Description
The City of Madison Engineering and Traffic Engineering Division's are jointly developing a project to provide lighting on the Southwest path. Impetus for the project has come from path users and residents, and staff have been working with elected officials.The purpose of the lighting is to increase both safety and usability of the path for both the recreational and transportation users during hours of darkness. The project limits are from Breese Terrace to the Beltline Highway. The Southwest Path already has lighting South of the Beltline. North of the Beltline there is currently lighting in only in a small number of selected locations.
The City proposes to install 20 foot tall black anodized poles with LED light fixtures at a varying spacing of 190 to 240 feet. These light fixtures are full "cutoff" fixtures, meaning they focus the light downward toward the path and limit up lighting. With rapidly advancing LED technology, fixtures are now available with superior characteristics than those used previously. LEDs provide a white light for better recognition and the lighting pattern of the fixtures is configured to distribute light along the path and minimize undesirable light spilling out transversely across the path.To test the new fixtures, the City has installed two LED fixtures on the path at its intersection with Council Crest. These test fixtures are the LED fixtures that are proposed for lighting the path. People interested are encouraged to visit this location after dark to review the light output and the light patterns the fixtures provide. As noted, LEDs provide a white light which can seem bright if you stand underneath and look up into the fixture. It is recommended people review the test lights as a typical path user or resident i.e. not staring into the light itself but passing along and enjoying the path or standing at the distance from which they would normally encounter the light.
Southwest Commuter Trail at Council Crest comparison of lighting with 122 watt high pressure sodium light fixture (shown on photos below on the left) to lighting with test 53 watt LED light fixture (photos below on the right) installed August 18, 2011:
Photos taken looking down the path northeast of the light pole.
Photos taken looking down the path southwest of the light pole.
The City welcomes any comments you may have related to this project.
Length
Beltline to Breese Terrace.
Status
Update: December 6, 2012The Pedestrian / Bicycle / Motor Vehicle Commission will be taking up this item at their city committee meeting on:
-
Monday, December 10th at 5:00 p.m.
210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
City-County Building Room 201 (Council Chambers)
See meeting agenda
This will be a city commission meeting, not be a public hearing; members of the public may register to speak on the item. Please see meeting agenda for additional details.
Update: November 9, 2012
• Letter to Property Owners and Southwest Path Neighbors
On November 28, there will be a Public Hearing before joint meeting of City's Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission and the City Board of Public Works.
• Resolution 28101:
Approving plans and specifications for public improvements necessary for the project known as Southwest Path Lighting.
Update: July 25, 2012
Southwest Commuter Path Proposed Lighting Project Presentation at Edgewood College, on July 19, 2012 (PDF)
Update: June 11, 2012
As a result of feedback and concerns received, a new light fixture is proposed for consideration. This new fixture produces a warmer, less blue light. It also emits less light and is therefore less bright. Staff also outfitted the fixture with a baffle, which will reduce light trespass even further, and reduce light spilling off and down the path embankment. The baffle should also reduce glare to those properties and back yards that are sited below the path-- for example on Gregory St. between Glenway and Sheldon.
A sample of this light fixture will be installed on the Southwest path between Glenway and Sheldon St. This work will be completed the week of June 18th, 2012. At the same time, City electricians will also swap out the old LED test fixtures and install the new sample fixtures on the two existing test poles at Council Crest. People are encouraged to visit these locations and view the fixtures and light output.
Staff and alders have also met to discuss other policy issues that were brought up at the December meeting and in subsequent communications with the city.
To discuss the new fixture, other policy issues, and next steps, a neighborhood meeting is being scheduled for Thursday, July 19, 2012 from 7 to 8:30 pm in the Anderson Auditorium of the Predolin Humanities Building at Edgewood College.
Update: April 26, 2012
Before, during and after the Public Information meeting in December, we received a number of comments and suggestions about the lighting issue. We have received a great deal of supportive comments and many in opposition as well. Most of the major opponents come from nearby residents who have legitimate concerns about the quality of light, the type and brightness of lighting, and any spillover effects. As promised during the meeting, all of these comments were taken into consideration and Traffic Engineering staff and alders started looking into alternatives. Since then Traffic Engineering has been working with the lighting industry to find an LED fixture that produces a warmer, more natural color of light, with less light "spillover".
We recently obtained a new fixture that shows promise. It produces a warmer, more natural color of light and we have also custom-designed a louver system for the fixture that further directs light where it is wanted and cuts off undesirable light behind the fixtures where there are residences. We have been testing the fixtures at our facility and made measurements of the light intensity and distribution, with and without the louvers. The warmer colored LED produces approximately 25% less light intensity than the current test fixtures and the louvered model does an excellent job of reducing undesirable light behind the fixtures.
The next step for us is that City Engineering and Traffic Engineering staff plan to meet with all four Alders whose districts are affected by the lighting proposal. We will review the comments to date as well as the new light fixture, and then will communicate the results of that meeting to neighbors and Neighborhood Associations via our website at:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/bikeMadison/planning/project.cfm?id=41
Following that, we'll work with alders to schedule a second neighborhood conversation on this topic.
Update: Winter 2011
A Public Information Meeting was held on 12/12/11. It was attended by approximately 50 neighbors and other interested citizens. City staff did a presentation on the Southwest Commuter Trail Proposed Lighting Project (pdf)
Public Comments
Have a question or comment on this project? Use the Public Comment Form.
Posted: 02/20/2013
I support the installation of lighting on the Southwest Bike Path.
Thank you
I support the installation of lighting on the Southwest Bike Path.
Thank you
Posted: 02/20/2013
Why will the lights be left on until 11:00pm? Who's decision was it? In winter, you don't need any overhead lights to see because of the snow cover (in fact you can see farther without the overhead lights), and there is typically only a few bikes per hour after 7:30 pm as your own data shows. In summer many cyclists use this path for moonlight rides. Was a survey of night-time users ever performed?
Why will the lights be left on until 11:00pm? Who's decision was it? In winter, you don't need any overhead lights to see because of the snow cover (in fact you can see farther without the overhead lights), and there is typically only a few bikes per hour after 7:30 pm as your own data shows. In summer many cyclists use this path for moonlight rides. Was a survey of night-time users ever performed?
Posted: 02/20/2013
According to a recent piece in The Cap Times the city simply didn't have the budget to provide for safe and effective lighting of the SW path. So what do they do? They come up with a half-baked solution that isn't up to the job and will likely cause a whole new set of visibility/safety issues, set up a bogus "input" forum to make it appear that they value one's opinion, then ram the project through against overwhelming opposition. Typical Madison.
According to a recent piece in The Cap Times the city simply didn't have the budget to provide for safe and effective lighting of the SW path. So what do they do? They come up with a half-baked solution that isn't up to the job and will likely cause a whole new set of visibility/safety issues, set up a bogus "input" forum to make it appear that they value one's opinion, then ram the project through against overwhelming opposition. Typical Madison.
Posted: 02/20/2013
I am a daily (night-time) runner on this path in winter time. I have used it every night (or morning), all winter, the whole length, for many years. I have never come close, even once, to feeling like I was in danger of being hit by a bike. This is both because I use a blinker and the snow makes it bright enough to see everything even without a light.
The beauty of the place and the evenly (and naturally) lit surroundings make this a wonderful and safe place to run because I can see where I am going perfectly well, and I don't have to navigate the variable snow and ice on the sidewalks. I usually wear a headlamp, but it is often not even needed to see well and I leave it "off". The wider shoulders should make this route even roomier for cyclists and runners.
I have repeatedly observed the lights at Council Crest. It is clear that many of the supporters of this project have not. Anyone that claims this project will help people see either a) hasn't actually seen these lights at night, or b) is kidding themselves c) really has some serious misunderstandings about how vision works or d) just making stuff up to help push the Bike Fed's Agenda.
These super glaring lights blind me as I approach them and then drop a DEEP shadow right in front of me after I pass them up. Since I won't really be able to see the pavement in front of me (where my footfalls are going to land) for at least 30-50ft after each of the lights, this project will effectively remove the SW path as a safe running venue for me and the large numbers (sorry, Traffic engineering doesn't even bother to count us) of others that I see running there pre-dawn and after work, mostly with blinkers.
Having a large, deep shadow of my own body and my bike right in front of my front tire while commuting or riding home from a night out will not be helpful. While I think the "deadly acorn" scenario is absurd, the fact is that this project would, without doubt, make it harder or impossible to notice such debris or any ice patches (a reality) right in front of you!
It will certainly make the ride far more disconcerting than the PERFECTLY EVEN lighting that I now enjoy from my $20 bike light.
If some people have such concerns about other people's safety, It is amazing to me that we are even talking about this ecological slap-in-the-face project when we haven't even bothered trying a few signs advising people to respect this area and each other by using reflectors and blinkers. The signs could be illuminated and very attention-getting at night, when you want them to be. This was actually suggested by the neighborhoods when the path was built.
The fact is, people have been using this path perfectly safely for years now without any mishaps at night, the smart thing would be to accentuate what works, not fundamentally change everything just so a single politically- connected advocacy group can accomplish a "win" that won't even help overall visibility.
I am a daily (night-time) runner on this path in winter time. I have used it every night (or morning), all winter, the whole length, for many years. I have never come close, even once, to feeling like I was in danger of being hit by a bike. This is both because I use a blinker and the snow makes it bright enough to see everything even without a light.
The beauty of the place and the evenly (and naturally) lit surroundings make this a wonderful and safe place to run because I can see where I am going perfectly well, and I don't have to navigate the variable snow and ice on the sidewalks. I usually wear a headlamp, but it is often not even needed to see well and I leave it "off". The wider shoulders should make this route even roomier for cyclists and runners.
I have repeatedly observed the lights at Council Crest. It is clear that many of the supporters of this project have not. Anyone that claims this project will help people see either a) hasn't actually seen these lights at night, or b) is kidding themselves c) really has some serious misunderstandings about how vision works or d) just making stuff up to help push the Bike Fed's Agenda.
These super glaring lights blind me as I approach them and then drop a DEEP shadow right in front of me after I pass them up. Since I won't really be able to see the pavement in front of me (where my footfalls are going to land) for at least 30-50ft after each of the lights, this project will effectively remove the SW path as a safe running venue for me and the large numbers (sorry, Traffic engineering doesn't even bother to count us) of others that I see running there pre-dawn and after work, mostly with blinkers.
Having a large, deep shadow of my own body and my bike right in front of my front tire while commuting or riding home from a night out will not be helpful. While I think the "deadly acorn" scenario is absurd, the fact is that this project would, without doubt, make it harder or impossible to notice such debris or any ice patches (a reality) right in front of you!
It will certainly make the ride far more disconcerting than the PERFECTLY EVEN lighting that I now enjoy from my $20 bike light.
If some people have such concerns about other people's safety, It is amazing to me that we are even talking about this ecological slap-in-the-face project when we haven't even bothered trying a few signs advising people to respect this area and each other by using reflectors and blinkers. The signs could be illuminated and very attention-getting at night, when you want them to be. This was actually suggested by the neighborhoods when the path was built.
The fact is, people have been using this path perfectly safely for years now without any mishaps at night, the smart thing would be to accentuate what works, not fundamentally change everything just so a single politically- connected advocacy group can accomplish a "win" that won't even help overall visibility.
Posted: 02/04/2013
When will the project be completed? I'd argue for leaving the lights on until midnight or so, as there still a fair amount of traffic on the path through midnight. But, that debate could go on forever. Just happy the lights will be going up. And thanks to all those opposed for their tolerance.
City Staff Response:
Completion is a function of the weather, crews have already begun installing bases. We hope to be complete by end of June.
When will the project be completed? I'd argue for leaving the lights on until midnight or so, as there still a fair amount of traffic on the path through midnight. But, that debate could go on forever. Just happy the lights will be going up. And thanks to all those opposed for their tolerance.
City Staff Response:
Completion is a function of the weather, crews have already begun installing bases. We hope to be complete by end of June.
Posted: 02/04/2013
I heard the lights will be on a timer. Can they be turned off at a reasonable time so that those of us who prefer to use the path at night without being blinded by lights can still use the path?
The claim that you can still see the sky with these lights here is absurd.
Thanks,
Dawn
City Staff Response:
Yes the lights will be on a time clock and will shut off at 11pm and turn back on at 5 am and operate til daylight.
I heard the lights will be on a timer. Can they be turned off at a reasonable time so that those of us who prefer to use the path at night without being blinded by lights can still use the path?
The claim that you can still see the sky with these lights here is absurd.
Thanks,
Dawn
City Staff Response:
Yes the lights will be on a time clock and will shut off at 11pm and turn back on at 5 am and operate til daylight.
Posted: 12/08/2012
I was originally against lighting of the path because of light pollution concerns. After riding on the path at night 2-3 times per week, I have changed my mind. Here is a breakdown of my concerns:
SAFETY
As someone who relies on my hands for my profession, my personal safety is paramount. All it takes is one person to lose concentration for one ill-timed moment for an accident to occur. I minimize the chance of me being the cause of an accident by staying alert, traveling at a safe rate of speed, and equipping my bicycle with the finest of lights. Even with my exceptional diligence and illumination, I average about one near accident every other week on the unlighted light path. All of these near accidents involve pedestrians or pets without illumination or reflective gear coming from outside of the beam of my headlight. A lighted path would eliminate these close calls.
ENJOYMENT OF NIGHT SKIES
I cherish a clear, dark night. Stars are amazing. To be able to see so many stars in the middle of a heavily populated city is almost unbelievable. This is the reason I originally opposed lighting the trail. Then I rode by the test lights on a clear, dark night. Surprisingly, I could still see the stars beautifully. Even within 10 feet of the light pole bathed in near-maximum, artificial brightness.
DARKNESS FOR HOMES ALONG TRAIL
I empathize with the residents abutting the trail. All things being equal, I would prefer the darkness too. However, after riding into the neighborhoods by the test lights, my empathy diminishes greatly. There are too many lights in the neighborhood that cause more spillage than the test lights: flood lights in back yards, regular street lights, lights inside homes, etc. The blinders on the test lights effectively limit the amount of light leaving the trail corridor.
PUBLIC HEALTH
It stands to reason that lighting the path will only increase use of the path. I cannot imagine anyone currently using it to stop using it because of the lighting. More use = increased public health.
MONEY SPENT
This, for me, is the major drawback. There are plenty of other endeavors around town that could better benefit from this money. Even if the money had to stay within the trail, I would much rather have smoother transitions from path to street where the path crosses streets (e.g., Commonwealth, Glenway, Odana, etc.) I am quite shocked to see how bicycle friendly Madison is yet most of the street transitions are jarring. My former city, not known for being bicycle friendly, has utterly smooth transitions...no bumps or rattles.
I was originally against lighting of the path because of light pollution concerns. After riding on the path at night 2-3 times per week, I have changed my mind. Here is a breakdown of my concerns:
SAFETY
As someone who relies on my hands for my profession, my personal safety is paramount. All it takes is one person to lose concentration for one ill-timed moment for an accident to occur. I minimize the chance of me being the cause of an accident by staying alert, traveling at a safe rate of speed, and equipping my bicycle with the finest of lights. Even with my exceptional diligence and illumination, I average about one near accident every other week on the unlighted light path. All of these near accidents involve pedestrians or pets without illumination or reflective gear coming from outside of the beam of my headlight. A lighted path would eliminate these close calls.
ENJOYMENT OF NIGHT SKIES
I cherish a clear, dark night. Stars are amazing. To be able to see so many stars in the middle of a heavily populated city is almost unbelievable. This is the reason I originally opposed lighting the trail. Then I rode by the test lights on a clear, dark night. Surprisingly, I could still see the stars beautifully. Even within 10 feet of the light pole bathed in near-maximum, artificial brightness.
DARKNESS FOR HOMES ALONG TRAIL
I empathize with the residents abutting the trail. All things being equal, I would prefer the darkness too. However, after riding into the neighborhoods by the test lights, my empathy diminishes greatly. There are too many lights in the neighborhood that cause more spillage than the test lights: flood lights in back yards, regular street lights, lights inside homes, etc. The blinders on the test lights effectively limit the amount of light leaving the trail corridor.
PUBLIC HEALTH
It stands to reason that lighting the path will only increase use of the path. I cannot imagine anyone currently using it to stop using it because of the lighting. More use = increased public health.
MONEY SPENT
This, for me, is the major drawback. There are plenty of other endeavors around town that could better benefit from this money. Even if the money had to stay within the trail, I would much rather have smoother transitions from path to street where the path crosses streets (e.g., Commonwealth, Glenway, Odana, etc.) I am quite shocked to see how bicycle friendly Madison is yet most of the street transitions are jarring. My former city, not known for being bicycle friendly, has utterly smooth transitions...no bumps or rattles.
Posted: 12/04/2012
I am a frequent user of the SW Bike Path, and I am against the lighting plan. Both bikers and pedestrians on the bike path are aware that nighttime use requires lights for safety, and nearly all people use lights.
I am a frequent user of the SW Bike Path, and I am against the lighting plan. Both bikers and pedestrians on the bike path are aware that nighttime use requires lights for safety, and nearly all people use lights.
Posted: 12/04/2012
I am an avid user of the SW bike trail during the day and at night. I've ridden between the two demonstration lights by Nakoma. It is very difficult to adjust your eyes to the bright light, and then to the dark. I would rather depend on my own lights and the lights of others, including pedestrians, dog walkers, etc. There are plenty of country roads without lights and we seem to manage just fine. The SW bike trail should keep its beauty and not become an area for light pollution. If there is a problem with safety, lights will not solve this problem. Let's use the money for other bike projects - like extending the bike trail system, increasing bike lanes on our busy streets, and putting in more bike crossings similar to what was put in by Camp Randall.
I am an avid user of the SW bike trail during the day and at night. I've ridden between the two demonstration lights by Nakoma. It is very difficult to adjust your eyes to the bright light, and then to the dark. I would rather depend on my own lights and the lights of others, including pedestrians, dog walkers, etc. There are plenty of country roads without lights and we seem to manage just fine. The SW bike trail should keep its beauty and not become an area for light pollution. If there is a problem with safety, lights will not solve this problem. Let's use the money for other bike projects - like extending the bike trail system, increasing bike lanes on our busy streets, and putting in more bike crossings similar to what was put in by Camp Randall.
Posted: 12/04/2012
In response to the person who posted on 11/26 and wrote "...and very few night bike commuters or recreational riders who could be potentially be served by lighting- virtually all bike commuters operate during daylight hours...."
I invite you to visit the bike path between the hours of 4:45 and 7:00 pm some weekday. You will witness several dozens if not hundreds bikers traversing the path as they commute home from school and work. I was out there last night, there were many! I also noted quite a few bikers, runners and walkers without any type of lighting or reflective clothing. The near collisions or significant surprises when bikers came upon an unlit walker or runner were abundant, as I observed while walking!
The statement indicating virtually all bike commuters operate during daylight hours is completely innacurate. The path is heavily travelled by cyclists, walkers, dog walkers, and runners in the evening hours.
I can't speak to later hours, but I certainly am aware of the early evening as I live near the path and walk each evening after work.
Thanks to the city for careful consideration of lighting. While I don't think lighting will help with improvement of crime statistics on the path, it certainly will help all users feel more safe in regards to visibility of others on the path.
In response to the person who posted on 11/26 and wrote "...and very few night bike commuters or recreational riders who could be potentially be served by lighting- virtually all bike commuters operate during daylight hours...."
I invite you to visit the bike path between the hours of 4:45 and 7:00 pm some weekday. You will witness several dozens if not hundreds bikers traversing the path as they commute home from school and work. I was out there last night, there were many! I also noted quite a few bikers, runners and walkers without any type of lighting or reflective clothing. The near collisions or significant surprises when bikers came upon an unlit walker or runner were abundant, as I observed while walking!
The statement indicating virtually all bike commuters operate during daylight hours is completely innacurate. The path is heavily travelled by cyclists, walkers, dog walkers, and runners in the evening hours.
I can't speak to later hours, but I certainly am aware of the early evening as I live near the path and walk each evening after work.
Thanks to the city for careful consideration of lighting. While I don't think lighting will help with improvement of crime statistics on the path, it certainly will help all users feel more safe in regards to visibility of others on the path.
Posted: 12/04/2012
I am completely in support of the bike path lighting project, and am glad to hear that Madison's Board of Public Works is in favor of the project.
I commute on the bike path daily to and from work as a pedestrian. During the winter months, when I come home at 5 p.m., the bike path is pitch black. I do wear a light on my front and back, so that cyclists can see me, but it is still difficult for them to gauge distances easily from my small lights and know exactly where I am as they come up on me. My lights may make me somewhat visible to cyclists, but they don't light my way at all, so it's difficult for me to see, and it doesn't feel safe on the path. In addition, there's an inconvenience factor in having to constantly replace my lights when they die.
In general, it just doesn't feel safe on the path when it is dark, and in the winter months it is fully dark before 5 p.m. As a daily path user I am one fewer car on the roads, one fewer car taking up public parking spaces. It is wise to encourage path use and non-standard transportation methods, and lighting the path will make it safer and more comfortable for all users.
I am completely in support of the bike path lighting project, and am glad to hear that Madison's Board of Public Works is in favor of the project.
I commute on the bike path daily to and from work as a pedestrian. During the winter months, when I come home at 5 p.m., the bike path is pitch black. I do wear a light on my front and back, so that cyclists can see me, but it is still difficult for them to gauge distances easily from my small lights and know exactly where I am as they come up on me. My lights may make me somewhat visible to cyclists, but they don't light my way at all, so it's difficult for me to see, and it doesn't feel safe on the path. In addition, there's an inconvenience factor in having to constantly replace my lights when they die.
In general, it just doesn't feel safe on the path when it is dark, and in the winter months it is fully dark before 5 p.m. As a daily path user I am one fewer car on the roads, one fewer car taking up public parking spaces. It is wise to encourage path use and non-standard transportation methods, and lighting the path will make it safer and more comfortable for all users.
