Bikies, PBMVC passed the lighting plan for the SW Path last night with one vote against by Alder Maniaci. The proposal now goes to the City Council tonight. If you want to attend tonight's council meeting the meeting information is below. The SW Path lighting is Agenda item #43 and will probably be taken up sometime after 7 pm.
*Tuesday, December 11, 2012* *6:30 p.m.* *Room 201, City-County Building* As to George's comments, there has been no other project identified in the capital budget for this money to my knowledge. This project is in the capital budget and the money cannot easily be transferred to the operasting budget. My response tonight will be to directly address the Council objections to the lighting plan. I am hearing 3 such arguments. The first is expressed as "I personally agree with the plan but a majority of my constituents are against it so I am going to vote against the plan." The second argues that there are higher ped/bike priorities we should be funding instead of lighting the SW Path without stating what those priorities are. The third was put forth at the Board of Public works meeting last week by Alder Maniaci that we should not encourage use of the path after dark due to its remoteness and inaccessability. She makes reference to the UW's management of the Lakeshore Path to support her position. It should be interesting. Mark On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:40 PM, George Perkins <[email protected]>wrote: > Mark and Robert: The city has provided a cost for using bollard > lighting, I believe the number was $1.1 Million; so approximately 4x the > cost of the current design. It is in the city presentation materials on the > website. I think we can put this argument to rest. If the city is having > difficulty passing an approval in city council for $250,000, it certainly > won’t be able to muster the $1.1 million.**** > > ** ** > > Now on to practical matters. What is the strategy for the next few days? > (City council takes this up on December 11, I understand).**** > > ** ** > > Those against lighting seem to have leverage in only one area, that is, > cost. Is there any other bicycle-related project with a higher priority > that is lacking funding which could go forward if the $250,000 from > lighting the SW path was shifted? I have not heard anyone suggest such a > priority exists; yet I have heard that this is the rationale some alders > will use to vote against the SW path lighting project (that in these > difficult economic times saving $250,000 is prudent will be their > reasoning). I don’t want to lose the $250,000. So if the SW path lighting > looks like it is going to go down, then is there an alder who has an > amendment ready to move the funds to some other bicycling project which > needs it?**** > > ** ** > > (The other arguments against boil down to NIMBY and unsubstantiated (or > just plain wrong) assertions regarding wildlife, astronomy, etc. I don’t > think our city leaders are giving these arguments much emphasis, although > at least one alder has publicly committed to voting against simply because > her district is so divided on the issue. As a tactic, putting off a > difficult question does work out sometimes.)**** > > ** ** > > If the council does not pass the funding to light the SW path then it > seems important that the council take up a pilot project to turn off ALL > public lighting in the neighborhoods along the path. There has been a lot > of public outcry about dark skies. I propose all street lights, parking lot > lights, recreational sports lights, path lights all get turned off. Some UW > research team would put together a proposal to study the impact on crime, > crashes, perception of safety, wildlife, astronomy, walking, bicycling, > running, driving, electrical power use, etc. Maybe do it for a month to > gauge the immediate response by people, then move to a 1- or 5-year study. > How to get one of our alders to introduce such a resolution if the SW path > lighting fails (or better, offer it in such a way that the city council > would vote on both resolutions the same night – December 11?) Yes, I am > quite serious. At a minimum it might open people’s eyes to the rather > ridiculousness of the arguments against the SW path lighting. **** > > ** ** > > George Perkins**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mark Shahan > *Sent:* Friday, December 07, 2012 9:42 PM > *To:* bikies > *Subject:* Re: [Bikies] Fwd: Second thoughts on SW Path Lighting**** > > ** ** > > I think you should go back and look at what I said. The costs were just > for the bollards with no labor or other costs. With or without a steep > discount for the bollards, the labor is probably going to be the biggest > cost as you have to mount each bollard on a cement base and cement isn't > cheap either. Check the technical data on the websites for the process for > mounting the bollards. And how do you know you can get the louvered > bollard at the price of the cheap bollard with a volume discount; I saw no > such volume discount data on the websites you listed. So it is your > position that is not supported by the data. Someone from the City could > way in on the labor versus bollard costs. > > Mark**** > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Not so fast, looks like you can do bollards for less. The City ought to be > able to negotiate a volume discount, which could make the bollards cost a > whole lot less or buy super-fancy bollards for no more. It seems that it is > the City's position that is not supported by the data, not my position.*** > * > > ** ** > > How much would the Brittingham or Bridge Road to Waunona Way bollards cost > in 2013 dollars?**** > > ** ** > > It seems that the City really ought to consider an option that creates > just enough light.**** > > > ---**** > > **** > > 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 8:22 PM, Mark Shahan <[email protected]> wrote:*** > * > > 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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
