9367 >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bikies mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark N. Shahan ------ __o >> 607 Piper Drive ------- _`\<,_ >> Madison, WI 53711-1338 ---- (*)/ (*) >> (608) 274-9367 >> [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> > -- Mark N. Shahan ------ __o 607 Piper Drive ------- _`\<,_ Madison, WI 53711-1338 ---- (*)/ (*) (608) 274-9367 [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