Posted: 12/04/2012
I'm a nearly daily bike user of the Southwest path since it's completion, and a bike commuter for decades. While I'm not opposed to appropriate lighting, the sample light fixture is dreadful, creating a small, overly-bright zone that destroys one's dark adaptation beyond this zone. Unless there is some practical, affordable way to make the lighting more uniform and overall dimmer, for example with a sufficient number of fixtures placed lower to the ground, I think it safer to not light at all, or to direct the $ earmarked for this project to path user education and/or giving out free or reduced-priced flashers, reflective tape, etc. periodically to path users. A little common sense goes a long way, as does just a little light if it is uniform.
I'm a nearly daily bike user of the Southwest path since it's completion, and a bike commuter for decades. While I'm not opposed to appropriate lighting, the sample light fixture is dreadful, creating a small, overly-bright zone that destroys one's dark adaptation beyond this zone. Unless there is some practical, affordable way to make the lighting more uniform and overall dimmer, for example with a sufficient number of fixtures placed lower to the ground, I think it safer to not light at all, or to direct the $ earmarked for this project to path user education and/or giving out free or reduced-priced flashers, reflective tape, etc. periodically to path users. A little common sense goes a long way, as does just a little light if it is uniform.
Posted: 12/04/2012
As a year-around user of the bike path and owner of a home directly adjacent to trail, I adamantly oppose lighting the path. Proponents of lighting the path have argued that the lights will reduce crime and collisions. But the proponents cite no data whatsoever. In fact, the Madison Police, when asked, said they had no evidence of crime along the trail. And, of course, they certainly had no data that the lights would decrease levels of . . . imaginary crime.
We bought our house specifically because it was located on the trail and because we enjoyed the lovely darkness behind our home. We look at stars and hear owls hooting in the trees. Cyclists pass by at night in garishly lit groups, some singing songs loudly as they parade through the deep and utterly crime free darkness.
Rather than spend $300,000 of our tax dollars to fix a chimera and render the peaceful ambiance of my home to be more akin to a used car lot, consider putting those dollars into the planned 2014 Monroe Street overhaul. In contrast to the illusory crime and injuries on the bike trail, people have actually been seriously injured trying to cross Monroe Street (3 in 10 days this summer).
For our children, the freeway that is Monroe Street is a continual barrier between our houses and Wingra Park, the only park serving our neighborhood. We simply cannot send our children to Wingra Park because of the lack of any reasonable measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists crossing Monroe Street.
Thank you,
Brian Anderson
2602 Gregory Street
As a year-around user of the bike path and owner of a home directly adjacent to trail, I adamantly oppose lighting the path. Proponents of lighting the path have argued that the lights will reduce crime and collisions. But the proponents cite no data whatsoever. In fact, the Madison Police, when asked, said they had no evidence of crime along the trail. And, of course, they certainly had no data that the lights would decrease levels of . . . imaginary crime.
We bought our house specifically because it was located on the trail and because we enjoyed the lovely darkness behind our home. We look at stars and hear owls hooting in the trees. Cyclists pass by at night in garishly lit groups, some singing songs loudly as they parade through the deep and utterly crime free darkness.
Rather than spend $300,000 of our tax dollars to fix a chimera and render the peaceful ambiance of my home to be more akin to a used car lot, consider putting those dollars into the planned 2014 Monroe Street overhaul. In contrast to the illusory crime and injuries on the bike trail, people have actually been seriously injured trying to cross Monroe Street (3 in 10 days this summer).
For our children, the freeway that is Monroe Street is a continual barrier between our houses and Wingra Park, the only park serving our neighborhood. We simply cannot send our children to Wingra Park because of the lack of any reasonable measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists crossing Monroe Street.
Thank you,
Brian Anderson
2602 Gregory Street
Posted: 11/28/2012
I am against the lighting project until one tries the less expensive option of enforcing the use of bike lights at night. There is no serious enforcement. If cyclists had god lights then the problem would be solved.
I am against the lighting project until one tries the less expensive option of enforcing the use of bike lights at night. There is no serious enforcement. If cyclists had god lights then the problem would be solved.
Posted: 11/28/2012
Dear Alders – Please listen to (and protect) the people within your district.
The Bike Fed of WI does some great work mobilizing people from ALL OVER THE STATE to advocate for cycling. As a bike fed member I can appreciate that. However, as a resident of the SW Path neighborhood and path user I believe residence living near the SW path make up a high % of “users per day”. My household is on the path 4-8 times per day and my neighbors have a similar path usage.
Reviewing the comments on this forum I’ve come to the following conclusion:
The Bike Fed has sent out email blasts encouraging support of the lighting project on 11/27/12 and 7/13/12. The comments around these dates are mostly pro-lights, and by cyclists. Safety concerns are mentioned like collisions with pedestrians and debris on the trail.
The comments made by path users not on a bike are typically advocating for no lights. I would guess most walkers, runners, and dog walkers live near the path, correct? Live in your district? These users would be most vulnerable to collisions and crime yet they do not want the lights. Take note: The people most likely to be injured or assaulted on the path do not want lights.
Please protect the vulnerable users on the path by keeping the path natural and unlit. Lighting up the path will allow the cyclist to go faster (and CYCLIST will be safer), but it will put a “rob me” sign on pedestrians and when a bike to pedestrian collision happens injuries will be more severe due to the higher speed with the pedestrian receiving the majority of the impact.
Dear Alders – Please listen to (and protect) the people within your district.
The Bike Fed of WI does some great work mobilizing people from ALL OVER THE STATE to advocate for cycling. As a bike fed member I can appreciate that. However, as a resident of the SW Path neighborhood and path user I believe residence living near the SW path make up a high % of “users per day”. My household is on the path 4-8 times per day and my neighbors have a similar path usage.
Reviewing the comments on this forum I’ve come to the following conclusion:
The Bike Fed has sent out email blasts encouraging support of the lighting project on 11/27/12 and 7/13/12. The comments around these dates are mostly pro-lights, and by cyclists. Safety concerns are mentioned like collisions with pedestrians and debris on the trail.
The comments made by path users not on a bike are typically advocating for no lights. I would guess most walkers, runners, and dog walkers live near the path, correct? Live in your district? These users would be most vulnerable to collisions and crime yet they do not want the lights. Take note: The people most likely to be injured or assaulted on the path do not want lights.
Please protect the vulnerable users on the path by keeping the path natural and unlit. Lighting up the path will allow the cyclist to go faster (and CYCLIST will be safer), but it will put a “rob me” sign on pedestrians and when a bike to pedestrian collision happens injuries will be more severe due to the higher speed with the pedestrian receiving the majority of the impact.
Posted: 11/28/2012
Will someone please post on this forum the council members that voted for this project? I want to know who NOT to vote for next election.
We were foolish to think the city actually cared about the lighting opposition.
Will someone please post on this forum the council members that voted for this project? I want to know who NOT to vote for next election.
We were foolish to think the city actually cared about the lighting opposition.
Posted: 11/28/2012
Supporting Southwest Path Lighting
I am Steve Arnold, a resident at 2530 Targhee Street in the City of Fitchburg. I am a member of the Fitchburg Common Council and the Fitchburg Transportation and Transit Commission, and a year-around bicycle transportation user. I support the installation of lighting for two reasons. First, lighting is required for path user safety. Second, those who walk or bicycle should receive the same support as those who use motor vehicles.
Safety
Pedestrians are not required to have lights. Cyclists need overhead lighting to avoid pedestrians and debris. Most bicycle lights used in urban environments are designed to make the cyclist visible, not illuminate the road. Those using dark rural paths or roads at night generally have different, more expensive lighting systems to illuminate unlighted roads, but these conditions are unexpected in urban Madison, and should not be maintained on the Southwest Path.
Equal Protection
For about a half a century, transportation networks were designed exclusively for motorists, leading to the conditions we call “sprawl”. Sprawl exacerbates peak oil, climate change, the obesity epidemic, and the cost of urban services for taxpayers. We need to end the historical discrimination against bicyclists and pedestrians, and we need the host of benefits that come from increased mode share for active transportation and reduced miles traveled by motor vehicles. Those benefits are for everyone in the region, not just active transportation users, and include less road congestion, less noise, lower demand for energy and parking, better health from more activity, cleaner air, and lower health care costs.
It is traditional for Madison alders to listen closely to their constituents. This can be unfortunate in matters of regional concern, such as the design of the transportation network. I ask members of the Board, the Commission, and the Common Council to think of their visits to neighborhoods other than their own, and the kind of transportation facilities they want to find there. Should arterial and collector roads be designed for safety, with adequate capacity? Path users want the same consideration.
Traffic Engineering staff members have labored mightily to specify fixtures that maximize safety for path users while minimizing nuisances for neighbors. Please approve the proposed design as the best tradeoff between the needs of path users and the desires of neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration!
Steve Arnold, Fitchburg Alder, District 4, Seat 7
2530 Targhee Street, Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711-5491
Telephone +1 608 278 7700 • Facsimile +1 608 278 7701
Steve.Arnold@Fitchburg.WI.US • http://Arnold.US
Supporting Southwest Path Lighting
I am Steve Arnold, a resident at 2530 Targhee Street in the City of Fitchburg. I am a member of the Fitchburg Common Council and the Fitchburg Transportation and Transit Commission, and a year-around bicycle transportation user. I support the installation of lighting for two reasons. First, lighting is required for path user safety. Second, those who walk or bicycle should receive the same support as those who use motor vehicles.
Safety
Pedestrians are not required to have lights. Cyclists need overhead lighting to avoid pedestrians and debris. Most bicycle lights used in urban environments are designed to make the cyclist visible, not illuminate the road. Those using dark rural paths or roads at night generally have different, more expensive lighting systems to illuminate unlighted roads, but these conditions are unexpected in urban Madison, and should not be maintained on the Southwest Path.
Equal Protection
For about a half a century, transportation networks were designed exclusively for motorists, leading to the conditions we call “sprawl”. Sprawl exacerbates peak oil, climate change, the obesity epidemic, and the cost of urban services for taxpayers. We need to end the historical discrimination against bicyclists and pedestrians, and we need the host of benefits that come from increased mode share for active transportation and reduced miles traveled by motor vehicles. Those benefits are for everyone in the region, not just active transportation users, and include less road congestion, less noise, lower demand for energy and parking, better health from more activity, cleaner air, and lower health care costs.
It is traditional for Madison alders to listen closely to their constituents. This can be unfortunate in matters of regional concern, such as the design of the transportation network. I ask members of the Board, the Commission, and the Common Council to think of their visits to neighborhoods other than their own, and the kind of transportation facilities they want to find there. Should arterial and collector roads be designed for safety, with adequate capacity? Path users want the same consideration.
Traffic Engineering staff members have labored mightily to specify fixtures that maximize safety for path users while minimizing nuisances for neighbors. Please approve the proposed design as the best tradeoff between the needs of path users and the desires of neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration!
Steve Arnold, Fitchburg Alder, District 4, Seat 7
2530 Targhee Street, Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711-5491
Telephone +1 608 278 7700 • Facsimile +1 608 278 7701
Steve.Arnold@Fitchburg.WI.US • http://Arnold.US
Posted: 11/27/2012
I believe as a vibrant transportation corridor, the path should be lit, especially during winter. However, I also greatly appreciate that natural aspects of the path, and would like to see more dark spaces in Madison. Therefore, I think the path should be lit until a reasonable hour, say 9 or 10 PM. After that, the negative impacts might outweigh the benefits, and as the path won't be policed at that time, may give the incorrect perception that the path is completely safe at a late hour if lit.
I believe as a vibrant transportation corridor, the path should be lit, especially during winter. However, I also greatly appreciate that natural aspects of the path, and would like to see more dark spaces in Madison. Therefore, I think the path should be lit until a reasonable hour, say 9 or 10 PM. After that, the negative impacts might outweigh the benefits, and as the path won't be policed at that time, may give the incorrect perception that the path is completely safe at a late hour if lit.
Posted: 11/27/2012
The Southwest Path should have lighting. As a frequent path user I would find it safer and more inviting to use the path when it's dark, if it had lighting. I am all for leaving my car at home and getting downtown by bike - it's a win-win-win-win in terms of saving me money, getting exercise, reducing traffic congestion, and reducing emissions. But the path is only inviting in daylight, which reduces its appeal and my ability to use it as the seasons change.
The Southwest Path should have lighting. As a frequent path user I would find it safer and more inviting to use the path when it's dark, if it had lighting. I am all for leaving my car at home and getting downtown by bike - it's a win-win-win-win in terms of saving me money, getting exercise, reducing traffic congestion, and reducing emissions. But the path is only inviting in daylight, which reduces its appeal and my ability to use it as the seasons change.
Posted: 11/27/2012
The Issue is not so much light trespass into neighbors yards, its the effects that these lights will have on users of the path, especially their eyes.
The test lights are BLINDING when you approach them either biking or walking. Then you end up in the dark space in between the lights. This is not the best (or even right kind of) lighting for a bike-ped path, especially one with little overspill from any adjacent areas to "fill" in the dark spots.
Cyclists will continue to use the mega beams (maybe even more) to compensate for their glare-reduced vision when they enter the visual dead zones between each fixture.
The SW path is dark on clear moonless nights because of the absence of any spillover light into this natural area. This characteristic actually makes bike lights even more effective there. This would be true even with sensible additional fixed lighting, as long as its not inadvertantly ruining everyone's dark-adaptation like this project would.
Contrary to what many people think, the darker a place is, the LESS light you need to safely illuminate it. This particular proposal trades the environment of a beautiful dawn, sunset or night for a strip-mall parking lot (and a poorly lit one at that). It also won't increase overall visual safety.
If this is the best that can be done right now, then I say we can it. Otherwise, we will preclude all future low-glare options that might actually *help* people see the path and other users (while not completely obliterating the sky on top of it).
Are we really going to wreck one of the crown jewel paths of our state with an expedient but inappropriate lighting system?
The Issue is not so much light trespass into neighbors yards, its the effects that these lights will have on users of the path, especially their eyes.
The test lights are BLINDING when you approach them either biking or walking. Then you end up in the dark space in between the lights. This is not the best (or even right kind of) lighting for a bike-ped path, especially one with little overspill from any adjacent areas to "fill" in the dark spots.
Cyclists will continue to use the mega beams (maybe even more) to compensate for their glare-reduced vision when they enter the visual dead zones between each fixture.
The SW path is dark on clear moonless nights because of the absence of any spillover light into this natural area. This characteristic actually makes bike lights even more effective there. This would be true even with sensible additional fixed lighting, as long as its not inadvertantly ruining everyone's dark-adaptation like this project would.
Contrary to what many people think, the darker a place is, the LESS light you need to safely illuminate it. This particular proposal trades the environment of a beautiful dawn, sunset or night for a strip-mall parking lot (and a poorly lit one at that). It also won't increase overall visual safety.
If this is the best that can be done right now, then I say we can it. Otherwise, we will preclude all future low-glare options that might actually *help* people see the path and other users (while not completely obliterating the sky on top of it).
Are we really going to wreck one of the crown jewel paths of our state with an expedient but inappropriate lighting system?
Posted: 11/27/2012
It is very important that the Southwest Path be adequately lit. We do not want to wait for a serious injury before the City provides adequate lighting. Given the obvious hazard of the city providing, and affirmatively refusing to adequately light, a major multi-modal transportation artery, the City is exposed to substantial liability for any such injuries. There is no need to await for new technology; this is an argument that can always be used to delay necessary improvements. The proposed light fixtures do an excellent job of minimizing stray light, while still providing adequate light for the path. The opposition represents NIMBYism at its worst. Hopefully the council will have the courage to do the right thing and adequately light the path.
It is very important that the Southwest Path be adequately lit. We do not want to wait for a serious injury before the City provides adequate lighting. Given the obvious hazard of the city providing, and affirmatively refusing to adequately light, a major multi-modal transportation artery, the City is exposed to substantial liability for any such injuries. There is no need to await for new technology; this is an argument that can always be used to delay necessary improvements. The proposed light fixtures do an excellent job of minimizing stray light, while still providing adequate light for the path. The opposition represents NIMBYism at its worst. Hopefully the council will have the courage to do the right thing and adequately light the path.
Posted: 11/27/2012
The Southwest Bike Path is in dire need of lighting. During the many years in and after college, I've used this path extensively. I usually use it during the day, but on the occasions when I've ridden it at night, I felt pretty unsafe. There were two reasons for this feeling: 1) I was unable to see very far down the path for obstacles despite using a bike headlight and 2) I felt anyone could jump out of the shadows, accidentally or on purpose, to collide with me without notice.
At a higher level, if Madison wants to be seen as a paragon of urban biking, it is absolutely imperative that we treat the major bicycling arteries similarly to major automotive arteries. It would be laughable to even suggest omitting lights from Campus Drive and the surrounding parts of University Avenue, yet the Southwest Bike Path has just as much importance for bicycling.
The Southwest Bike Path is in dire need of lighting. During the many years in and after college, I've used this path extensively. I usually use it during the day, but on the occasions when I've ridden it at night, I felt pretty unsafe. There were two reasons for this feeling: 1) I was unable to see very far down the path for obstacles despite using a bike headlight and 2) I felt anyone could jump out of the shadows, accidentally or on purpose, to collide with me without notice.
At a higher level, if Madison wants to be seen as a paragon of urban biking, it is absolutely imperative that we treat the major bicycling arteries similarly to major automotive arteries. It would be laughable to even suggest omitting lights from Campus Drive and the surrounding parts of University Avenue, yet the Southwest Bike Path has just as much importance for bicycling.
Posted: 11/27/2012
I strongly support lighting the SW Path. I use the path mostly by bike, mostly for transportation, to get to Regent or Monroe Street or downtown, for work or shopping or weekend activities. When I ride in the dark I use lights, but the path still feels forbidding and dangerous in the dark. Obstacles are hard to see at any distance, and they appear suddenly in my path, given the short throw of a bike light. When I cross paths with other cyclists using lights, the absence of other lighting makes their oncoming lights temporarily blinding.
The SW Path is an important transportation artery, getting 3,000 users a day in peak season. If we want our downtown and neighborhoods to thrive and be livable, not choked in traffic congestion, we need to support walking and bicycling as legitimate modes of transportation. We can't just pump more and more car traffic through our neighborhoods into our narrow downtown isthmus.
I've observed the new test fixture on the path near Council Crest at night. It does not spill glare into the adjacent backyards. The City has made great efforts to find lighting fixtures that light the path without lighting neighboring property.
Come on Madison, it's time to light the SW Path!
I strongly support lighting the SW Path. I use the path mostly by bike, mostly for transportation, to get to Regent or Monroe Street or downtown, for work or shopping or weekend activities. When I ride in the dark I use lights, but the path still feels forbidding and dangerous in the dark. Obstacles are hard to see at any distance, and they appear suddenly in my path, given the short throw of a bike light. When I cross paths with other cyclists using lights, the absence of other lighting makes their oncoming lights temporarily blinding.
The SW Path is an important transportation artery, getting 3,000 users a day in peak season. If we want our downtown and neighborhoods to thrive and be livable, not choked in traffic congestion, we need to support walking and bicycling as legitimate modes of transportation. We can't just pump more and more car traffic through our neighborhoods into our narrow downtown isthmus.
I've observed the new test fixture on the path near Council Crest at night. It does not spill glare into the adjacent backyards. The City has made great efforts to find lighting fixtures that light the path without lighting neighboring property.
Come on Madison, it's time to light the SW Path!
Posted: 11/27/2012
It just doesn't seem necessary to light. Like overlighting the highways for cars... just turn your head-lights on and everyone sees you. Bikes can illuminate themselves rather than lighting up the path all night long for ten riders... Silliness!
It just doesn't seem necessary to light. Like overlighting the highways for cars... just turn your head-lights on and everyone sees you. Bikes can illuminate themselves rather than lighting up the path all night long for ten riders... Silliness!
Posted: 11/27/2012
It just doesn't seem necessary to light. Like overlighting the highways for cars... jsut turn your lights on and everyone sees you. Bikes can illuminate themselves rather than lighting up the path all night long for ten riders... Silliness!
It just doesn't seem necessary to light. Like overlighting the highways for cars... jsut turn your lights on and everyone sees you. Bikes can illuminate themselves rather than lighting up the path all night long for ten riders... Silliness!
Posted: 11/26/2012
I oppose continuous lighting the bike path anywhere between the Beltline and Breeze Terrace as presently designed. I do not live on the path but use it regularly for recreation and for commuting for work. I see no need to spend my tax dollars on this project and new hazards posed by the present design.
The paved path serves as a park for exercising (walking, biking, blading, jogging) as well as a commuter trail. At night, it is the only safe place to walk without light pollution and many people take advantage of it for that purpose. There is no documented crime issue that I am aware of, and very few night bike commuters or recreational riders who could be potentially be served by lighting- virtually all bike commuters operate during daylight hours. Many others have commented on light pollution concerns so I will not bother to amplify.
Bicyclists have a responsibility to use bike lights even in the presence of lighting, whether on a trail or street, to warn other cyclists, motorists, and pedestrian's of their presence. A good bike light provides sufficient light for bike operation. In my own experience, spot lighting can be more blinding than illuminating.
I believe the proposed lighting poles, placed a few feet from the trail, pose a collision danger to trail users of all kinds. I would not like to bike or run or blade on a trail with such hazards, whether the poles are a few feet in height or twenty feet. Many users run and walk just off the pavement to save their knees and avoid traffic and the poles may interfere also with that significant use.
If the city could document a significant need for night commuter bicycle lighting, I might support the proposal. However the other uses and safety concerns should be addressed in an integrated plan. I would suggest the lighting only be activated during restricted hours, say from 5am to sunrise and 5pm to sunset, the poles be redesigned to be placed 10' from the path and overhang it, and the shoulders be reconstructed to support pedestrian and jogger use.
I oppose continuous lighting the bike path anywhere between the Beltline and Breeze Terrace as presently designed. I do not live on the path but use it regularly for recreation and for commuting for work. I see no need to spend my tax dollars on this project and new hazards posed by the present design.
The paved path serves as a park for exercising (walking, biking, blading, jogging) as well as a commuter trail. At night, it is the only safe place to walk without light pollution and many people take advantage of it for that purpose. There is no documented crime issue that I am aware of, and very few night bike commuters or recreational riders who could be potentially be served by lighting- virtually all bike commuters operate during daylight hours. Many others have commented on light pollution concerns so I will not bother to amplify.
Bicyclists have a responsibility to use bike lights even in the presence of lighting, whether on a trail or street, to warn other cyclists, motorists, and pedestrian's of their presence. A good bike light provides sufficient light for bike operation. In my own experience, spot lighting can be more blinding than illuminating.
I believe the proposed lighting poles, placed a few feet from the trail, pose a collision danger to trail users of all kinds. I would not like to bike or run or blade on a trail with such hazards, whether the poles are a few feet in height or twenty feet. Many users run and walk just off the pavement to save their knees and avoid traffic and the poles may interfere also with that significant use.
If the city could document a significant need for night commuter bicycle lighting, I might support the proposal. However the other uses and safety concerns should be addressed in an integrated plan. I would suggest the lighting only be activated during restricted hours, say from 5am to sunrise and 5pm to sunset, the poles be redesigned to be placed 10' from the path and overhang it, and the shoulders be reconstructed to support pedestrian and jogger use.
Posted: 11/26/2012
I am an avid biker and bike commuter and use the whole Breese to Beltline section of path to commute from the University and I am AGAINST lighting of the SW bikepath that runs through this residential area. I know that if I lived along that stretch I would be opposed to the all-night backyard light pollution. Bikers using this path at night should be required to have bike lights (as required by law for any nighttime biking anywhere). Lighting should be the biker's responsibility.
As an added safety measure, I WOULD support lighting if it were dimmer ground-level lighting along the path, however, as opposed to bright overhead streetlights.
I hope you will work with residents to find an acceptable solution.
Karen Tuerk
4233 Beverly Road
.
I am an avid biker and bike commuter and use the whole Breese to Beltline section of path to commute from the University and I am AGAINST lighting of the SW bikepath that runs through this residential area. I know that if I lived along that stretch I would be opposed to the all-night backyard light pollution. Bikers using this path at night should be required to have bike lights (as required by law for any nighttime biking anywhere). Lighting should be the biker's responsibility.
As an added safety measure, I WOULD support lighting if it were dimmer ground-level lighting along the path, however, as opposed to bright overhead streetlights.
I hope you will work with residents to find an acceptable solution.
Karen Tuerk
4233 Beverly Road
.
Posted: 11/26/2012
I strongly support lighting of the SW Bike path. I use both the SW and eastside Capitol City Bike paths as a biker and a pedestrian and feel much, much safer on the lighted eastside path than on the SW path in both situations. Please light this dark and dangerous city transportation corridor.
I strongly support lighting of the SW Bike path. I use both the SW and eastside Capitol City Bike paths as a biker and a pedestrian and feel much, much safer on the lighted eastside path than on the SW path in both situations. Please light this dark and dangerous city transportation corridor.
Posted: 11/26/2012
Many of the objections to the lights have to do with keeping the path dark for sky-gazers and nature lovers. But these arguments would apply to any street in Madison. Our streets are lit for good reasons. The Southwest Bike path carries a great deal of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. We would never consider keeping a busy street dark.
Additionally, I feel a bit insecure when walking on the path at night by myself. I carry lights...I don't fear bicycles. I fear some nut may think I have something he wants. I would feel much more comfortable if there were some light.
Many of the objections to the lights have to do with keeping the path dark for sky-gazers and nature lovers. But these arguments would apply to any street in Madison. Our streets are lit for good reasons. The Southwest Bike path carries a great deal of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. We would never consider keeping a busy street dark.
Additionally, I feel a bit insecure when walking on the path at night by myself. I carry lights...I don't fear bicycles. I fear some nut may think I have something he wants. I would feel much more comfortable if there were some light.
Posted: 11/20/2012
I travel the SW Path as a daily commuter. One night while traveling the path in darkness by bike with front and rear lights, I traveled up to one of the test lights. I could not see beyond the light in the darkness but could hear voices and an infant. I had no idea they were there before hearing them. The light interferred with my ability to accommodate to the darkness beyond the light. The path lights became a safety hazard for me and the unlit pedestrians using the path.
During daylight hours and heavy traffic I can count multiple close misses with other path users. All of these could have been avoided by proper path etiquette by path users. Will lighting the path increase use with the potential of increased close calls and potential crashes similar to my experience during the day time? I do not consider this a solution.
I am not convinced that the path lighting will increase safety. I urge the city to reconsider the SW Path lighting project.
I travel the SW Path as a daily commuter. One night while traveling the path in darkness by bike with front and rear lights, I traveled up to one of the test lights. I could not see beyond the light in the darkness but could hear voices and an infant. I had no idea they were there before hearing them. The light interferred with my ability to accommodate to the darkness beyond the light. The path lights became a safety hazard for me and the unlit pedestrians using the path.
During daylight hours and heavy traffic I can count multiple close misses with other path users. All of these could have been avoided by proper path etiquette by path users. Will lighting the path increase use with the potential of increased close calls and potential crashes similar to my experience during the day time? I do not consider this a solution.
I am not convinced that the path lighting will increase safety. I urge the city to reconsider the SW Path lighting project.
Posted: 11/20/2012
I would like to add to the comments against the current lighting of the bikepath. The test lights are too bright and too tall, and feel unfriendly more like surveillance than neighborhood safety. Surely a combination of less obtrusive lighting, signage and education regarding the importance of personal lights for ALL users after dark would be more constructive approach.
I would like to add to the comments against the current lighting of the bikepath. The test lights are too bright and too tall, and feel unfriendly more like surveillance than neighborhood safety. Surely a combination of less obtrusive lighting, signage and education regarding the importance of personal lights for ALL users after dark would be more constructive approach.
Posted: 11/16/2012
As a frequent user of the bike path, I fully support the lighting installation for the obvious safety benefits the lights will provide for the greater good of the community - something everyone should be able to embrace. The engineering staff has done a tremendous job!
As a frequent user of the bike path, I fully support the lighting installation for the obvious safety benefits the lights will provide for the greater good of the community - something everyone should be able to embrace. The engineering staff has done a tremendous job!
Posted: 11/15/2012
Is there research that shows a correlation between increased bike commuting rates after lighting a bike path? I'm also wondering if there is research that shows a correlation between an increased sense of safety and lighting of bike paths or walkways? If so, can you please share. Lastly, can you tell me where I can find the results from the user survey conducted this summer. I very much appreciate your help with these questions.
Sincerely,
Rachel Martin
Is there research that shows a correlation between increased bike commuting rates after lighting a bike path? I'm also wondering if there is research that shows a correlation between an increased sense of safety and lighting of bike paths or walkways? If so, can you please share. Lastly, can you tell me where I can find the results from the user survey conducted this summer. I very much appreciate your help with these questions.
Sincerely,
Rachel Martin
Posted: 11/15/2012
As a frequent user of the SW path-both day & night I am strongly opposed to the lighting. But obviously there are many who want lighting.
The test lighting is terrible, too bright & too tall. There is no reason to use such ugly lighting when better alternatives are available at much lower cost.
If you must light the path why not use lower poles, 3-5 ft. hight with landscape lights with down lights that illuminate only the paved path, not the entire world around the path.
This would be a reasonable compromise, do a test fixture of this idea and see what folks think.
As a frequent user of the SW path-both day & night I am strongly opposed to the lighting. But obviously there are many who want lighting.
The test lighting is terrible, too bright & too tall. There is no reason to use such ugly lighting when better alternatives are available at much lower cost.
If you must light the path why not use lower poles, 3-5 ft. hight with landscape lights with down lights that illuminate only the paved path, not the entire world around the path.
This would be a reasonable compromise, do a test fixture of this idea and see what folks think.
Posted: 11/15/2012
I'm a bike federation member and a year round bike commuter who does not live on the path. As much as I love bike commuting and want to encourage it, I oppose the overhead lights.
From an aesthetic and practical standpoint I think a good headlamp is a much preferable alternative. And while I know overhead lighting would make some bikers feel safer I also think predators would find it easier to assess the size and sex of a biker illuminated from above than one who is identifiable only by headlamp directed ahead of him/her.
I would favor spending the money that we might have used on lighting the Southwest path on expanding our trail network instead. I think that's a bigger obstacle to bike commuting now than the lack of lighting.
I'm a bike federation member and a year round bike commuter who does not live on the path. As much as I love bike commuting and want to encourage it, I oppose the overhead lights.
From an aesthetic and practical standpoint I think a good headlamp is a much preferable alternative. And while I know overhead lighting would make some bikers feel safer I also think predators would find it easier to assess the size and sex of a biker illuminated from above than one who is identifiable only by headlamp directed ahead of him/her.
I would favor spending the money that we might have used on lighting the Southwest path on expanding our trail network instead. I think that's a bigger obstacle to bike commuting now than the lack of lighting.
Posted: 11/15/2012
I use the bike path nearly every work day for bicycle commuting and often after dark. I do not support the installation of lighting. I feel it would detract from the current aesthetic. If possible, bike/pedestrian lights should be a requirement for any user of the trail after dark.
I use the bike path nearly every work day for bicycle commuting and often after dark. I do not support the installation of lighting. I feel it would detract from the current aesthetic. If possible, bike/pedestrian lights should be a requirement for any user of the trail after dark.
Posted: 11/15/2012
What is the status of the project? I recently used the commuter path in the early evening, and nearly hit two unlit walkers. We need to move forward on this. According to the survey, the majority of respondents support some sort of lighting. Thank you!
What is the status of the project? I recently used the commuter path in the early evening, and nearly hit two unlit walkers. We need to move forward on this. According to the survey, the majority of respondents support some sort of lighting. Thank you!
Posted: 11/15/2012
I am not sure where the planning and proposal progress is on lighting the Southwest bike path, but wanted to take a moment to add my voice to the growing number of people discouraging this project. I live directly on the path and use it for running and bike commuting, and I disagree with this project for many reasons that are not limited to my enjoyment of starry nights. We have even seen the Northern Lights in our backyard!
As a former wildlife biologist (and current veterinarian), I can tell you with certainty that our neighborhood and bike path is used as a wildlife habitat and corridor for several species of owls (including Barred and Great Horned owls), deer, and coyote. We have never had any problem with crime that involved the bike path. In fact, as a woman, I am concerned that lighting the path would decrease my safety. Someone could hide in the newly created shadows of the lights and see for a long ways if anyone else was nearby. I much prefer relying on my own night vision and hearing or taking personal responsibility for being safe with a light or reflective gear.
This bike path is a multi-user path, a concept that will be endangered with lighting. It is already safe. This is Madison. I cannot understand why Madisonians would argue for more light pollution and waste of financial resources. Why are we talking about spending money this way? Please spend the money more constructively with a bike path user educational campaign for safety and proper etiquette.
I am not sure where the planning and proposal progress is on lighting the Southwest bike path, but wanted to take a moment to add my voice to the growing number of people discouraging this project. I live directly on the path and use it for running and bike commuting, and I disagree with this project for many reasons that are not limited to my enjoyment of starry nights. We have even seen the Northern Lights in our backyard!
As a former wildlife biologist (and current veterinarian), I can tell you with certainty that our neighborhood and bike path is used as a wildlife habitat and corridor for several species of owls (including Barred and Great Horned owls), deer, and coyote. We have never had any problem with crime that involved the bike path. In fact, as a woman, I am concerned that lighting the path would decrease my safety. Someone could hide in the newly created shadows of the lights and see for a long ways if anyone else was nearby. I much prefer relying on my own night vision and hearing or taking personal responsibility for being safe with a light or reflective gear.
This bike path is a multi-user path, a concept that will be endangered with lighting. It is already safe. This is Madison. I cannot understand why Madisonians would argue for more light pollution and waste of financial resources. Why are we talking about spending money this way? Please spend the money more constructively with a bike path user educational campaign for safety and proper etiquette.
Posted: 11/15/2012
I live in a neighborhood abutting the bike path. I use the bike path as commuting option (biking and walking) and for exercise (running and biking). I have used the path over the years after hours without concerns for my safety of safety of others.
Trial light fixture: I observed this last night. I find it specifically LESS safe and want to highlight my concern as a female that the light allows the opportunity for a person with malcontent to 'stake out' and observe their targets by being in the darkness and watching people move through the lighted area.
Currently anyone using the bike path corridor is appropriately defensive and prepared to manage adverse situations which fortunately are extremely rare. User beware is a functioning model currently.
I, as so many others state, go the bike path specifically for esthetics of the outdoors. I stay indoors for lighting. I go outdoors for peace and quiet. The unlit bike path is an esthetically pleasing environment and critical as a natural space to healthy living in an urban environment.
As safety is the one of the primary claims to the purpose of this project, I strongly state my position that these pose more of a threat to vulnerable populations. As a female and mother this is of great concern to me.
I move strongly against this project as a taxpayer and citizen of Madison.
I live in a neighborhood abutting the bike path. I use the bike path as commuting option (biking and walking) and for exercise (running and biking). I have used the path over the years after hours without concerns for my safety of safety of others.
Trial light fixture: I observed this last night. I find it specifically LESS safe and want to highlight my concern as a female that the light allows the opportunity for a person with malcontent to 'stake out' and observe their targets by being in the darkness and watching people move through the lighted area.
Currently anyone using the bike path corridor is appropriately defensive and prepared to manage adverse situations which fortunately are extremely rare. User beware is a functioning model currently.
I, as so many others state, go the bike path specifically for esthetics of the outdoors. I stay indoors for lighting. I go outdoors for peace and quiet. The unlit bike path is an esthetically pleasing environment and critical as a natural space to healthy living in an urban environment.
As safety is the one of the primary claims to the purpose of this project, I strongly state my position that these pose more of a threat to vulnerable populations. As a female and mother this is of great concern to me.
I move strongly against this project as a taxpayer and citizen of Madison.
Posted: 11/15/2012
The SW Commute Path from Breese Terrace to the Beltline is one of the most dangerous bike routes in the city at night. Because it is so heavily traveled and that many joggers (and some bikers) fail to use their own headlights, the potential for severe crashes is great. I use the path daily and have had some near misses due to the lack of a use of a light by pedestrians.
I've read some of the other comments saying that only the use of bike lights is sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. The main issue is consistent lighting, which lighting the SW Path would provide. Bicyclists use a variety of lights at night, some which provide too much glare for oncoming traffic, and some are not bright enough at all. The test lights already on the path work great, and we need more of them. The light emitted from these is inobtrusive and only adds to safety.
I would think everyone would want a safer bike path, which only the proposed lighting would provide. To not install these lights on such a heavily-used segment is completely unsafe and irresponsible.
The SW Commute Path from Breese Terrace to the Beltline is one of the most dangerous bike routes in the city at night. Because it is so heavily traveled and that many joggers (and some bikers) fail to use their own headlights, the potential for severe crashes is great. I use the path daily and have had some near misses due to the lack of a use of a light by pedestrians.
I've read some of the other comments saying that only the use of bike lights is sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. The main issue is consistent lighting, which lighting the SW Path would provide. Bicyclists use a variety of lights at night, some which provide too much glare for oncoming traffic, and some are not bright enough at all. The test lights already on the path work great, and we need more of them. The light emitted from these is inobtrusive and only adds to safety.
I would think everyone would want a safer bike path, which only the proposed lighting would provide. To not install these lights on such a heavily-used segment is completely unsafe and irresponsible.
Posted: 11/15/2012
I love to ride the path back and forth to work downtown but am uneasy on the section between Midvale and the Beltline, as that section does not back up to yards and homes as the rest of the path does (and hence feels very safe without lights)especially in the fall. Why not compromise and light the section from Midvale to the Beltline and leave the rest alone?
I love to ride the path back and forth to work downtown but am uneasy on the section between Midvale and the Beltline, as that section does not back up to yards and homes as the rest of the path does (and hence feels very safe without lights)especially in the fall. Why not compromise and light the section from Midvale to the Beltline and leave the rest alone?
Posted: 11/15/2012
I live in the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood, about a half block from the bike path. I have used the bike path as a pedestrian/dog walker and as a commuter. I regularly come home from work in the dark. I am opposed to the lighting project. I find it distracting and wish that walkers and bikers would use lights at night. That would be more energy efficient, safer, and would demonstrate respect for those who live near the path and have appreciated the quiet, the wildlife, and the darkness that the path and the former railroad tracks represent.
I live in the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood, about a half block from the bike path. I have used the bike path as a pedestrian/dog walker and as a commuter. I regularly come home from work in the dark. I am opposed to the lighting project. I find it distracting and wish that walkers and bikers would use lights at night. That would be more energy efficient, safer, and would demonstrate respect for those who live near the path and have appreciated the quiet, the wildlife, and the darkness that the path and the former railroad tracks represent.
Posted: 11/15/2012
How many crashes and near crashes occurred during yesterday's safety extravaganza? Let's pull down the signs and put up the lights.
How many crashes and near crashes occurred during yesterday's safety extravaganza? Let's pull down the signs and put up the lights.
Posted: 11/15/2012
Dear City and Traffic Engineering. I am a regular four-season commuter and recreational user of the Southwest Commuter Path. I attended the July 19th Meeting and reviewed the presentation again and have some questions that I hope you will answer:
1) Are there any signs along this section of path that recommend or remind bikers, runners or walkers that they should have a bike light, blinkers or reflectors?
If not, why not?
2) Is there any signage in this section posting a speed limit or even just suggesting that cyclists moderate their speed when the path is crowded?
If not, why not?
3) This is a multi-use path, and many people recreate and even commute on foot daily. In terms of user-hours, use by pedestrians and runners might even outweigh cyclists on this section. Why do your signs at intersections on (only) this section say "Southwest Bike Path" Instead of "Southwest Path", as in other areas?
4) Why do you refer to this as a "bike path" instead of, say, "Southwest Path" , "commuter path", "multi-use path" or "bike-ped path" on your website?
5) Does the city favor cycling over other non-motorized transportation options such as running, walking or skating?
6) This section of path seems more heavily used at night than the lighted path paralleling Willy Street on the East Side. This is especially true of pedestrians in the wintertime. Is there any firm evidence (not just selective anecdote) that overall use won't actually *decrease* if overhead lights are installed on the SW path?
7) Did your survey of path users inform respondents that the lights being proposed were *overhead* lights?
8) Did the survey establish whether respondents had seen the test lights?
9) Has City or Traffic Engineering ever performed any testing to support their assertion that a typical modern bike light does not light the pavement sufficiently (in situations where overhead lights are not already present)?
Thanks for this forum and your time.
Dear City and Traffic Engineering. I am a regular four-season commuter and recreational user of the Southwest Commuter Path. I attended the July 19th Meeting and reviewed the presentation again and have some questions that I hope you will answer:
1) Are there any signs along this section of path that recommend or remind bikers, runners or walkers that they should have a bike light, blinkers or reflectors?
If not, why not?
2) Is there any signage in this section posting a speed limit or even just suggesting that cyclists moderate their speed when the path is crowded?
If not, why not?
3) This is a multi-use path, and many people recreate and even commute on foot daily. In terms of user-hours, use by pedestrians and runners might even outweigh cyclists on this section. Why do your signs at intersections on (only) this section say "Southwest Bike Path" Instead of "Southwest Path", as in other areas?
4) Why do you refer to this as a "bike path" instead of, say, "Southwest Path" , "commuter path", "multi-use path" or "bike-ped path" on your website?
5) Does the city favor cycling over other non-motorized transportation options such as running, walking or skating?
6) This section of path seems more heavily used at night than the lighted path paralleling Willy Street on the East Side. This is especially true of pedestrians in the wintertime. Is there any firm evidence (not just selective anecdote) that overall use won't actually *decrease* if overhead lights are installed on the SW path?
7) Did your survey of path users inform respondents that the lights being proposed were *overhead* lights?
8) Did the survey establish whether respondents had seen the test lights?
9) Has City or Traffic Engineering ever performed any testing to support their assertion that a typical modern bike light does not light the pavement sufficiently (in situations where overhead lights are not already present)?
Thanks for this forum and your time.
Posted: 11/15/2012
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. I've lived in the Dudgeon Monroe neighborhood long enough to know the bike path with and without the test lights. The path is much better WITHOUT the lights. My bike light does a sufficient job lighting the path for me, and I believe it is against the law for cyclists to be out after dark without bike lights. There is no safety issue as long as we bike responsibly. I encourage you to empathize with my neighbors who have the path in their back yard and the wildlife that lives around the path. Let's not encroach into their lives any more than we already are.
Lighting the path is a colossal waste of public funds and electricity. A bridge to no ware. Please abandon this project and tackle the serious public safety issue, crossing the gauntlet known as Monroe Street. I watched TWO people literally scraped off the road and driven away in an ambulance this year alone. In 2009 I too was hit by a car, albeit lightly, in a crosswalk on Monroe St.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. I've lived in the Dudgeon Monroe neighborhood long enough to know the bike path with and without the test lights. The path is much better WITHOUT the lights. My bike light does a sufficient job lighting the path for me, and I believe it is against the law for cyclists to be out after dark without bike lights. There is no safety issue as long as we bike responsibly. I encourage you to empathize with my neighbors who have the path in their back yard and the wildlife that lives around the path. Let's not encroach into their lives any more than we already are.
Lighting the path is a colossal waste of public funds and electricity. A bridge to no ware. Please abandon this project and tackle the serious public safety issue, crossing the gauntlet known as Monroe Street. I watched TWO people literally scraped off the road and driven away in an ambulance this year alone. In 2009 I too was hit by a car, albeit lightly, in a crosswalk on Monroe St.
Posted: 11/15/2012
Please do not light the bike path.
I am a heavy user of the path, including at night, and a neighborhood resident. I firmly believe that personal lighting is sufficient for nighttime use of the path and that extra lighting is unnecessary and would be a man-made pollutant to the night environment on the path.
Please consider that rural roads have no lighting and we believe that we can safely use them at night with nothing more than personal and vehicle lighting. Why wouldn't we expect the same for the bike path?
thanks
George Marcus
2705 Gregory St
Please do not light the bike path.
I am a heavy user of the path, including at night, and a neighborhood resident. I firmly believe that personal lighting is sufficient for nighttime use of the path and that extra lighting is unnecessary and would be a man-made pollutant to the night environment on the path.
Please consider that rural roads have no lighting and we believe that we can safely use them at night with nothing more than personal and vehicle lighting. Why wouldn't we expect the same for the bike path?
thanks
George Marcus
2705 Gregory St
Posted: 08/31/2012
I've been commuting past the test light behind Gregory St in the pre-dawn hours since it was installed. I really dislike the effect the dark-to light-to dark transition has on my night vision. I can see consistently better-and farther-with my bikelight.
I don't believe this project would prove beneficial nor cost effective and I do hope it is abandoned. The safety of night users is dependent on personal responsibility: that of the pedestrian to be seen (either with reflective clothing or some kind of lighting) and that of the bicyclist to use a bike light (as is required by law).
This is a solution in search of a problem. Please leave the pathway unlit.
I've been commuting past the test light behind Gregory St in the pre-dawn hours since it was installed. I really dislike the effect the dark-to light-to dark transition has on my night vision. I can see consistently better-and farther-with my bikelight.
I don't believe this project would prove beneficial nor cost effective and I do hope it is abandoned. The safety of night users is dependent on personal responsibility: that of the pedestrian to be seen (either with reflective clothing or some kind of lighting) and that of the bicyclist to use a bike light (as is required by law).
This is a solution in search of a problem. Please leave the pathway unlit.
Posted: 08/27/2012
I live in the neighborhood and use the bike path for daily bike commuting, running, and walking with my dogs. I use the path all year long, rain or snow or sun, dark or light. As a regular user of the path, I have never understood the need/desire for the lights, and still do not feel that the city has demonstrated a clear need for the lights. Having said that, I tried to be objective when I first went to see the proposed light installed behind Gregory St. I rode away from that experience blinded and well encamped on the "no lights" side of the debate. Last night, my dog walk was longer than expected and I had forgotten my lights. I used this opportunity to again test my allegiance to "no lights" - would I still prefer darkness when I was relatively "unsafe" by forgetting lights ? Despite being quite dark (9pm, a little moon but not much), I could see MUCH better where my eyes were allowed to adjust. I was able to hear and then see the biker who passed me (without lights) just fine, and could see far enough ahead that I also felt comfortable that I wouldn't be too startled or startle anyone else. But once I got towards the "safety" of the light, I had to divert my eyes to my feet for the harshness of the light. And then the area that the light covered was so small - is the proposal to have lights spaced every 25 feet so that there is no bright white to pitch black transition between lights?? It took such a long time before my eyes re-adjusted to the comfort of the dark, and it was only then when I felt most vulnerable to being in someone's way.
While I certainly prefer (and advocate) using the bike path responsibly at night with personal lights to let others know you are there, even on such a night where I forgot a light, I didn't feel unsafe, and I didn't feel invisible.
I apologize to any users last night who may have been startled by my dark figure walking down the path. But, I don't think any of us would have been any better served by the harsh lighting proposed that would have us walking through a disjointed line of uber-bright to ubber-dark, unable to look anywhere but straight down at our feet. Last night, the evening did not feel black until I walked pass the light.
Please. No lights.
I live in the neighborhood and use the bike path for daily bike commuting, running, and walking with my dogs. I use the path all year long, rain or snow or sun, dark or light. As a regular user of the path, I have never understood the need/desire for the lights, and still do not feel that the city has demonstrated a clear need for the lights. Having said that, I tried to be objective when I first went to see the proposed light installed behind Gregory St. I rode away from that experience blinded and well encamped on the "no lights" side of the debate. Last night, my dog walk was longer than expected and I had forgotten my lights. I used this opportunity to again test my allegiance to "no lights" - would I still prefer darkness when I was relatively "unsafe" by forgetting lights ? Despite being quite dark (9pm, a little moon but not much), I could see MUCH better where my eyes were allowed to adjust. I was able to hear and then see the biker who passed me (without lights) just fine, and could see far enough ahead that I also felt comfortable that I wouldn't be too startled or startle anyone else. But once I got towards the "safety" of the light, I had to divert my eyes to my feet for the harshness of the light. And then the area that the light covered was so small - is the proposal to have lights spaced every 25 feet so that there is no bright white to pitch black transition between lights?? It took such a long time before my eyes re-adjusted to the comfort of the dark, and it was only then when I felt most vulnerable to being in someone's way.
While I certainly prefer (and advocate) using the bike path responsibly at night with personal lights to let others know you are there, even on such a night where I forgot a light, I didn't feel unsafe, and I didn't feel invisible.
I apologize to any users last night who may have been startled by my dark figure walking down the path. But, I don't think any of us would have been any better served by the harsh lighting proposed that would have us walking through a disjointed line of uber-bright to ubber-dark, unable to look anywhere but straight down at our feet. Last night, the evening did not feel black until I walked pass the light.
Please. No lights.
Posted: 08/27/2012
Just came off the bike path from a run and I noticed some individual efforts to raise awareness about visibility and lighting when on the bike path after dark. One was a simple reflective card clothes-pinned to marker that walkers could use and return, but also encouraged people to get their own. This is brilliant! It would be amazing to see what the city could accomplish along these same lines if they used the funds slated for bike path lighting to educate users about safety and responsibility instead.
Just came off the bike path from a run and I noticed some individual efforts to raise awareness about visibility and lighting when on the bike path after dark. One was a simple reflective card clothes-pinned to marker that walkers could use and return, but also encouraged people to get their own. This is brilliant! It would be amazing to see what the city could accomplish along these same lines if they used the funds slated for bike path lighting to educate users about safety and responsibility instead.
Posted: 08/27/2012
I am a frequent bike rider on the SW trail, mostly during the day but sometimes at night. I personally would like lights as it would make the night/dark commute easier. I have an easier time seeing where I am going with ambient lights instead of just relying on my bike headlight.
SW trail is a great way to get from the west side to downtown and back, but at night I often ride on the streets because the trail is so dark. If I do ride on SW, I have to drastically cut my speed to feel safe.
I can't factually say whether lights will make the path safer or more dangerous from a crime perspective, but it seems like they'd make it safer and the anecdotal evidence of other public paths being lighted (ie, the path on Mendota between Picnic Point and the Union; various lights/emergency beacons around Camp Randall) would suggest that lights improve safety.
The biggest theme I see in these comments is opinions presented as facts with no support. It's fine to say you want/don't want lights and why. Feeling like the lights make biking easier or may disrupt the wildlife or your star view is also fine. But some folks are making claims that lights are dangerous to wildlife or are helpful/harmful to crime but those opinions are presented as facts, but with no supporting evidence.
So in summary, I'm in favor of lights because they will make my commute easier. I can't imagine they will increase crime (but don't know) and I don't know (and don't really care) if they affect the local "wildlife" (rabbits, squirrels, birds).
I am a frequent bike rider on the SW trail, mostly during the day but sometimes at night. I personally would like lights as it would make the night/dark commute easier. I have an easier time seeing where I am going with ambient lights instead of just relying on my bike headlight.
SW trail is a great way to get from the west side to downtown and back, but at night I often ride on the streets because the trail is so dark. If I do ride on SW, I have to drastically cut my speed to feel safe.
I can't factually say whether lights will make the path safer or more dangerous from a crime perspective, but it seems like they'd make it safer and the anecdotal evidence of other public paths being lighted (ie, the path on Mendota between Picnic Point and the Union; various lights/emergency beacons around Camp Randall) would suggest that lights improve safety.
The biggest theme I see in these comments is opinions presented as facts with no support. It's fine to say you want/don't want lights and why. Feeling like the lights make biking easier or may disrupt the wildlife or your star view is also fine. But some folks are making claims that lights are dangerous to wildlife or are helpful/harmful to crime but those opinions are presented as facts, but with no supporting evidence.
So in summary, I'm in favor of lights because they will make my commute easier. I can't imagine they will increase crime (but don't know) and I don't know (and don't really care) if they affect the local "wildlife" (rabbits, squirrels, birds).
Posted: 08/15/2012
Just got off the SW path on my regular commute from Downtown. Pitch Black, no Moon. I had no problem seeing perfectly fine with my small LED Bike light.
Other bikes (saw at least a dozen from Breeze to Odana where I turn off) had lights and I could see they were coming from really far away. I could also see all reflectors along the path for about 12 reflectors (how far is that?). I saw a couple joggers- one had a light the other didn't; who cares, I could see them both fine from way down the path. I was going about 15 MPH, which isn't exactly a crawl.
I got passed by at least one other biker. One guy had a headlamp on that seemed to work pretty well. I could even tell way beforehand that he was coming up on me because of the light reflecting off of stuff in front of me. Putting in a bunch of fixed lights would probably take away my ability to know when someone is approaching from behind and then you are not helping me or anyone else that uses this path.
I think I might still be seeing spots from the LED test light right before Glenway. It would be a serious hazard if those were installed. I am pretty sure that those writing below who say that this is a great idea have probably never rode on this path at night and definitely have never seen this test light at night.
Lights like these test lights are a really bad idea if you care at all about safety or comfort of bike riders. Don't do it.
Also, thanks for doing this comment space and the test lights. If you had just gone ahead and put these lights in you would have gotten a lot of complaints and nobody using this path anymore at night.
Just got off the SW path on my regular commute from Downtown. Pitch Black, no Moon. I had no problem seeing perfectly fine with my small LED Bike light.
Other bikes (saw at least a dozen from Breeze to Odana where I turn off) had lights and I could see they were coming from really far away. I could also see all reflectors along the path for about 12 reflectors (how far is that?). I saw a couple joggers- one had a light the other didn't; who cares, I could see them both fine from way down the path. I was going about 15 MPH, which isn't exactly a crawl.
I got passed by at least one other biker. One guy had a headlamp on that seemed to work pretty well. I could even tell way beforehand that he was coming up on me because of the light reflecting off of stuff in front of me. Putting in a bunch of fixed lights would probably take away my ability to know when someone is approaching from behind and then you are not helping me or anyone else that uses this path.
I think I might still be seeing spots from the LED test light right before Glenway. It would be a serious hazard if those were installed. I am pretty sure that those writing below who say that this is a great idea have probably never rode on this path at night and definitely have never seen this test light at night.
Lights like these test lights are a really bad idea if you care at all about safety or comfort of bike riders. Don't do it.
Also, thanks for doing this comment space and the test lights. If you had just gone ahead and put these lights in you would have gotten a lot of complaints and nobody using this path anymore at night.
Posted: 08/15/2012
Ditto what many others have said - Crime is not a concern on the bike path and the spirit of trust is one of the most attractive features of the bike path. I am a frequent rider/runner/walker of the paths and usually abide by courteous standards (wearing a light at night, ringing a bell when passing, etc.) On those rare occasions when I am out later than anticipated and don't have a light, I bike a little slower to be courteous of other people, but actually feel safer biking in the complete darkness/starlight, because my eyes and other senses adjust to the conditions, and I make sure to ring my bell well before I approach anyone. I notice in other bike paths (temin lakeshore, for example) the lights really kill my night vision and make me worried I could hit someone who was right beyond the light because I can't see anything. The way I have learned to compensate for this is something I learned from pirates - I close one eye as I look towards the light to retain some of the night vision in that eye, and then open it after I'm past the light. However, it does seem a little silly to me that I should have to do that just to be able to see where I'm going, when the supposed point to having a light is to HELP people see. LOL!
The other thing is that I really enjoy the sense of peace that comes from being in a resting forested area at night, it is really comforting. The lights, I feel, are a bit jarring, and would disrupt this sense, and cause people to have less respect for the green spaces along the bike path. As mentioned by others, wildlife must live all night, every night, with any lights we put into their homes. I think the decision should not be made lightly (haha), and I'm glad the city has asked for public input on the matter. I think with the push to "hypermodernize" the city, we endanger some of the key features that make Madison a lovely place to live, and the bike path corridor is beautiful, safe, efficient, and friendly as it is. As they say, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it".
Ditto what many others have said - Crime is not a concern on the bike path and the spirit of trust is one of the most attractive features of the bike path. I am a frequent rider/runner/walker of the paths and usually abide by courteous standards (wearing a light at night, ringing a bell when passing, etc.) On those rare occasions when I am out later than anticipated and don't have a light, I bike a little slower to be courteous of other people, but actually feel safer biking in the complete darkness/starlight, because my eyes and other senses adjust to the conditions, and I make sure to ring my bell well before I approach anyone. I notice in other bike paths (temin lakeshore, for example) the lights really kill my night vision and make me worried I could hit someone who was right beyond the light because I can't see anything. The way I have learned to compensate for this is something I learned from pirates - I close one eye as I look towards the light to retain some of the night vision in that eye, and then open it after I'm past the light. However, it does seem a little silly to me that I should have to do that just to be able to see where I'm going, when the supposed point to having a light is to HELP people see. LOL!
The other thing is that I really enjoy the sense of peace that comes from being in a resting forested area at night, it is really comforting. The lights, I feel, are a bit jarring, and would disrupt this sense, and cause people to have less respect for the green spaces along the bike path. As mentioned by others, wildlife must live all night, every night, with any lights we put into their homes. I think the decision should not be made lightly (haha), and I'm glad the city has asked for public input on the matter. I think with the push to "hypermodernize" the city, we endanger some of the key features that make Madison a lovely place to live, and the bike path corridor is beautiful, safe, efficient, and friendly as it is. As they say, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it".
Posted: 08/06/2012
I have ridden past the proposed lighting on the southwest trail a few times now. It seems that the concerns of the neighbors is more than addressed by the cutoff nature and shielding provided. However, I believe the fixtures chosen are much too harsh for the cyclists using the path.
Each time I rode in the test area, I found that the luminaires provided a great deal of discomfort glare, which hampered my ability to see into the dark area between the fixtures. In order to not create this glare, these fixtures need to be diffused in some way and significantly reduced in light output.
With a completely dark trail, my bike headlight allows me to see hundreds of feet ahead because my eyes are allowed to adjust to the conditions.
These luminaires restrict the ability for the eye to compensate for the darkness and I believe that they lessen rider's ability to see far down the trail (with a small, legally required headlight) they will enhance it. They will surely make riding the trail at night much less comfortable and enjoyable.
Please consider some other options and provide multiple test zones of different lumen output and light distribution. Thank You!
Michael A Libby, PE (electrical engineering and lighting design)
I have ridden past the proposed lighting on the southwest trail a few times now. It seems that the concerns of the neighbors is more than addressed by the cutoff nature and shielding provided. However, I believe the fixtures chosen are much too harsh for the cyclists using the path.
Each time I rode in the test area, I found that the luminaires provided a great deal of discomfort glare, which hampered my ability to see into the dark area between the fixtures. In order to not create this glare, these fixtures need to be diffused in some way and significantly reduced in light output.
With a completely dark trail, my bike headlight allows me to see hundreds of feet ahead because my eyes are allowed to adjust to the conditions.
These luminaires restrict the ability for the eye to compensate for the darkness and I believe that they lessen rider's ability to see far down the trail (with a small, legally required headlight) they will enhance it. They will surely make riding the trail at night much less comfortable and enjoyable.
Please consider some other options and provide multiple test zones of different lumen output and light distribution. Thank You!
Michael A Libby, PE (electrical engineering and lighting design)
Posted: 08/06/2012
I have ridden past the proposed lighting on the southwest trail a few times now. It seems that the concerns of the neighbors is more than addressed by the cutoff nature and shielding provided. However, I believe the fixtures chosen are much too harsh for the cyclists using the path.
Each time I rode in the test area, I found that the luminaires provided a great deal of discomfort glare, which hampered my ability to see into the dark area between the fixtures. In order to not create this glare, these fixtures need to be diffused in some way and significantly reduced in light output.
With a completely dark trail, my bike headlight allows me to see hundreds of feet ahead because my eyes are allowed to adjust to the conditions.
These luminaires restrict the ability for the eye to compensate for the darkness and I believe that they lessen rider's ability to see far down the trail (with a small, legally required headlight) much more than they will enhance it. They will surely make riding the trail at night much less comfortable and enjoyable.
Please consider some other options and provide multiple test zones of different lumen output and light distribution. Thank You!
Michael A Libby, PE (electrical engineering and lighting design)
I have ridden past the proposed lighting on the southwest trail a few times now. It seems that the concerns of the neighbors is more than addressed by the cutoff nature and shielding provided. However, I believe the fixtures chosen are much too harsh for the cyclists using the path.
Each time I rode in the test area, I found that the luminaires provided a great deal of discomfort glare, which hampered my ability to see into the dark area between the fixtures. In order to not create this glare, these fixtures need to be diffused in some way and significantly reduced in light output.
With a completely dark trail, my bike headlight allows me to see hundreds of feet ahead because my eyes are allowed to adjust to the conditions.
These luminaires restrict the ability for the eye to compensate for the darkness and I believe that they lessen rider's ability to see far down the trail (with a small, legally required headlight) much more than they will enhance it. They will surely make riding the trail at night much less comfortable and enjoyable.
Please consider some other options and provide multiple test zones of different lumen output and light distribution. Thank You!
Michael A Libby, PE (electrical engineering and lighting design)
Posted: 08/03/2012
Hello,
I will willingly abide by the decision of the majority. I'm pleased at the many comments and many well thought out items.
I am a regular daytime and nighttime rider. With my bike lights, I have no problem negotiating this path at night, and have had no collisions, or even near misses, at night.
Having read the comments of others, I wouldn't feel safer, at night, with lights on the path, in terms of crime. I might feel a little safer, in terms of seeing obstacles on the path.
For those concerned about ice on the path, in the winter, I heartily recommend studded bicycle tires. I'm amazed at how securely I ride in the winter, with studded tires.
If the money were mine to spend, I think it would be neat to build a snow shed, on the heavily used Geenbush Link, which is often snowy and icey, in the winter, and gets regular pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Parts are in the shade, and get lumpy, clumpy ice and snow, that is a challenge to ride on, even with studed tires.
Peace,
Evan
Hello,
I will willingly abide by the decision of the majority. I'm pleased at the many comments and many well thought out items.
I am a regular daytime and nighttime rider. With my bike lights, I have no problem negotiating this path at night, and have had no collisions, or even near misses, at night.
Having read the comments of others, I wouldn't feel safer, at night, with lights on the path, in terms of crime. I might feel a little safer, in terms of seeing obstacles on the path.
For those concerned about ice on the path, in the winter, I heartily recommend studded bicycle tires. I'm amazed at how securely I ride in the winter, with studded tires.
If the money were mine to spend, I think it would be neat to build a snow shed, on the heavily used Geenbush Link, which is often snowy and icey, in the winter, and gets regular pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Parts are in the shade, and get lumpy, clumpy ice and snow, that is a challenge to ride on, even with studed tires.
Peace,
Evan
Posted: 08/03/2012
Is it too late to divert the $300,000 away from the proposed S. W. Path lights to provide security in the the university ave campus area. I know that the area is well lighted, but is now unsafe after dark. Now the City budget has to be increased to provide police presence during week days, as well as the weekends.
Is it too late to divert the $300,000 away from the proposed S. W. Path lights to provide security in the the university ave campus area. I know that the area is well lighted, but is now unsafe after dark. Now the City budget has to be increased to provide police presence during week days, as well as the weekends.
Posted: 08/02/2012
I am a Nakoma resident and I strongly oppose this proposal!
I concur with looking at alternatives, or nothing at all.
Some creative neighbors have put clothspins out with reflectorstelling walkers to take them, use them and replace them. When people start using their own money and time to block/change a proposal the city needs to listen.
I am a Nakoma resident and I strongly oppose this proposal!
I concur with looking at alternatives, or nothing at all.
Some creative neighbors have put clothspins out with reflectorstelling walkers to take them, use them and replace them. When people start using their own money and time to block/change a proposal the city needs to listen.
Posted: 07/31/2012
This is one of the most irresponsible projects ever proposed in Madison:
- Because of glare and non-uniformity, overhead lights like this are not optimal for a bike path, period. There are many other options, but they are not being investigated.
- According to experts that "wrote the book" on bike path lighting for the State of WI, the lights, as proposed will make crashes more likely.
- Paranoia about crime is misplaced, as the lights would make crime MORE LIKELY. This is reality, whether it fits people's knee-jerk assumptions or not.
-The city has never even put up one sign or suggestion for people to make themselves visible, yet visibility aid use has increased dramatically just because of the talk about this project.
-The path is being effectively widened with real footpaths this fall anyways, which will change the dynamics.
-The posts would ADD obstacles where you really DONT want them.
-Overhead lights would have a very negative effect on wildlife in this corridor. This is well known and documented. Many of us who live in this area actually care about making it even better, not worse for wildlife.
-Overhead lights would have a very negative affect on humans in this corridor by removing one of the last places in Madison to see the night sky.
- In general, the more familiar a particular person is with this path (and how to use if properly, especially at night) the less likely they support this proposal.
This is one of the most irresponsible projects ever proposed in Madison:
- Because of glare and non-uniformity, overhead lights like this are not optimal for a bike path, period. There are many other options, but they are not being investigated.
- According to experts that "wrote the book" on bike path lighting for the State of WI, the lights, as proposed will make crashes more likely.
- Paranoia about crime is misplaced, as the lights would make crime MORE LIKELY. This is reality, whether it fits people's knee-jerk assumptions or not.
-The city has never even put up one sign or suggestion for people to make themselves visible, yet visibility aid use has increased dramatically just because of the talk about this project.
-The path is being effectively widened with real footpaths this fall anyways, which will change the dynamics.
-The posts would ADD obstacles where you really DONT want them.
-Overhead lights would have a very negative effect on wildlife in this corridor. This is well known and documented. Many of us who live in this area actually care about making it even better, not worse for wildlife.
-Overhead lights would have a very negative affect on humans in this corridor by removing one of the last places in Madison to see the night sky.
- In general, the more familiar a particular person is with this path (and how to use if properly, especially at night) the less likely they support this proposal.
Posted: 07/31/2012
I am a Nakoma resident who lives 3 blocks from the path. I walk the path daily at different hours of the day and night. I wear clothing to make myself as visible as possible and walk on the correct side of the path as close to the edge as possible but without lighting there is always the danger of being hit by a speeding cyclist or roller blader who cannot see me until it is too late. I have almost been hit several times. I feel safer with the lighting in place. I like the test lights and support the lighting project.
I am a Nakoma resident who lives 3 blocks from the path. I walk the path daily at different hours of the day and night. I wear clothing to make myself as visible as possible and walk on the correct side of the path as close to the edge as possible but without lighting there is always the danger of being hit by a speeding cyclist or roller blader who cannot see me until it is too late. I have almost been hit several times. I feel safer with the lighting in place. I like the test lights and support the lighting project.
Posted: 07/31/2012
It is not necessary to light the Southwest Bike Path. Limited users are on the path at night. I have biked on it between 9 and midnight numerous times and rarely, if ever, see another user bicyclist or walker.
This is a waste of finite city resources. The money could be better used elsewhere.
At some point in time the path will have to be redone. Save the money for that purpose.
Some attention could be paid to cut trees back.
It is not necessary to light the Southwest Bike Path. Limited users are on the path at night. I have biked on it between 9 and midnight numerous times and rarely, if ever, see another user bicyclist or walker.
This is a waste of finite city resources. The money could be better used elsewhere.
At some point in time the path will have to be redone. Save the money for that purpose.
Some attention could be paid to cut trees back.
Posted: 07/31/2012
I live a few neighborhoods over from the path so haven't been privy to the direct mailings from the city regarding the proposed lighting. I use the path regularly to commute, so I'm grateful to the folks along the path with "no lights" signs. Without them, I wouldn't have known about the ongoing dialog occurring and register my total support for the project. Please light the path- I will use it more! Only in Madison would a project like this drag on and on ad nauseum. Friends in other cities just laugh at discussions like this - "77 square miles, surrounded by reality", they say. How true! The path was wired when it was built, so lighting it was a foregone conclusion. The path is already lit on the other side of the Beltline, but of course that side is the poorer side, pay less in taxes, and are less vocal, less organized and less politically connected. The argument that it is safer in the dark is idiotic and naive. If people want to steal from you, they will figure out a way to do it. How about Villain A hiding at one spot on the path then calling Villains B,C and D down the path letting them know whose coming? Now they can mugg away in pitch darkness with no chance for witnesses to see. The money spent is "budget dust" for a city this size. Just do it and quit talking about it- please!
I live a few neighborhoods over from the path so haven't been privy to the direct mailings from the city regarding the proposed lighting. I use the path regularly to commute, so I'm grateful to the folks along the path with "no lights" signs. Without them, I wouldn't have known about the ongoing dialog occurring and register my total support for the project. Please light the path- I will use it more! Only in Madison would a project like this drag on and on ad nauseum. Friends in other cities just laugh at discussions like this - "77 square miles, surrounded by reality", they say. How true! The path was wired when it was built, so lighting it was a foregone conclusion. The path is already lit on the other side of the Beltline, but of course that side is the poorer side, pay less in taxes, and are less vocal, less organized and less politically connected. The argument that it is safer in the dark is idiotic and naive. If people want to steal from you, they will figure out a way to do it. How about Villain A hiding at one spot on the path then calling Villains B,C and D down the path letting them know whose coming? Now they can mugg away in pitch darkness with no chance for witnesses to see. The money spent is "budget dust" for a city this size. Just do it and quit talking about it- please!
Posted: 07/27/2012
While I love dark skies, dark yards, nighttime wildlife, and public parks, I wholeheartedly and emphatically support lighting the Southwest Path.
I have been a bicycle commuter for 47 years, since I was 15. I've been riding before sunrise and after midnight. I've ridden in temperatures of 8 below zero F to 115 F, in ice, flood and sub-tornadic wind. I've been struck by motor vehicles four times, always due to their failure to yield at a stop sign or light. My experiences over these years (including the observation of myriad inattentive pedestrians) and many thousands of miles have trained me not to trust motor vehicle operators, and to minimize my exposure to them.
Madison has frequent episodes of unhealthy air quality, due in significant part to motor vehicle pollution. In fact, my two sons each contracted asthma due to being physically active in our near-west side neighborhood, and have moved away to where the air quality is much better. It is clear we need to get more people out of cars and onto bikes. Having a safely lit path network that will welcome new riders is one way to help achieve this transportation transformation. That is why thoroughfares like the Southwest Path are so important to me, and why I want it to be as safe as practicable.
While people who advocate against lighting bike paths have valid concerns that need to be addressed, examining each against the SW Path lighting proposal finds no reason not to light the path.
A Dark Sky environment exists nowhere within, or within miles of, Madison. Our society has simply been operating far to many lights across all our streets, parking lots, front porches, university buildings, auto dealerships, and other places to enable us to enjoy the true beauty of the nighttime environment. Further, the lighting design as proposed wold not detract materially from viewing the night sky across the city as a whole.
It would be far more fruitful for us to advocate for retrofitting all other existing light fixtures in Dane County, to restore a view of more than a few hundred stars. Also, much safer night sky and wildlife venues exist immediately off the path, at Glenway and Odana golf courses.
Claims about impacts to night wildlife are unfounded. There exist no peer-reviewed studies that conclude that lighting such as is proposed would in any way drive owls and other wildlife from the area.
While I applaud all forms of cycling where people elect to bike and leave their stinky cars parked at home, I believe those who claim never to have had a close call with a dark-clothed pedestrian or dog at night are merely lucky, and not the norm. Having lighting that enables us to detect movement ahead can allow to stay safe by using our senses, rather than trying to rely on blind luck. Many perfectly good bike lights simply don't reveal unlit, dark-clothed people and unreflectorized pets until it is too late to avoid them.
As others have noted, many of the brighter bike lights now in vogue blind oncoming traffic and seem as likely to cause a crash as prevent one. A modestly lit path can allow these cyclists to go back to using a less bright light, because they'll not feel the need to blind others in order to see what's ahead.
I agree it certainly would be great if everyone would abide by the light-it-up behaviors espoused my some. However, for 100 years our society has largely failed to instill a sober driving ethic among all who use our roadways via motorized travel. That gives me absolutely no encouragement that this kind of social re-engineering would work regarding safe and sensible use of our bike paths.
As for cost, every workday of the year, the people of Dane County freely spend more than $4 million dollars in variable costs (fuel and wear & tear) for driving themselves to work and home again. The cost of this lighting project is therefore only one sixteenth of our county's daily car commute budget. In return, we are likely to be preventing injuries that can cost many (tens of, in severe cases) thousands of dollars per incident. TSince I like many others prize my remaining, self-propelled mobility, thats's a bargain to me. If for some reason a majority of users later feels lighting makes the path less safe, then we can sell the lamps to a perhaps more enlightened community and recoup a large part of the cost.
Finally, many of the activities (pushing strollers, walking pets, etc., are activities that typically are conducted on sidewalks, and sidewalks are lit public ways. The Southwest Path needs to be lit, as well.
While I love dark skies, dark yards, nighttime wildlife, and public parks, I wholeheartedly and emphatically support lighting the Southwest Path.
I have been a bicycle commuter for 47 years, since I was 15. I've been riding before sunrise and after midnight. I've ridden in temperatures of 8 below zero F to 115 F, in ice, flood and sub-tornadic wind. I've been struck by motor vehicles four times, always due to their failure to yield at a stop sign or light. My experiences over these years (including the observation of myriad inattentive pedestrians) and many thousands of miles have trained me not to trust motor vehicle operators, and to minimize my exposure to them.
Madison has frequent episodes of unhealthy air quality, due in significant part to motor vehicle pollution. In fact, my two sons each contracted asthma due to being physically active in our near-west side neighborhood, and have moved away to where the air quality is much better. It is clear we need to get more people out of cars and onto bikes. Having a safely lit path network that will welcome new riders is one way to help achieve this transportation transformation. That is why thoroughfares like the Southwest Path are so important to me, and why I want it to be as safe as practicable.
While people who advocate against lighting bike paths have valid concerns that need to be addressed, examining each against the SW Path lighting proposal finds no reason not to light the path.
A Dark Sky environment exists nowhere within, or within miles of, Madison. Our society has simply been operating far to many lights across all our streets, parking lots, front porches, university buildings, auto dealerships, and other places to enable us to enjoy the true beauty of the nighttime environment. Further, the lighting design as proposed wold not detract materially from viewing the night sky across the city as a whole.
It would be far more fruitful for us to advocate for retrofitting all other existing light fixtures in Dane County, to restore a view of more than a few hundred stars. Also, much safer night sky and wildlife venues exist immediately off the path, at Glenway and Odana golf courses.
Claims about impacts to night wildlife are unfounded. There exist no peer-reviewed studies that conclude that lighting such as is proposed would in any way drive owls and other wildlife from the area.
While I applaud all forms of cycling where people elect to bike and leave their stinky cars parked at home, I believe those who claim never to have had a close call with a dark-clothed pedestrian or dog at night are merely lucky, and not the norm. Having lighting that enables us to detect movement ahead can allow to stay safe by using our senses, rather than trying to rely on blind luck. Many perfectly good bike lights simply don't reveal unlit, dark-clothed people and unreflectorized pets until it is too late to avoid them.
As others have noted, many of the brighter bike lights now in vogue blind oncoming traffic and seem as likely to cause a crash as prevent one. A modestly lit path can allow these cyclists to go back to using a less bright light, because they'll not feel the need to blind others in order to see what's ahead.
I agree it certainly would be great if everyone would abide by the light-it-up behaviors espoused my some. However, for 100 years our society has largely failed to instill a sober driving ethic among all who use our roadways via motorized travel. That gives me absolutely no encouragement that this kind of social re-engineering would work regarding safe and sensible use of our bike paths.
As for cost, every workday of the year, the people of Dane County freely spend more than $4 million dollars in variable costs (fuel and wear & tear) for driving themselves to work and home again. The cost of this lighting project is therefore only one sixteenth of our county's daily car commute budget. In return, we are likely to be preventing injuries that can cost many (tens of, in severe cases) thousands of dollars per incident. TSince I like many others prize my remaining, self-propelled mobility, thats's a bargain to me. If for some reason a majority of users later feels lighting makes the path less safe, then we can sell the lamps to a perhaps more enlightened community and recoup a large part of the cost.
Finally, many of the activities (pushing strollers, walking pets, etc., are activities that typically are conducted on sidewalks, and sidewalks are lit public ways. The Southwest Path needs to be lit, as well.
Posted: 07/27/2012
I think it was wise of Traffic Engineering to allow this forum to be anonymous, because it has resulted in participation from as many voices as possible and made it a pretty interesting read every time I have come back to it.
On this public, on-line forum, participants have a choice to either add their name or not, and It seems that the vast majority of people prefer to remain anonymous. People feel more secure that way. Even though the chance of some “nut out there” victimizing a forum participant is small, it is ZERO if their name is left out of it.
At the 7-19 meeting, at least one person stated that even though they were not a timid person, they felt vulnerable to crime in the darkness of the SW path even with a strong bike light. One of them said something like “… I don’t know who’s out there…”. The fact is that overhead lights would make it even harder to see off to the sides of the path by removing the rider’s dark adaptation and allowing them only to see within the "light tunnel"
This concern of “not knowing who's out there” reminded me that the SW path is another kind of public forum, but in a real-world, face-to-face sense. Like the online forum, there are participants who are: frequent, infrequent , lurkers, slow, fast, nice, abrasive, newbies, old hats, etc. Another similarity is that there is a slim, but non-zero chance that there is a nut job or thief “out there”.
For those using the path at night, adding overhead lights would be like having a pushy moderator on this forum that adds your name, address and phone number to each of your posts. Actually, its a little worse than that. The identifiers provided by adding overhead lights benefit only someone with ill intent, and provide information that is directly useful for immediate victimization.
Here’s a comparison of the “public identifiers” available now vs After Overhead Lighting (AOL). This is the information that is available to say, someone sitting a few yards off the side of the path on a dark night.
Now: -jogger with head light-
AOL: -mid 30s, male, muscular, Ipod on armband-
Now: -biker with bright light-
AOL: -female, backpack, nice bike, long hair, no helmet-
Now: -walker with blinker-
AOL: -elderly male, medium build, fanny pack and gold watch-
Now: -walker with no light-
AOL: -teenage female, book bag, talking on smartphone-
Although muggings and bike thefts have occurred elsewhere in Madison where there are existing overhead lights, they are basically unheard of on unlighted sections like this segment of SW path.
The absence of the above identifiers, along with the difficulty of determining for sure whether the “coast is clear” are a key reason for this.
Its not a good place for bad guys to ply their trade, so they are basically not even hanging out around here.
In short, you are safer in the dark.
Anonymous (and liking it)
I think it was wise of Traffic Engineering to allow this forum to be anonymous, because it has resulted in participation from as many voices as possible and made it a pretty interesting read every time I have come back to it.
On this public, on-line forum, participants have a choice to either add their name or not, and It seems that the vast majority of people prefer to remain anonymous. People feel more secure that way. Even though the chance of some “nut out there” victimizing a forum participant is small, it is ZERO if their name is left out of it.
At the 7-19 meeting, at least one person stated that even though they were not a timid person, they felt vulnerable to crime in the darkness of the SW path even with a strong bike light. One of them said something like “… I don’t know who’s out there…”. The fact is that overhead lights would make it even harder to see off to the sides of the path by removing the rider’s dark adaptation and allowing them only to see within the "light tunnel"
This concern of “not knowing who's out there” reminded me that the SW path is another kind of public forum, but in a real-world, face-to-face sense. Like the online forum, there are participants who are: frequent, infrequent , lurkers, slow, fast, nice, abrasive, newbies, old hats, etc. Another similarity is that there is a slim, but non-zero chance that there is a nut job or thief “out there”.
For those using the path at night, adding overhead lights would be like having a pushy moderator on this forum that adds your name, address and phone number to each of your posts. Actually, its a little worse than that. The identifiers provided by adding overhead lights benefit only someone with ill intent, and provide information that is directly useful for immediate victimization.
Here’s a comparison of the “public identifiers” available now vs After Overhead Lighting (AOL). This is the information that is available to say, someone sitting a few yards off the side of the path on a dark night.
Now: -jogger with head light-
AOL: -mid 30s, male, muscular, Ipod on armband-
Now: -biker with bright light-
AOL: -female, backpack, nice bike, long hair, no helmet-
Now: -walker with blinker-
AOL: -elderly male, medium build, fanny pack and gold watch-
Now: -walker with no light-
AOL: -teenage female, book bag, talking on smartphone-
Although muggings and bike thefts have occurred elsewhere in Madison where there are existing overhead lights, they are basically unheard of on unlighted sections like this segment of SW path.
The absence of the above identifiers, along with the difficulty of determining for sure whether the “coast is clear” are a key reason for this.
Its not a good place for bad guys to ply their trade, so they are basically not even hanging out around here.
In short, you are safer in the dark.
Anonymous (and liking it)
Posted: 07/27/2012
The city has noticed that the same people appear to be commenting more than once, right?
The city has noticed that the same people appear to be commenting more than once, right?
Posted: 07/27/2012
Please look at the presentation link. Each slide starts with a concern followed by how the concern is wrong and how great the lighting is. Not one slide list the advantages of SCRAPPING THE PROJECT!
Please look at the presentation link. Each slide starts with a concern followed by how the concern is wrong and how great the lighting is. Not one slide list the advantages of SCRAPPING THE PROJECT!
Posted: 07/27/2012
It is clear from the presentation that this is going forward no matter what. I can't stress enough that our only power lies in our vote. We have to vote for alders that care about listening to their constituent and that can see how bad this project is for the health of the people living along the path and the health of the animals and insects along the path.
This "public forum" is a joke. The city does not care what you think.
From the slides:
"Project cost is already less expensive than a comparable project because underground work has already been completed."
Can someone please explain this to me? Are you saying that scrapping the project would not save the city money? Is the city not under budget restraints?
?The SW Path is a sensitive environmental corridor?
This response on this slide is garbage. According to the slide, because transportation is the primary purpose of the path the health of the people, animals, insects and plants along the path does not matter.
"Lighting for street or path safety."
Please provide proof that "path safety" is a problem.
It is clear from the presentation that this is going forward no matter what. I can't stress enough that our only power lies in our vote. We have to vote for alders that care about listening to their constituent and that can see how bad this project is for the health of the people living along the path and the health of the animals and insects along the path.
This "public forum" is a joke. The city does not care what you think.
From the slides:
"Project cost is already less expensive than a comparable project because underground work has already been completed."
Can someone please explain this to me? Are you saying that scrapping the project would not save the city money? Is the city not under budget restraints?
?The SW Path is a sensitive environmental corridor?
This response on this slide is garbage. According to the slide, because transportation is the primary purpose of the path the health of the people, animals, insects and plants along the path does not matter.
"Lighting for street or path safety."
Please provide proof that "path safety" is a problem.
Posted: 07/27/2012
Despite admirable effort on the part of Traffic Engineering staff, the current (overhead) lighting project goes against the advice of experts in the fields of transportation engineering, lighting and ecology. It is also contrary to the advice borne from daily (and nightly) experience of the vast majority of local residents and regular users of the Southwest Commuter Path.
Despite admirable effort on the part of Traffic Engineering staff, the current (overhead) lighting project goes against the advice of experts in the fields of transportation engineering, lighting and ecology. It is also contrary to the advice borne from daily (and nightly) experience of the vast majority of local residents and regular users of the Southwest Commuter Path.
Posted: 07/25/2012
At the meeting, someone described the path as a 'linear park'. I see this daily. Living on the path, I have met many neighbors of every age. Parents push strollers, kids ride trikes, and older people stroll by, all sharing the path with bikers. Each day, two motorized wheel chairs go by several times. One is ridden by an elderly man who lives in a nearby religious community, and and the other is ridden by a developmentally disabled neighbor. They are regular users of the path. Another regular is a pleasant gentleman who seems to carry all of his possessions on his bike.
Isn't encouraging this kind of community as important as having a high speed bikeway for people who may not even live in Madison?
Wisconsin's population is aging fast. Why not keep a resource that the elderly can enjoy and use instead of pushing them aside so that high speed bikers from the suburbs can race through this short expanse of corridor? It outrages me that Madison politicians care more about state wide lobbies than about their constituents. But it gives me hope to remember how quickly our former mayor's career ended when citizens believed he had quit listening. Politicians who think the only citizens against the lights live on the path are kidding themselves.
At the meeting, someone described the path as a 'linear park'. I see this daily. Living on the path, I have met many neighbors of every age. Parents push strollers, kids ride trikes, and older people stroll by, all sharing the path with bikers. Each day, two motorized wheel chairs go by several times. One is ridden by an elderly man who lives in a nearby religious community, and and the other is ridden by a developmentally disabled neighbor. They are regular users of the path. Another regular is a pleasant gentleman who seems to carry all of his possessions on his bike.
Isn't encouraging this kind of community as important as having a high speed bikeway for people who may not even live in Madison?
Wisconsin's population is aging fast. Why not keep a resource that the elderly can enjoy and use instead of pushing them aside so that high speed bikers from the suburbs can race through this short expanse of corridor? It outrages me that Madison politicians care more about state wide lobbies than about their constituents. But it gives me hope to remember how quickly our former mayor's career ended when citizens believed he had quit listening. Politicians who think the only citizens against the lights live on the path are kidding themselves.
Posted: 07/25/2012
This is government at its worst. They are going to spend the money because they don't want to get less next time around. It does not matter how many people oppose this or how low the city budget is. If we don't vote out the Alders supporting this expect more of this nonsense in the future.
This is government at its worst. They are going to spend the money because they don't want to get less next time around. It does not matter how many people oppose this or how low the city budget is. If we don't vote out the Alders supporting this expect more of this nonsense in the future.
Posted: 07/25/2012
I am a daily bicycle commuter and avid cyclist. I often take this route and I personally think the lighting is a bad idea. It is against the law to ride a bike at night without a front light so I don't see a need for the lights. Even if I were in favor of the idea of lighting the path the proposed lighting setup would not illuminate the entire path just patches of the path with darkness in between. I think the intermittent lighting is far more distracting than helpful while riding a bike through that area at night. I do not agree with the public safety argument, I would like to see some data to support the concerns people have about the path being a scary and dangerous place to walk home at night. If I did share these concerns I think the patchy lighting seems like it would make the dark spaces between the lights even scarier and more dangerous. I don't live on the path but I think it would be obnoxious to have big lights shining through your window all night. This is a beautiful area and I think it would be a shame to see it ruined.
I am a daily bicycle commuter and avid cyclist. I often take this route and I personally think the lighting is a bad idea. It is against the law to ride a bike at night without a front light so I don't see a need for the lights. Even if I were in favor of the idea of lighting the path the proposed lighting setup would not illuminate the entire path just patches of the path with darkness in between. I think the intermittent lighting is far more distracting than helpful while riding a bike through that area at night. I do not agree with the public safety argument, I would like to see some data to support the concerns people have about the path being a scary and dangerous place to walk home at night. If I did share these concerns I think the patchy lighting seems like it would make the dark spaces between the lights even scarier and more dangerous. I don't live on the path but I think it would be obnoxious to have big lights shining through your window all night. This is a beautiful area and I think it would be a shame to see it ruined.
Posted: 07/25/2012
PLEASE DON'T LIGHT THE PATH. Few will benefit from it and it will ruin a beautiful area. The East Side Path is lit now and is horribly ugly because of it... glowing all night with no one using the path.
Instead, encourage people to use personal safety methods, like head lights to light their path rather than wasting resources to steal the charm away from the night.
As a last resort, use "shortie polls" (4-foot-tall type) with down facing LED lights on dim-mode. They'd help without lighting the whole area from 20 feet up!!!
Thanks :)
PLEASE DON'T LIGHT THE PATH. Few will benefit from it and it will ruin a beautiful area. The East Side Path is lit now and is horribly ugly because of it... glowing all night with no one using the path.
Instead, encourage people to use personal safety methods, like head lights to light their path rather than wasting resources to steal the charm away from the night.
As a last resort, use "shortie polls" (4-foot-tall type) with down facing LED lights on dim-mode. They'd help without lighting the whole area from 20 feet up!!!
Thanks :)
Posted: 07/24/2012
I'm a committed bicycle commuter who uses the path twice daily all year. I live in Nakoma, five blocks from the path, meaning I'm not a neighbor. I don't know anyone whose house abuts the path.
I dislike the lighting plan because I love the natural feel of the path after dark. I acknowledge that situations must arise now and then that lighting would make better. I have not encountered any such situations myself, however.
In general I'm supportive of sensible risk amelioration and reasonable, pragmatic solutions to problems. But I also know that we can't engineer our way around all hazards. Some level of risk is the natural way of the world. Furthermore, and this is a point that's far too often neglected here, slight dangers, concessions to the natural state of things, tacit acceptance by designers and engineers of the reality of risk in the world, often are the difference between a great city and a dull one. Almost everything in a city that inspires a reaction like "cool!" is there because a wise designer has allowed us to experience a slice of the natural state things: high steps on a historic building or a theater balcony that is probably a bit dangerous but remains; a precipice that could be fenced off but isn't; an accessible lake shore where surely someone could drown. Reminders of nature and history and of the reality of our own precarious and finite place in the world turn out to be what people deep-down need and love, especially in cities. They'll generally accept some level of risk for it. Turning down bike path lighting is an opportunity to be wise in this way.
Maybe most people disagree with me on this. If so, let the majority have their way. But like others on this forum I suggest compromise in this case: short poles not tall ones, and let the lights go dark after 9 or 10 at night, when bike path users are few.
I'm a committed bicycle commuter who uses the path twice daily all year. I live in Nakoma, five blocks from the path, meaning I'm not a neighbor. I don't know anyone whose house abuts the path.
I dislike the lighting plan because I love the natural feel of the path after dark. I acknowledge that situations must arise now and then that lighting would make better. I have not encountered any such situations myself, however.
In general I'm supportive of sensible risk amelioration and reasonable, pragmatic solutions to problems. But I also know that we can't engineer our way around all hazards. Some level of risk is the natural way of the world. Furthermore, and this is a point that's far too often neglected here, slight dangers, concessions to the natural state of things, tacit acceptance by designers and engineers of the reality of risk in the world, often are the difference between a great city and a dull one. Almost everything in a city that inspires a reaction like "cool!" is there because a wise designer has allowed us to experience a slice of the natural state things: high steps on a historic building or a theater balcony that is probably a bit dangerous but remains; a precipice that could be fenced off but isn't; an accessible lake shore where surely someone could drown. Reminders of nature and history and of the reality of our own precarious and finite place in the world turn out to be what people deep-down need and love, especially in cities. They'll generally accept some level of risk for it. Turning down bike path lighting is an opportunity to be wise in this way.
Maybe most people disagree with me on this. If so, let the majority have their way. But like others on this forum I suggest compromise in this case: short poles not tall ones, and let the lights go dark after 9 or 10 at night, when bike path users are few.
Posted: 07/24/2012
In the ongoing conversation, I see many pros and cons expressed here since the meeting. Just a couple comments I'd like to add: why "now or never"? Because the money is in the budget and if it isn't used, it may not be recouped later. So there is pressure on the Council's part to spend the money, regardless of public opinion.
I completely agree that the crux of the matter is dealing with the mixed usage of the path—and the real fact that increasing usage on the path, bike or pedestrian, is going to result in more problems. The path as it is already has issues, and lighting is not going to solve those. They happen in broad daylight as well! Deal with that first, make a long-term plan, and don't just plonk down lights. Spend the lighting money on a true assessment of the path and its issues.
In the ongoing conversation, I see many pros and cons expressed here since the meeting. Just a couple comments I'd like to add: why "now or never"? Because the money is in the budget and if it isn't used, it may not be recouped later. So there is pressure on the Council's part to spend the money, regardless of public opinion.
I completely agree that the crux of the matter is dealing with the mixed usage of the path—and the real fact that increasing usage on the path, bike or pedestrian, is going to result in more problems. The path as it is already has issues, and lighting is not going to solve those. They happen in broad daylight as well! Deal with that first, make a long-term plan, and don't just plonk down lights. Spend the lighting money on a true assessment of the path and its issues.
Posted: 07/24/2012
I oppose the SW lighting idea. I have been using the SW path for a few years now to get to work and the closest I have been to a dangerous situation was when walkers ahead of me did not have reflective gear or lights on. I still had enough time to avoid them, they just surprised me. The atmosphere of the path after dark is one that is hard to find in Madison and I would enjoy it less if it was lit up.
I oppose the SW lighting idea. I have been using the SW path for a few years now to get to work and the closest I have been to a dangerous situation was when walkers ahead of me did not have reflective gear or lights on. I still had enough time to avoid them, they just surprised me. The atmosphere of the path after dark is one that is hard to find in Madison and I would enjoy it less if it was lit up.
Posted: 07/24/2012
After attending the meeting at Edgewood College I have a question on the location of both test lights. Why weren't the lights positioned where there are homes on both sides of the path? Also, the homes by the second test light must be 20 or more feet below the path. Why didn't the city put test lights where the homes are at a similar level as the path?
City Staff Response:
Council Crest was selected as one test location because here there was an existing pole that could be used and the fixture was swapped out with the test LED and a second temporary pole set to give residents an idea of light spacing.
The light fixture on the elevated portion of the path was selected because folks at the first meeting were concerned that in this area light would spill from the fixture and reach backyards and that the LEDs would be visible. We wanted to show how a fixture would look here. The specific location was selected because Ex-Alderperson Golden was willing to allow people to view the light from his property.
After attending the meeting at Edgewood College I have a question on the location of both test lights. Why weren't the lights positioned where there are homes on both sides of the path? Also, the homes by the second test light must be 20 or more feet below the path. Why didn't the city put test lights where the homes are at a similar level as the path?
City Staff Response:
Council Crest was selected as one test location because here there was an existing pole that could be used and the fixture was swapped out with the test LED and a second temporary pole set to give residents an idea of light spacing.
The light fixture on the elevated portion of the path was selected because folks at the first meeting were concerned that in this area light would spill from the fixture and reach backyards and that the LEDs would be visible. We wanted to show how a fixture would look here. The specific location was selected because Ex-Alderperson Golden was willing to allow people to view the light from his property.
Posted: 07/24/2012
As a daily bicycle commuter I oppose the placement of lights along the path.
It seems to me that the myopic city planners are doing nothing to improve safety. If they wanted safety for the cyclists and the pedestrians, they best bang for the buck is to improve bicycling safety on the roads. The alternatives to the bike path are little more than speedways to funnel people from the west side, Verona and Fitchburg into the center of the city - the faster the better. They sure didn't care about traffic issues when ripping down Parman's to put up a much too big building on the worst intersection of the area. Even school crossing guards are being run down. Cars won't stop, much less slow down for safety. And why not, the city planners have designed the roads to make it this way. It is not safe to cross the street to get to the other side.
In the place of safe roads are the ghettoization of everyone else onto a much too narrow path. Talk about divide and conquer. It seems to be working. The walkers are mad at the bicycles, the bicycles don't like the baby strollers and pedestrians who take up more than half of the path, and the dogs are another story. When was this math designated a dog park? And the lights will do nothing to solve the existing conflicts. In their own words, more people will will use the path more hours of the day, and the conflicts will only increase
As a daily bicycle commuter I oppose the placement of lights along the path.
It seems to me that the myopic city planners are doing nothing to improve safety. If they wanted safety for the cyclists and the pedestrians, they best bang for the buck is to improve bicycling safety on the roads. The alternatives to the bike path are little more than speedways to funnel people from the west side, Verona and Fitchburg into the center of the city - the faster the better. They sure didn't care about traffic issues when ripping down Parman's to put up a much too big building on the worst intersection of the area. Even school crossing guards are being run down. Cars won't stop, much less slow down for safety. And why not, the city planners have designed the roads to make it this way. It is not safe to cross the street to get to the other side.
In the place of safe roads are the ghettoization of everyone else onto a much too narrow path. Talk about divide and conquer. It seems to be working. The walkers are mad at the bicycles, the bicycles don't like the baby strollers and pedestrians who take up more than half of the path, and the dogs are another story. When was this math designated a dog park? And the lights will do nothing to solve the existing conflicts. In their own words, more people will will use the path more hours of the day, and the conflicts will only increase
Posted: 07/24/2012
I am opposed to adding the proposed new lighting to the Southwest Bikepath. I regularly use the Southwest Bikepath for biking, walking, and running. Yet I do not believe that the proposed lighting would be a proper use of public funds. I do understand that the cost is only a small percentage of the total city budget. Nonetheless, any spending of public funds needs justification. Lighting the path does not seem to address any serious existing problems. Bikes are required to have lights if ridden at night, and pedestrians would be well advised to do the same.
I do not live along the Bikepath, and I think that the opinions of those who do live along the Bikepath should be given greater weight. However, as a daily Bikepath user, I hope that my opposition to the proposed new lighting is taken into consideration.
I am opposed to adding the proposed new lighting to the Southwest Bikepath. I regularly use the Southwest Bikepath for biking, walking, and running. Yet I do not believe that the proposed lighting would be a proper use of public funds. I do understand that the cost is only a small percentage of the total city budget. Nonetheless, any spending of public funds needs justification. Lighting the path does not seem to address any serious existing problems. Bikes are required to have lights if ridden at night, and pedestrians would be well advised to do the same.
I do not live along the Bikepath, and I think that the opinions of those who do live along the Bikepath should be given greater weight. However, as a daily Bikepath user, I hope that my opposition to the proposed new lighting is taken into consideration.
Posted: 07/23/2012
I strongly support lighting the SW trail. I believe it will help make it a safer path for all. I want to thank the city staff and the alders for listening and responding to everyone's concerns and making adjustments to those concerns. It is wonderful to see government work to hear everyone for a change!
I strongly support lighting the SW trail. I believe it will help make it a safer path for all. I want to thank the city staff and the alders for listening and responding to everyone's concerns and making adjustments to those concerns. It is wonderful to see government work to hear everyone for a change!
Posted: 07/23/2012
One way to mitigate conflicts among users is to scrap the tall street light approach and use shorter lights like landscape down lights. This would require lights placed more closely together but would be much less intrusive. Another approach is to increase enforcement actions on bikers who do not feel the need to use lights at all or lights not bright enough to see as well as be seen. This might also improve safety at intersections between the trail and city streets.
The random appearance of police bikers along the trail at night would also send a signal to potential criminals.
One way to mitigate conflicts among users is to scrap the tall street light approach and use shorter lights like landscape down lights. This would require lights placed more closely together but would be much less intrusive. Another approach is to increase enforcement actions on bikers who do not feel the need to use lights at all or lights not bright enough to see as well as be seen. This might also improve safety at intersections between the trail and city streets.
The random appearance of police bikers along the trail at night would also send a signal to potential criminals.
Posted: 07/23/2012
As a frequent user of the path (pedestrian and bicyclist) and resident of the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood, I strongly oppose lighting the path. I safely traverse the path in early morning and late evening hours, and thoroughly enjoy its un-lit surroundings. Light pollution is very annoying and the path is wonderful in its current state. Clearly, the common sense approach should prevail each individual using the path should exercise appropriate care and caution . Use of light-colored or reflective material and personal/bike lights is appropriate, affordable, easy, and responsible.
As a frequent user of the path (pedestrian and bicyclist) and resident of the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood, I strongly oppose lighting the path. I safely traverse the path in early morning and late evening hours, and thoroughly enjoy its un-lit surroundings. Light pollution is very annoying and the path is wonderful in its current state. Clearly, the common sense approach should prevail each individual using the path should exercise appropriate care and caution . Use of light-colored or reflective material and personal/bike lights is appropriate, affordable, easy, and responsible.
Posted: 07/23/2012
I think it is sort of a false premise that daily use will necessarily go up by putting the streetlights along the Owl Path. First of all, the vast majority of users year-round on this path are during daylight hours anyways.
In the dead of winter when darkness intercepts work hours, the usage is way down, and it is usually really easy to see (even with my light "off") because of the snow on the ground. Currently I commute 3-4 times a week in the winter because I like being in nature and getting some bonus exercise.
If I had to squint every 10 seconds for the whole trip, through a more urbanized space where I can't even really see the twilight sky and the surrounding woods, then I would probably not use it anymore for any commuting in winter. Not worth getting all bundled up for anymore- back to the nice warm car.
I think it is sort of a false premise that daily use will necessarily go up by putting the streetlights along the Owl Path. First of all, the vast majority of users year-round on this path are during daylight hours anyways.
In the dead of winter when darkness intercepts work hours, the usage is way down, and it is usually really easy to see (even with my light "off") because of the snow on the ground. Currently I commute 3-4 times a week in the winter because I like being in nature and getting some bonus exercise.
If I had to squint every 10 seconds for the whole trip, through a more urbanized space where I can't even really see the twilight sky and the surrounding woods, then I would probably not use it anymore for any commuting in winter. Not worth getting all bundled up for anymore- back to the nice warm car.
Posted: 07/21/2012
Some people view the Southwest Bike Path primarily as a transportation corridor for bicycle commuters and wish it lit up; others like myself view it as a multi-use linear park the pleasure and value of which would be diminished by lighting.
Here is a compromise: light the path, as needed, during commuting hours-during the morning from 5:00 am to dawn, during the evening from twilight to 8:30 pm. How long the lights would need to be on would vary, of course, throughout the year. Right now, there would be no need for artificial lighting, because there is enough daylight to see by at 5:00 am and 8:30 pm.
Some people view the Southwest Bike Path primarily as a transportation corridor for bicycle commuters and wish it lit up; others like myself view it as a multi-use linear park the pleasure and value of which would be diminished by lighting.
Here is a compromise: light the path, as needed, during commuting hours-during the morning from 5:00 am to dawn, during the evening from twilight to 8:30 pm. How long the lights would need to be on would vary, of course, throughout the year. Right now, there would be no need for artificial lighting, because there is enough daylight to see by at 5:00 am and 8:30 pm.
Posted: 07/21/2012
I find it extremely disrespectful that no one has taken the time to survey the people whose houses abut on the path. Apparently, the only people who have been surveyed are the bikers! Lights will increase the traffic and give even more incentive to those bikers who insist on riding far too fast, night or day, to go even faster. I have a suggestion to those of you who insist on riding at night; ride on the city streets. They're already lit. That's what you did before the path was built. Or take the bus. Use the path during the day and dusk. I unfortunately was unable to attend the December meeting because I was out of town. Last night I witnessed a meeting held by an Alderman who clearly wants the lights and demonstrated little respect for anyone who did not agree with him by berating anyone who did and calling them rude. Good thing you're not my alder, Mr. Solomon because I would work extra hard to make sure you don't serve another term.
I find it extremely disrespectful that no one has taken the time to survey the people whose houses abut on the path. Apparently, the only people who have been surveyed are the bikers! Lights will increase the traffic and give even more incentive to those bikers who insist on riding far too fast, night or day, to go even faster. I have a suggestion to those of you who insist on riding at night; ride on the city streets. They're already lit. That's what you did before the path was built. Or take the bus. Use the path during the day and dusk. I unfortunately was unable to attend the December meeting because I was out of town. Last night I witnessed a meeting held by an Alderman who clearly wants the lights and demonstrated little respect for anyone who did not agree with him by berating anyone who did and calling them rude. Good thing you're not my alder, Mr. Solomon because I would work extra hard to make sure you don't serve another term.
Posted: 07/20/2012
I have attended both city meeting for the project and it is my understanding that the primary goal of lighting the path is to encourage more users and address user conflicts. While I have also had conflicts or near misses with other trail users they have not always happen at night. They did almost all happen during morning or evening rush hour on the path when traffic is at its highest. In the summer months darkness is not a factor at all during rush hour and conflicts still happen.
I do agree that adding lights will encourage more trail users and bike commuters and I am in support of getting more people on bikes. Here are a few things I have not heard from the city planning team:
1. What is the user capacity of the trail currently and are we close to that during rush hour traffic?
2. Along term plan for the path
3. How the path design might need to change if daily user numbers go up
If the lighting project does happen, daily users will go up. Because of this, the number of conflicts will likely go up as well.
As a homeowner adjacent to the path I appreciate the work the city has done to address concerns voiced in the December 2011 meeting. However, reducing the light output by 40% and not changing the spacing of the poles will create defined dark areas in between poles. As a cyclist I find this extremely annoying and unsafe as my eyes constantly struggle to adapt.
I encourage the alders making the final decision to look at the long term plan for this path. If there isn’t a plan, one should be made. This plan should include improved maintenance, user education, enforcement, and someday, lights and separated bike and pedestrian lanes. Encouraging more users on the SW bike path without a complete long term plan to handle the increased traffic is irresponsible and will not make a safer path.
I have attended both city meeting for the project and it is my understanding that the primary goal of lighting the path is to encourage more users and address user conflicts. While I have also had conflicts or near misses with other trail users they have not always happen at night. They did almost all happen during morning or evening rush hour on the path when traffic is at its highest. In the summer months darkness is not a factor at all during rush hour and conflicts still happen.
I do agree that adding lights will encourage more trail users and bike commuters and I am in support of getting more people on bikes. Here are a few things I have not heard from the city planning team:
1. What is the user capacity of the trail currently and are we close to that during rush hour traffic?
2. Along term plan for the path
3. How the path design might need to change if daily user numbers go up
If the lighting project does happen, daily users will go up. Because of this, the number of conflicts will likely go up as well.
As a homeowner adjacent to the path I appreciate the work the city has done to address concerns voiced in the December 2011 meeting. However, reducing the light output by 40% and not changing the spacing of the poles will create defined dark areas in between poles. As a cyclist I find this extremely annoying and unsafe as my eyes constantly struggle to adapt.
I encourage the alders making the final decision to look at the long term plan for this path. If there isn’t a plan, one should be made. This plan should include improved maintenance, user education, enforcement, and someday, lights and separated bike and pedestrian lanes. Encouraging more users on the SW bike path without a complete long term plan to handle the increased traffic is irresponsible and will not make a safer path.
Posted: 07/20/2012
I feel that lighting the bike path, especially one as heavily used as the SW Commuter, is absolutely necessary. Bike paths should be lit just as sidewalks are lit for safety. I can't count the number of times I've nearly collided with someone jogging at night in dark, non-reflective clothing or another cyclist without lights or inadequate reflectors, and I ride with a 600 lumen headlight.
With the proper light fixtures, light pollution off the bike path should be quite minimal. If nothing else, homes in the area will already have street lights and neighbor's security lights, which have no baffling or diffusion, so additional lights on the path should be little to no additional issue.
I feel that lighting the bike path, especially one as heavily used as the SW Commuter, is absolutely necessary. Bike paths should be lit just as sidewalks are lit for safety. I can't count the number of times I've nearly collided with someone jogging at night in dark, non-reflective clothing or another cyclist without lights or inadequate reflectors, and I ride with a 600 lumen headlight.
With the proper light fixtures, light pollution off the bike path should be quite minimal. If nothing else, homes in the area will already have street lights and neighbor's security lights, which have no baffling or diffusion, so additional lights on the path should be little to no additional issue.
Posted: 07/20/2012
I bike on paths routinely after dark. It seems to me that rather than spending a great deal of tax money on lights that will make it easier for malefactors hiding along the sides of the path to see potential victims, and will make it harder for stargazers, and will disturb people living on neighboring properties, people should simply learn to bike intelligently: don't "overbike" your lights. If you want to bike faster, get brighter lights that will illuminate pedestrians (and the path) further away from you.
I bike on paths routinely after dark. It seems to me that rather than spending a great deal of tax money on lights that will make it easier for malefactors hiding along the sides of the path to see potential victims, and will make it harder for stargazers, and will disturb people living on neighboring properties, people should simply learn to bike intelligently: don't "overbike" your lights. If you want to bike faster, get brighter lights that will illuminate pedestrians (and the path) further away from you.
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.edu website; 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
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.edu website; 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
Posted: 07/20/2012
I am a big guy that rides to and from work regularly. The lack of lighting does two things for my commute: In late Fall and early Spring I drive far more often even though the weather tends to be perfect for riding because the lack of lighting leads to a growing trend to lurking strangers on the bike path that often alarm me and the lack of lead time when it comes to seeing the unexpected raccoon, squirrel, pothole or stranger dart in front of my wheels. The new lights that are proposed look great to me. Get them up there, please!
I am a big guy that rides to and from work regularly. The lack of lighting does two things for my commute: In late Fall and early Spring I drive far more often even though the weather tends to be perfect for riding because the lack of lighting leads to a growing trend to lurking strangers on the bike path that often alarm me and the lack of lead time when it comes to seeing the unexpected raccoon, squirrel, pothole or stranger dart in front of my wheels. The new lights that are proposed look great to me. Get them up there, please!
Posted: 07/20/2012
The 7 19 meeting confirmed the motivation behind the lighting the path.
Public support? Nope. Biker support? Not likely. City officials noted that the comments collected on its site since December (which are posted only with its approval) overwhelmingly oppose lighting the path. At the December meeting, Amanda White contended that a “popular ListServe that Bikers use” purportedly showed “all” bikers supported lighting. Comments on that ListServe bear identifiers (unlike the City site), so individuals can be counted up and – as conveyed to Amanda White through an e-mail attachment a few months ago – a majority of bikers on that List Serve then opposed lighting, and those supporting lighting generally wanted bollards or other options the City has taken off the table. When last I counted up commentators on the Isthmus web page, the results also displayed overwhelming opposition. None of that is scientific. But no properly constructed and conducted survey supports lighting. Amanda’s Bike Fed “survey” was, as a 7/19 speaker noted, accompanied by heavily biased language and its reported results are suspect. The reported results of the City survey are odd, and far more information is needed before it can be considered (i.e., what questions were asked, what was the order of the questions, etc.) In this University town, properly constructed and conducted surveys should be a minimum prerequisite. The closest so far are the surveys of adjacent and non-adjacent owners that reported majorities opposed to lighting.
Crime? Nope, as the police officer correctly observed. Those who may fear using an unlit path at night must be respected for their perceptions. They should, however, ask themselves whether they are safer walking, running or biking on an unlit path with their own light, pointed ahead of them, conveying only that someone is moving (perhaps a 300 lb weightlifter or perhaps part of a group of people). By contrast, alternating light cones from 20 foot poles would confirm, to a potential criminal in the shadows, the size and gender of the path user and whether the path user is alone.
Decreasing car traffic by increasing bike commuting? Nope. Recreational biking is great, but the key – which could be but has not been objectively measured – is whether bike commuting in nighttime hours would actually increase. As a speaker correctly noted – and as I have observed through 12 plus years of year-round bike commuting, the drop off is plainly weather and temperature related, not based on lighting or the lack of it.
Public safety? Nope. If that were the motivator, we would first seriously try signage and ticketing options before permanently destroying this invaluable resource with intrusive overhead lighting (the louvered version is definitely better – and the City should be praised for avoiding upward-shining lighting – but would plainly not be “Dark Sky” compliant from the ground). How about Burma Shave style signs that remind all users with humor (of which we need far more) of the respect for the safety of themselves and others that each user should bring to the path?
The public safety topic does relate to the true motivator for lighting the path. Alder Brian Solomon has viewed this project – including both meetings – as the “Brian Solomon Show.” He closed the 7 19 meeting by deferring his “Next Steps” segment to engage in wholly inappropriate advocacy that conveyed the message that he is right, opponents are wrong, and he will push his agenda regardless of what others think. His “no decision is yet made” comments do not wash down well. (He also opened the meeting by asserting that opponents were telling “lies” and then decrying lack of respect and civility).
There are many valid points that both proponents and opponents have made, and the comments on the various websites are a joy to read. This IS what Democracy looks like. But the prime motivator for lighting the path, and the prime problem with the debate thus far, is Alder Solomon.
Why does that relate to public safety? A personal story. Several months ago, while bike commuting to work about 8am (i.e., daytime), Alder Solomon’s car was the first vehicle in the far left lane on Fairchild and my bike was the first vehicle in the lane next to his as we waited for the light to change. Past the intersection, Alder Solomon’s lane was blocked by construction and mine was clear. When the light changed, Alder Solomon gunned his engine and tried to drive in front of me as I pedaled my bike into the intersection. I called out for him to stop, asking him what he thought he was doing, and he did stop. He then however, asserted that I had no right to be in my lane and, incredibly, said that “I’m a biker and I know the law.” Actually, I did have a right to be there since I planned to turn left at the next intersection, but that is not the point. The point is that Alder Solomon consciously tried to cut off a biker with his car and then, when that dangerous and illegal action was challenged, tried to shift blame to the biker.
Alder Solomon repeatedly displayed that same arrogance throughout the 7 19 meeting – while disparaging those understandably angered by his arrogance as not being civil and respectful. His actions have poisoned the otherwise rich and positive debate and made it exceedingly difficult for the community to accept any resolution of this lighting issue as we move forward.
I respectfully request that, particularly with the incident related above regarding Alder Solomon as a driver and myself as a biker, that he recuse himself from further activities regarding this issue. I make this request in the interests of facilitating a truly civil and respectful debate and a healing process needed for the immediate and overall community and for the enjoyment, by all, of the SW path.
Finally, I want to praise the City staff for its innovative efforts to address these difficult and understandably volatile issues. Its efforts to avoid upward glare through street lighting is greatly appreciated where that has occurred, as are its improvements of bike lanes. I really look forward as well to the addition of packed gravel on both sides of the SW path. Great news!
The 7 19 meeting confirmed the motivation behind the lighting the path.
Public support? Nope. Biker support? Not likely. City officials noted that the comments collected on its site since December (which are posted only with its approval) overwhelmingly oppose lighting the path. At the December meeting, Amanda White contended that a “popular ListServe that Bikers use” purportedly showed “all” bikers supported lighting. Comments on that ListServe bear identifiers (unlike the City site), so individuals can be counted up and – as conveyed to Amanda White through an e-mail attachment a few months ago – a majority of bikers on that List Serve then opposed lighting, and those supporting lighting generally wanted bollards or other options the City has taken off the table. When last I counted up commentators on the Isthmus web page, the results also displayed overwhelming opposition. None of that is scientific. But no properly constructed and conducted survey supports lighting. Amanda’s Bike Fed “survey” was, as a 7/19 speaker noted, accompanied by heavily biased language and its reported results are suspect. The reported results of the City survey are odd, and far more information is needed before it can be considered (i.e., what questions were asked, what was the order of the questions, etc.) In this University town, properly constructed and conducted surveys should be a minimum prerequisite. The closest so far are the surveys of adjacent and non-adjacent owners that reported majorities opposed to lighting.
Crime? Nope, as the police officer correctly observed. Those who may fear using an unlit path at night must be respected for their perceptions. They should, however, ask themselves whether they are safer walking, running or biking on an unlit path with their own light, pointed ahead of them, conveying only that someone is moving (perhaps a 300 lb weightlifter or perhaps part of a group of people). By contrast, alternating light cones from 20 foot poles would confirm, to a potential criminal in the shadows, the size and gender of the path user and whether the path user is alone.
Decreasing car traffic by increasing bike commuting? Nope. Recreational biking is great, but the key – which could be but has not been objectively measured – is whether bike commuting in nighttime hours would actually increase. As a speaker correctly noted – and as I have observed through 12 plus years of year-round bike commuting, the drop off is plainly weather and temperature related, not based on lighting or the lack of it.
Public safety? Nope. If that were the motivator, we would first seriously try signage and ticketing options before permanently destroying this invaluable resource with intrusive overhead lighting (the louvered version is definitely better – and the City should be praised for avoiding upward-shining lighting – but would plainly not be “Dark Sky” compliant from the ground). How about Burma Shave style signs that remind all users with humor (of which we need far more) of the respect for the safety of themselves and others that each user should bring to the path?
The public safety topic does relate to the true motivator for lighting the path. Alder Brian Solomon has viewed this project – including both meetings – as the “Brian Solomon Show.” He closed the 7 19 meeting by deferring his “Next Steps” segment to engage in wholly inappropriate advocacy that conveyed the message that he is right, opponents are wrong, and he will push his agenda regardless of what others think. His “no decision is yet made” comments do not wash down well. (He also opened the meeting by asserting that opponents were telling “lies” and then decrying lack of respect and civility).
There are many valid points that both proponents and opponents have made, and the comments on the various websites are a joy to read. This IS what Democracy looks like. But the prime motivator for lighting the path, and the prime problem with the debate thus far, is Alder Solomon.
Why does that relate to public safety? A personal story. Several months ago, while bike commuting to work about 8am (i.e., daytime), Alder Solomon’s car was the first vehicle in the far left lane on Fairchild and my bike was the first vehicle in the lane next to his as we waited for the light to change. Past the intersection, Alder Solomon’s lane was blocked by construction and mine was clear. When the light changed, Alder Solomon gunned his engine and tried to drive in front of me as I pedaled my bike into the intersection. I called out for him to stop, asking him what he thought he was doing, and he did stop. He then however, asserted that I had no right to be in my lane and, incredibly, said that “I’m a biker and I know the law.” Actually, I did have a right to be there since I planned to turn left at the next intersection, but that is not the point. The point is that Alder Solomon consciously tried to cut off a biker with his car and then, when that dangerous and illegal action was challenged, tried to shift blame to the biker.
Alder Solomon repeatedly displayed that same arrogance throughout the 7 19 meeting – while disparaging those understandably angered by his arrogance as not being civil and respectful. His actions have poisoned the otherwise rich and positive debate and made it exceedingly difficult for the community to accept any resolution of this lighting issue as we move forward.
I respectfully request that, particularly with the incident related above regarding Alder Solomon as a driver and myself as a biker, that he recuse himself from further activities regarding this issue. I make this request in the interests of facilitating a truly civil and respectful debate and a healing process needed for the immediate and overall community and for the enjoyment, by all, of the SW path.
Finally, I want to praise the City staff for its innovative efforts to address these difficult and understandably volatile issues. Its efforts to avoid upward glare through street lighting is greatly appreciated where that has occurred, as are its improvements of bike lanes. I really look forward as well to the addition of packed gravel on both sides of the SW path. Great news!
Posted: 07/20/2012
Lighting on the SW Bike Path needs to happen. While this is a multi-purpose path, it remains a transportation corridor and should be treated as such. Adding lights will increase bicycle commuting and reduce reliance on vehicles which inherently increases safety for all cyclists. At a price tag of $250,000 this is a very inexpensive enhancement compared to other transportation projects.
Lighting on the SW Bike Path needs to happen. While this is a multi-purpose path, it remains a transportation corridor and should be treated as such. Adding lights will increase bicycle commuting and reduce reliance on vehicles which inherently increases safety for all cyclists. At a price tag of $250,000 this is a very inexpensive enhancement compared to other transportation projects.
Posted: 07/20/2012
My family supports lighting on the bike path.
We moved to the Monroe-Dudgeon neighborhood because the bike-commuting option on the path allows us to have only one car. This example and the study identifying large numbers of path users confirms that the path is used seriously for transportation. I expect infrastructure services for transportation from my local government.
Let's turn on the path lights for early-morning commuters and dark evenings, similar to open park times.
If the lighting project is not implemented in the short term, please ticket any users with inadequate lighting (pedestrians or bikers), just as you would for drivers with inadequate lights.
My family supports lighting on the bike path.
We moved to the Monroe-Dudgeon neighborhood because the bike-commuting option on the path allows us to have only one car. This example and the study identifying large numbers of path users confirms that the path is used seriously for transportation. I expect infrastructure services for transportation from my local government.
Let's turn on the path lights for early-morning commuters and dark evenings, similar to open park times.
If the lighting project is not implemented in the short term, please ticket any users with inadequate lighting (pedestrians or bikers), just as you would for drivers with inadequate lights.
Posted: 07/20/2012
I use the SW path from the Beltline to Breese regularly to commute during the spring/summer when daylight is plentiful. I have avoided using the path if I have to drive it in darkness. (yes, I do have a decent light). I tried it 2 or 3 times, narrowly missing pedestrians I did not see until the last second. It is also quite intimidating to drive when it is pitch black. (Talk about not knowing what lurks in the shadows). I am wholeheartedly in favor of lighting the path with non-obtrusive lights. It only makes sense. If we light up streets, why wouldn't we light the path. I can then look forward to using it more year round. Appreciate the forum.
I use the SW path from the Beltline to Breese regularly to commute during the spring/summer when daylight is plentiful. I have avoided using the path if I have to drive it in darkness. (yes, I do have a decent light). I tried it 2 or 3 times, narrowly missing pedestrians I did not see until the last second. It is also quite intimidating to drive when it is pitch black. (Talk about not knowing what lurks in the shadows). I am wholeheartedly in favor of lighting the path with non-obtrusive lights. It only makes sense. If we light up streets, why wouldn't we light the path. I can then look forward to using it more year round. Appreciate the forum.
Posted: 07/20/2012
There is little doubt that the right kind of lighting could improve visibility on the path. I'd prefer to say otherwise since I very much enjoy late night rides when the path is lit by the moon. But, poor lighting could create a new set of problems.
The biggest safety problems that I've had in my many years of 10 month per year commuting is at the Prospect crossing where I go from a well lit area to deep darkness in a short distance as the path curves. The overhead lights are located on the inside of the curve, and tree branches and leaves restrict the area illuminated area. Lights poorly located are not a solution. I haven't had any run-ins with stray dogs. My problems have been with people walking three or four abreast. They can see me with the lights (I have two or three front lights, but tend to use the helmet light only when I'm trying to see objects at a medium distance.)
I've concluded that the best lighting would not be overhead lighting, but lighting at the height of about four feet. With lower lighting the path is still illuminated, but it is much easier to see objects passing across the light. I'd imagine that lower lighting would allow those interested in stargazing or whatever to have a better view that what would be afforded with overhead lighting.
My other suggestions to all users are:
1. Wear some reflective stripe on shoes, gloves, hats, etc. My light will reflect enough for me to see you.
2. Bikers, skaters, etc. aim your helmet lights on the path and not in my eyes. While I'm blinded by your light, I can't see anything. Cut the strobe! My mind is fried from work. I don't need more stress.
There is little doubt that the right kind of lighting could improve visibility on the path. I'd prefer to say otherwise since I very much enjoy late night rides when the path is lit by the moon. But, poor lighting could create a new set of problems.
The biggest safety problems that I've had in my many years of 10 month per year commuting is at the Prospect crossing where I go from a well lit area to deep darkness in a short distance as the path curves. The overhead lights are located on the inside of the curve, and tree branches and leaves restrict the area illuminated area. Lights poorly located are not a solution. I haven't had any run-ins with stray dogs. My problems have been with people walking three or four abreast. They can see me with the lights (I have two or three front lights, but tend to use the helmet light only when I'm trying to see objects at a medium distance.)
I've concluded that the best lighting would not be overhead lighting, but lighting at the height of about four feet. With lower lighting the path is still illuminated, but it is much easier to see objects passing across the light. I'd imagine that lower lighting would allow those interested in stargazing or whatever to have a better view that what would be afforded with overhead lighting.
My other suggestions to all users are:
1. Wear some reflective stripe on shoes, gloves, hats, etc. My light will reflect enough for me to see you.
2. Bikers, skaters, etc. aim your helmet lights on the path and not in my eyes. While I'm blinded by your light, I can't see anything. Cut the strobe! My mind is fried from work. I don't need more stress.
Posted: 07/20/2012
Please add lighting to the SW Commuter Path.
Thousands of people a day use the path for biking, running, walking, etc.
It would be safer with even a little light on it at night; esp. in the fall when the days get short but lots of people keep using the path.
Please add lighting to the SW Commuter Path.
Thousands of people a day use the path for biking, running, walking, etc.
It would be safer with even a little light on it at night; esp. in the fall when the days get short but lots of people keep using the path.
Posted: 07/19/2012
I commuted along this path last fall/early winter with my wife, and I feel that lighting is desperately, DESPERATELY needed, at least during "rush hour". My wife and I have extremely bright headlamps and even still there have been occasions where we've almost hit dogs off-leash or pedestrians wearing dark clothing. If everyone took responsibility for themselves by wearing highly-reflective clothing, carrying flashlights/headlamps, kept dogs on leashes (*and* had red blinking lights attached to their collars, or reflective vests), and pedestrians kept to the unpaved sides of the trail, it wouldn't be needed, but from my experience that will never happen.
Last year I almost hit a black lab that was running around off-leash (all I could see were the eyes reflected back at me as it ran up to "say hello"), and it's owner was wearing a dark-blue sweatshirt, no flashlight, and no reflective clothing. My wife and I have two super-bright headlamps (sorry other users, we try to keep them pointed down but as long as there are going to be poorly-lit pedestrians out at night we're keeping them on full-blast), and our bikes are literally lit up like Christmas trees as we're trying to be visible, but that doesn't mean much when we encounter irresponsible other trail users.
Lastly, claiming that cyclists just need to "get lights" is utterly false. (Commuting) bicycle lights are primarily used "to be seen", as opposed to "seeing". Even lights like the Planet Bike Beamer 5 (5-LEDs) don't do much to illuminate other trail users, particularly those wearing non-reflective black clothing. A light like that will only "reach out" 20-30' if the other trail user isn't wearing bright or reflective fabric, and a cyclist traveling at 15mph is covering *22 feet per second*. That means that if I see you 20' away, I have less than a second to avoid hitting you. If I see you at 30' away, I have 1.5 seconds to avoid hitting you.
The only thing that works is extremely-bright lights (my wife and I have ones that are rated ~1200 lumens, or roughly the brightness of a car's headlight) that can hopefully make up for the fact that the pedestrian in question (with or without the dog referenced above) isn't taking any responsibility themselves to be visible.
I don't think that it's necessary to run the lights all nights, but at the *very* least there needs to be overhead lighting during commuting hours. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before there is a horrible, horrible accident...
I commuted along this path last fall/early winter with my wife, and I feel that lighting is desperately, DESPERATELY needed, at least during "rush hour". My wife and I have extremely bright headlamps and even still there have been occasions where we've almost hit dogs off-leash or pedestrians wearing dark clothing. If everyone took responsibility for themselves by wearing highly-reflective clothing, carrying flashlights/headlamps, kept dogs on leashes (*and* had red blinking lights attached to their collars, or reflective vests), and pedestrians kept to the unpaved sides of the trail, it wouldn't be needed, but from my experience that will never happen.
Last year I almost hit a black lab that was running around off-leash (all I could see were the eyes reflected back at me as it ran up to "say hello"), and it's owner was wearing a dark-blue sweatshirt, no flashlight, and no reflective clothing. My wife and I have two super-bright headlamps (sorry other users, we try to keep them pointed down but as long as there are going to be poorly-lit pedestrians out at night we're keeping them on full-blast), and our bikes are literally lit up like Christmas trees as we're trying to be visible, but that doesn't mean much when we encounter irresponsible other trail users.
Lastly, claiming that cyclists just need to "get lights" is utterly false. (Commuting) bicycle lights are primarily used "to be seen", as opposed to "seeing". Even lights like the Planet Bike Beamer 5 (5-LEDs) don't do much to illuminate other trail users, particularly those wearing non-reflective black clothing. A light like that will only "reach out" 20-30' if the other trail user isn't wearing bright or reflective fabric, and a cyclist traveling at 15mph is covering *22 feet per second*. That means that if I see you 20' away, I have less than a second to avoid hitting you. If I see you at 30' away, I have 1.5 seconds to avoid hitting you.
The only thing that works is extremely-bright lights (my wife and I have ones that are rated ~1200 lumens, or roughly the brightness of a car's headlight) that can hopefully make up for the fact that the pedestrian in question (with or without the dog referenced above) isn't taking any responsibility themselves to be visible.
I don't think that it's necessary to run the lights all nights, but at the *very* least there needs to be overhead lighting during commuting hours. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before there is a horrible, horrible accident...
Posted: 07/19/2012
I bike the southwest path 5-6 days per week both day and night, including winter. I have a middle price range bike light and it provides plenty of light for me to see where I'm going, and, to see pedestrians well in advance. I also in-line skate on the path 2 times per week during the summer. I do not live adjacent to the path. I am opposed to lighting the path. In riding the path over the last 10 years, I have not witnessed any safety issues related to visibility after dark. I feel that the money would be far better spent on other bike projects such as user education, expanding/lengthening bike paths, and improving maintenance (there are a few sections and road crossings in the proposed segment that could really use new pavement to improve safety). People who use the path at night should take responsibility and provide their own reflectors or lights as appropriate. These users will certainly need these items on their way to the path and while leaving the path (as most users do not live on the path). Additionally, I have ridden through the area where the test light fixtures have been installed-both the original design and the new design. I feel these lights create too much contrast between lighted areas and the dark shadows.
I bike the southwest path 5-6 days per week both day and night, including winter. I have a middle price range bike light and it provides plenty of light for me to see where I'm going, and, to see pedestrians well in advance. I also in-line skate on the path 2 times per week during the summer. I do not live adjacent to the path. I am opposed to lighting the path. In riding the path over the last 10 years, I have not witnessed any safety issues related to visibility after dark. I feel that the money would be far better spent on other bike projects such as user education, expanding/lengthening bike paths, and improving maintenance (there are a few sections and road crossings in the proposed segment that could really use new pavement to improve safety). People who use the path at night should take responsibility and provide their own reflectors or lights as appropriate. These users will certainly need these items on their way to the path and while leaving the path (as most users do not live on the path). Additionally, I have ridden through the area where the test light fixtures have been installed-both the original design and the new design. I feel these lights create too much contrast between lighted areas and the dark shadows.
Posted: 07/19/2012
As a year-round bike commuter, I typically ride the SW path at 5:45 in the morning and return as late as 8:15 p.m. Nine months out of the year, these hours are dark. There are always at least 2-3 walkers who do not have reflectors or lights. I urge you to view lighting on the SW Bike Path as a public safety issue - there are cases around the country where walkers are hospitalized or killed by bicyclists. I think it's only a matter of time before a bad accident like this happens as ridership increases.
As a year-round bike commuter, I typically ride the SW path at 5:45 in the morning and return as late as 8:15 p.m. Nine months out of the year, these hours are dark. There are always at least 2-3 walkers who do not have reflectors or lights. I urge you to view lighting on the SW Bike Path as a public safety issue - there are cases around the country where walkers are hospitalized or killed by bicyclists. I think it's only a matter of time before a bad accident like this happens as ridership increases.
Posted: 07/19/2012
I am an avid cyclist, daily user of Madison’s network of trails and a property owner that has lived in close proximity of the paths (east and west) for the past 15 years. I promote the idea of getting more people on bikes, using human power to get around rather than driving and burning the earth’s valuable resources.
I do have several questions about this project though. People are talking as if there is a problem that needs to be fixed. What is the problem, exactly?
How many people are actually riding after dark? A quarter of a million dollars seems excessive to benefit only a handful of people. I honestly don’t see an increase in mothers and children, elderly and inexperienced, new cyclists/commuters after dark, which seems to be the audience the Bike Fed/city is trying to accommodate with this project. If there really are 3000 daily users, increasing that number (with cyclists, walkers, families, rollerbladers, joggers, high school track teams, the occasional commuter, etc. etc. etc.) is only going to increase the number of collisions, day and night, regardless of overhead lighting.
I think we all need to realize that the Southwest Path is multi-use (as well as all paths around the city). That being said, we should promote and practice common courtesy on the trail, especially during peak hours: SLOW DOWN, turn off your headphones, stay on your side of the trail, be aware of your surroundings, use signals, call out if you’re passing and make yourself visible- at any time of day. If everyone would practice even 2 of those common courtesy rules everyone would be safer and there would be fewer collisions, day and night. How many of these problematic collisions happened last year anyway (near-collisions excluded)?
Why are there no other lighting options on the table here? It seems as if it’s the overhead street-type lights or nothing- right now, or never. If we must have lights on the trail, let’s explore a couple of other options instead of instantly erecting overhead lighting so the Bike Fed can cross this project off their to-do list, especially if this project is going to act as a role model for others around the city. What about bolster lights or lights that would go directly on the ground, illuminating the way (many of these models are even solar powered and would be a fraction of the cost of overhead lighting)? If we are looking to make Madison a world class cycling city, let's pick the best option for all affected, including the environment.
Where is the money for this project coming from? Considering all the budget cuts, deficits and balancing issues the city is going through I would think that money could be better spent elsewhere. Please don’t cut some of our city services to fund lights on the path.
Let’s promote confident, safe cycling and trail usage instead of trying to retrofit our environment to give the illusion of safety to increase traffic on an already congested 3 mile strip of trail- after all, at some point we all have to leave the comfort of the trail and walk/ride on the street to reach our destination. Making people ‘feel’ safe is often very different from actually making them safer.
Has this kind of scrutiny been placed on other trails around the city? If getting more people out on bicycles is the primary objective here perhaps promotion and creation of other trails around the city should happen, to alleviate some of the traffic on the already crowded Southwest Path.
Lights were erected on the Allied Drive stretch of trail to make people safer and decrease the crime, but didn't crime actually increase after those lights were installed? How are we going to ensure that doesn’t happen on the Southwest Path?
Thanks for listening.
I am an avid cyclist, daily user of Madison’s network of trails and a property owner that has lived in close proximity of the paths (east and west) for the past 15 years. I promote the idea of getting more people on bikes, using human power to get around rather than driving and burning the earth’s valuable resources.
I do have several questions about this project though. People are talking as if there is a problem that needs to be fixed. What is the problem, exactly?
How many people are actually riding after dark? A quarter of a million dollars seems excessive to benefit only a handful of people. I honestly don’t see an increase in mothers and children, elderly and inexperienced, new cyclists/commuters after dark, which seems to be the audience the Bike Fed/city is trying to accommodate with this project. If there really are 3000 daily users, increasing that number (with cyclists, walkers, families, rollerbladers, joggers, high school track teams, the occasional commuter, etc. etc. etc.) is only going to increase the number of collisions, day and night, regardless of overhead lighting.
I think we all need to realize that the Southwest Path is multi-use (as well as all paths around the city). That being said, we should promote and practice common courtesy on the trail, especially during peak hours: SLOW DOWN, turn off your headphones, stay on your side of the trail, be aware of your surroundings, use signals, call out if you’re passing and make yourself visible- at any time of day. If everyone would practice even 2 of those common courtesy rules everyone would be safer and there would be fewer collisions, day and night. How many of these problematic collisions happened last year anyway (near-collisions excluded)?
Why are there no other lighting options on the table here? It seems as if it’s the overhead street-type lights or nothing- right now, or never. If we must have lights on the trail, let’s explore a couple of other options instead of instantly erecting overhead lighting so the Bike Fed can cross this project off their to-do list, especially if this project is going to act as a role model for others around the city. What about bolster lights or lights that would go directly on the ground, illuminating the way (many of these models are even solar powered and would be a fraction of the cost of overhead lighting)? If we are looking to make Madison a world class cycling city, let's pick the best option for all affected, including the environment.
Where is the money for this project coming from? Considering all the budget cuts, deficits and balancing issues the city is going through I would think that money could be better spent elsewhere. Please don’t cut some of our city services to fund lights on the path.
Let’s promote confident, safe cycling and trail usage instead of trying to retrofit our environment to give the illusion of safety to increase traffic on an already congested 3 mile strip of trail- after all, at some point we all have to leave the comfort of the trail and walk/ride on the street to reach our destination. Making people ‘feel’ safe is often very different from actually making them safer.
Has this kind of scrutiny been placed on other trails around the city? If getting more people out on bicycles is the primary objective here perhaps promotion and creation of other trails around the city should happen, to alleviate some of the traffic on the already crowded Southwest Path.
Lights were erected on the Allied Drive stretch of trail to make people safer and decrease the crime, but didn't crime actually increase after those lights were installed? How are we going to ensure that doesn’t happen on the Southwest Path?
Thanks for listening.
Posted: 07/19/2012
I STRONGLY SUPPORT installation of lights. As a walker and year-round bike commuter who uses the path multiple times per day, including evening, lights are (as another commenter suggested) way overdue.
The path becomes exceedingly dangerous in the winter with ice. When the path was initially completed, the city was diligent in applying salt and sand to prevent the buildup of ice. Unfortunately, the conditions in the past few years have become dangerous beyond belief. The city rarely applies sand or salt. I have been witness to many falls on the path, and a colleage sustained a sprained ankle due to icy conditions on the path. I myself have also fallen several times, despite being a very seasoned and skilled rider.
The nature of the heavy path use and shading by southern trees and slopes naturally results in packed snow, which combined with freeze/thaw cycles, eventually turns into ice. Without appropriate application of sand or salt, the ice continues to build up throughout the winter. It amazes me that the city allows itself so open to lawsuits from falls on this heavily used transportation/recreation trail. The city is certainly not hesitant to cite property owners when ice builds up on the sidewalks crossing their properties. Why does the city have such disregard for safety on the path? I realize this is an issue for another day, my point being that safety would be significantly increased through the installation of lighting, by allowing path users to see ice in their path. Unfortunately in this case, bike lights simply don't light the path well enough, nor provide enough advance warning to safely react regardless of speed.
I belive there are many other important reasons to light the path. Many of them stated repeatedly here already. I concur with those reasons as well.
Please, please give us light!!
P.S. THANK YOU CITY for the fantastic job you do plowing the path in a timely manner!!!! This allows many bikers to avoid using cars and reducing our carbon footprints, helping keep our fair city air cleaner. Plus, it's a lot of fun riding a bike to work in the winter :-)
I STRONGLY SUPPORT installation of lights. As a walker and year-round bike commuter who uses the path multiple times per day, including evening, lights are (as another commenter suggested) way overdue.
The path becomes exceedingly dangerous in the winter with ice. When the path was initially completed, the city was diligent in applying salt and sand to prevent the buildup of ice. Unfortunately, the conditions in the past few years have become dangerous beyond belief. The city rarely applies sand or salt. I have been witness to many falls on the path, and a colleage sustained a sprained ankle due to icy conditions on the path. I myself have also fallen several times, despite being a very seasoned and skilled rider.
The nature of the heavy path use and shading by southern trees and slopes naturally results in packed snow, which combined with freeze/thaw cycles, eventually turns into ice. Without appropriate application of sand or salt, the ice continues to build up throughout the winter. It amazes me that the city allows itself so open to lawsuits from falls on this heavily used transportation/recreation trail. The city is certainly not hesitant to cite property owners when ice builds up on the sidewalks crossing their properties. Why does the city have such disregard for safety on the path? I realize this is an issue for another day, my point being that safety would be significantly increased through the installation of lighting, by allowing path users to see ice in their path. Unfortunately in this case, bike lights simply don't light the path well enough, nor provide enough advance warning to safely react regardless of speed.
I belive there are many other important reasons to light the path. Many of them stated repeatedly here already. I concur with those reasons as well.
Please, please give us light!!
P.S. THANK YOU CITY for the fantastic job you do plowing the path in a timely manner!!!! This allows many bikers to avoid using cars and reducing our carbon footprints, helping keep our fair city air cleaner. Plus, it's a lot of fun riding a bike to work in the winter :-)
Posted: 07/19/2012
I strongly oppose the installation of lights on the bike path. The bike path is my favorite part of the neighborhood. The best time of day to ride the path is at night. It would be a wasteful shame to wreck the path with lights. I have no doubt that casual nighttime usage would go down if lights are installed. It will be like riding down a long parking lot. This is a very unpopular, awful idea!
I strongly oppose the installation of lights on the bike path. The bike path is my favorite part of the neighborhood. The best time of day to ride the path is at night. It would be a wasteful shame to wreck the path with lights. I have no doubt that casual nighttime usage would go down if lights are installed. It will be like riding down a long parking lot. This is a very unpopular, awful idea!
Posted: 07/19/2012
I support the lighting project.
I was in favor of lighting when the SW path was first proposed, and surprised its taken this long.
Lighting will greatly improve safety. That should go without saying, since we have 100 years of evidence showing that lighting improves safety on streets. But apparently some people think a 'path' is different from any other roadway.
I don't understand the argument that bicyclists should be 100% responsible for their own safety. On what other highways do we apply this standard? I have yet to hear anyone extending this argument, i.e. the removal of lighting on residential streets. We could probably save a lot more money and energy, and eliminate much more light pollution if we turned off all the lights on the Beltline. But I doubt the motorists would be content with just slowing down to a safer speed.
I support the lighting project.
I was in favor of lighting when the SW path was first proposed, and surprised its taken this long.
Lighting will greatly improve safety. That should go without saying, since we have 100 years of evidence showing that lighting improves safety on streets. But apparently some people think a 'path' is different from any other roadway.
I don't understand the argument that bicyclists should be 100% responsible for their own safety. On what other highways do we apply this standard? I have yet to hear anyone extending this argument, i.e. the removal of lighting on residential streets. We could probably save a lot more money and energy, and eliminate much more light pollution if we turned off all the lights on the Beltline. But I doubt the motorists would be content with just slowing down to a safer speed.
Posted: 07/19/2012
I am strongly in favor of the lighting project. I commend the city and staff for working with the neighborhood to find the right lighting. Lighting is long over due on this portion of the path for safety reasons. Rabbits and other small animals are difficult to see with just a bike light. Furthermore path lighting will reduce surprise encounters among path users by increasing the sight distance considerably. I avoid using this path at night most of time.
I was a member of the original design committee for the SW path project and we anticipated lighting would be needed but declined to require only due to neighborhood opposition to the path in general and to lighting especially. We have now had enough experience with the path to recognize it is major transportation and recreation facility. Lighting is required for the safety of the neighborhood and the path users.
I am strongly in favor of the lighting project. I commend the city and staff for working with the neighborhood to find the right lighting. Lighting is long over due on this portion of the path for safety reasons. Rabbits and other small animals are difficult to see with just a bike light. Furthermore path lighting will reduce surprise encounters among path users by increasing the sight distance considerably. I avoid using this path at night most of time.
I was a member of the original design committee for the SW path project and we anticipated lighting would be needed but declined to require only due to neighborhood opposition to the path in general and to lighting especially. We have now had enough experience with the path to recognize it is major transportation and recreation facility. Lighting is required for the safety of the neighborhood and the path users.
Posted: 07/19/2012
Living on the bike path, obviously I'm going to oppose lighting up my backyard. Beyond that I oppose the lighting for safety reasons.
Having bright lights lighting the path will help prevent collisions between commuters - as a biker I can see the benefits of that. However, if I were walking along the path under those bright lights I would NOT feel safe. I wouldn't be able to see what's going on in the shadows where the light doesn't reach. My dark adaption would be ruined by the lights and my hearing sensitivity would probably be reduced due the brightness of the lights (this is along the lines of why you turn your music down in the car when you're trying to concentrate on navigating). So if there was someone lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to jump out at me, I would be less likely to be aware of that situation than I would be if I were in darkness.
Plenty of people walk the path at night and are ok with it being dark, otherwise they would walk on the main roads with lighted sidewalks. After a nighttime Badger game last fall, there were tons of people walking on the dark path. People on bikes had lights and the vast majority of walkers were aware of the bikers well before they were near each other and moved if they were in the way.
I think if you're a regular bike commuter on the path, you should already have a good enough bike light to light your way. You would be able to see people walking, even the ones who are wearing darker clothes, and be able to announce your presence if the walkers did not notice your light right away.
Unless you propose lights that are very low to the ground (like the kind you would use to light a path up to your front door) and don't seriously affect the dark adaption of the walkers and bikers using the path, I won't support lights on the SW path.
Living on the bike path, obviously I'm going to oppose lighting up my backyard. Beyond that I oppose the lighting for safety reasons.
Having bright lights lighting the path will help prevent collisions between commuters - as a biker I can see the benefits of that. However, if I were walking along the path under those bright lights I would NOT feel safe. I wouldn't be able to see what's going on in the shadows where the light doesn't reach. My dark adaption would be ruined by the lights and my hearing sensitivity would probably be reduced due the brightness of the lights (this is along the lines of why you turn your music down in the car when you're trying to concentrate on navigating). So if there was someone lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to jump out at me, I would be less likely to be aware of that situation than I would be if I were in darkness.
Plenty of people walk the path at night and are ok with it being dark, otherwise they would walk on the main roads with lighted sidewalks. After a nighttime Badger game last fall, there were tons of people walking on the dark path. People on bikes had lights and the vast majority of walkers were aware of the bikers well before they were near each other and moved if they were in the way.
I think if you're a regular bike commuter on the path, you should already have a good enough bike light to light your way. You would be able to see people walking, even the ones who are wearing darker clothes, and be able to announce your presence if the walkers did not notice your light right away.
Unless you propose lights that are very low to the ground (like the kind you would use to light a path up to your front door) and don't seriously affect the dark adaption of the walkers and bikers using the path, I won't support lights on the SW path.
Posted: 07/19/2012
Thank you to the adjacent neighbors for alerting me to the lighting issue by posting signs. I have read several of the comments both pro and con including the letter received announcing the meeting tonight. I live a few blocks away from the commuter bike path and love walking/running during the daylight hours. I do not use the path at night because of the lack of lighting. My University student also rides his bike on the commuter bike path (shortest distance between point A and B and avoids the congestion of Monroe Street); however, only during the daylight hours. As soon as it becomes dark, I drive down to campus and pick him up including the bike. We would like to reduce our commuting carbon footprint more, but need the safety of lighting. I have owls, bats, hawks, and birds of all varieties in my back yard even with using solar deck lights. Food is plentiful because of fruit and nut trees, which brings squirrels, rabbits and chipmunks. I have a streetlight in my front yard and have room-darkening shades. "Build it and they will come". Provide light and the usage will definitely increase. After weighing all the pros and cons, I vote yes, and want to thank the City Engineers for all their hard work and courage to pursue improvements for City residents even when controversial.
Thank you to the adjacent neighbors for alerting me to the lighting issue by posting signs. I have read several of the comments both pro and con including the letter received announcing the meeting tonight. I live a few blocks away from the commuter bike path and love walking/running during the daylight hours. I do not use the path at night because of the lack of lighting. My University student also rides his bike on the commuter bike path (shortest distance between point A and B and avoids the congestion of Monroe Street); however, only during the daylight hours. As soon as it becomes dark, I drive down to campus and pick him up including the bike. We would like to reduce our commuting carbon footprint more, but need the safety of lighting. I have owls, bats, hawks, and birds of all varieties in my back yard even with using solar deck lights. Food is plentiful because of fruit and nut trees, which brings squirrels, rabbits and chipmunks. I have a streetlight in my front yard and have room-darkening shades. "Build it and they will come". Provide light and the usage will definitely increase. After weighing all the pros and cons, I vote yes, and want to thank the City Engineers for all their hard work and courage to pursue improvements for City residents even when controversial.
Posted: 07/18/2012
I live in the area and use the path regularly (pedestrian and cyclist). My family loves to go on the path at night to watch bats, fireflies and owls as well as to see the night sky. We bring reflectors/lights and as other users have them too, we've never had a problem. If you are in the dark, your eyes adjust. I would feel less safe with a small lighted corridor and darkness off the path where people could be hiding. Further, there are lighted streets one block away for anyone who prefers light.
This proposal seems like such a waste of tax dollars and would destroy a beautiful place.
I live in the area and use the path regularly (pedestrian and cyclist). My family loves to go on the path at night to watch bats, fireflies and owls as well as to see the night sky. We bring reflectors/lights and as other users have them too, we've never had a problem. If you are in the dark, your eyes adjust. I would feel less safe with a small lighted corridor and darkness off the path where people could be hiding. Further, there are lighted streets one block away for anyone who prefers light.
This proposal seems like such a waste of tax dollars and would destroy a beautiful place.
Posted: 07/18/2012
There are some lessons here about lighting, pavement, etc. on the Cannonball and Southwest paths, which seem to be similar to these Danish "bicycle superhighways":
From The New York Times:
COPENHAGEN JOURNAL: Commuters Pedal to Work on Their Very Own Superhighway
Denmark, already a cycling nation, is trying to encourage commuting to Copenhagen by bicycle by opening what it calls cycle superhighways.
http://nyti.ms/MGLTWw
(Reminder: I support lighting these paths.)
There are some lessons here about lighting, pavement, etc. on the Cannonball and Southwest paths, which seem to be similar to these Danish "bicycle superhighways":
From The New York Times:
COPENHAGEN JOURNAL: Commuters Pedal to Work on Their Very Own Superhighway
Denmark, already a cycling nation, is trying to encourage commuting to Copenhagen by bicycle by opening what it calls cycle superhighways.
http://nyti.ms/MGLTWw
(Reminder: I support lighting these paths.)
Posted: 07/18/2012
As a frequent bike commuter, I support lighting the SW bike path. For me, it's a simple safety issue. Although I have decent bike lights, many other bikers and walkers do not. One time when I was riding the path at night, I almost got in a collision with a group of people walking because I didn't see them until they were right in front of me. I acknowledge the concerns of neighbors, however due to the high traffic of the bike path, I think that the safety of the path users is more important. The additional benefit of more people making more trips by bike is an added bonus.
As a frequent bike commuter, I support lighting the SW bike path. For me, it's a simple safety issue. Although I have decent bike lights, many other bikers and walkers do not. One time when I was riding the path at night, I almost got in a collision with a group of people walking because I didn't see them until they were right in front of me. I acknowledge the concerns of neighbors, however due to the high traffic of the bike path, I think that the safety of the path users is more important. The additional benefit of more people making more trips by bike is an added bonus.
Posted: 07/18/2012
I strongly oppose the current proposal. The lights are obtrusive, ugly and unwarrented. There is "night-life" in Madison that includes the Owls, coyotes, and others. A compromise is requiredif we move forward at all.
Low level lighting seems like it would serve both the purpose of lighting the path ahead, and protecting the night sky.
I propose before we invest hundreds of thousands of dollarswe also invest the small amount in an alternative. In that way, citizens can really compare and share their voice for the better option.
Again, my vote is NO to the current proposal. Back to the drawing boardor not at allin that there was no outcry for this in the first place.
thank you.
I strongly oppose the current proposal. The lights are obtrusive, ugly and unwarrented. There is "night-life" in Madison that includes the Owls, coyotes, and others. A compromise is requiredif we move forward at all.
Low level lighting seems like it would serve both the purpose of lighting the path ahead, and protecting the night sky.
I propose before we invest hundreds of thousands of dollarswe also invest the small amount in an alternative. In that way, citizens can really compare and share their voice for the better option.
Again, my vote is NO to the current proposal. Back to the drawing boardor not at allin that there was no outcry for this in the first place.
thank you.
Posted: 07/18/2012
My home is located on the SW Bike path and I *strongly* oppose SW Bike path lighting. 1. It's a waste of tax funds. Despite high use, there have been 0 accidents and 0 crimes at night. Why spend $300,000 plus the annual costs of power and upkeep to "prevent" 0 accidents and 0 crimes? Surely there are areas of greater need. 2. There are many well-lit streets that already cost mega-bucks for power and upkeep. Walkers and bikers who simply "feel" safer with lighting can and should use the well-lit streets and side walks. 3. If there is a cash surplus, use it to educate and enforce personal responsibility for walkers/bikers who "feel" unsafe. Let's all try using better bike lights, reflectors, appropriate clothing, etc. 4. My prediction unnecessary LED lights will attract more late-night party-goers and petty criminals which are likely to increase accidents/crime. THEN, we will have a problem that is more difficult and costly to manage. CONCLUSION. In the end, this project will destroy and devalue the path, adjacent woods, parks, yards, our homes, AND our actual personal security. I urge you to put the money elsewhere or reduce our property taxes.
My home is located on the SW Bike path and I *strongly* oppose SW Bike path lighting. 1. It's a waste of tax funds. Despite high use, there have been 0 accidents and 0 crimes at night. Why spend $300,000 plus the annual costs of power and upkeep to "prevent" 0 accidents and 0 crimes? Surely there are areas of greater need. 2. There are many well-lit streets that already cost mega-bucks for power and upkeep. Walkers and bikers who simply "feel" safer with lighting can and should use the well-lit streets and side walks. 3. If there is a cash surplus, use it to educate and enforce personal responsibility for walkers/bikers who "feel" unsafe. Let's all try using better bike lights, reflectors, appropriate clothing, etc. 4. My prediction unnecessary LED lights will attract more late-night party-goers and petty criminals which are likely to increase accidents/crime. THEN, we will have a problem that is more difficult and costly to manage. CONCLUSION. In the end, this project will destroy and devalue the path, adjacent woods, parks, yards, our homes, AND our actual personal security. I urge you to put the money elsewhere or reduce our property taxes.
Posted: 07/18/2012
Many people have commented on the benefits of saving $250,000 by not installing the lighting.
Could the City Attorney's office comment on the City's liability in the event of personal injuries caused by a collision on the SW Bike Path in the darkness?
The installation of lights seems like a bargain compared to what might be paid out in medical expenses.
Many people have commented on the benefits of saving $250,000 by not installing the lighting.
Could the City Attorney's office comment on the City's liability in the event of personal injuries caused by a collision on the SW Bike Path in the darkness?
The installation of lights seems like a bargain compared to what might be paid out in medical expenses.
Posted: 07/18/2012
A previous comment was made objecting to some "NO Lights" signs along the bike path. I want to thank those property owners for informing many path users of the lighting proposal. It has given them an opportunity to express their opposition to the proposal. In the future the public should be engaged and even petitioned well before the City Council is asked to vote on such a large budget item.
A previous comment was made objecting to some "NO Lights" signs along the bike path. I want to thank those property owners for informing many path users of the lighting proposal. It has given them an opportunity to express their opposition to the proposal. In the future the public should be engaged and even petitioned well before the City Council is asked to vote on such a large budget item.
Posted: 07/18/2012
I am a regular user of the SW bike path as a daily bike commuter and occasional walker. I'm writing to strongly support installation of lighting on the bike path. If we want to encourage folks to use bikes to get around our city instead of driving cars, we need bikepaths that are safe and functional at night as well as during the day. Bikepaths are for transportation, like the city streets. If they function as pleasant greenspace too, that's great. But let's not forget their primary purpose is for transportation.
Yes, bikers are required to use lights, and walkers after dark should wear reflective clothing. But even if universally implemented, these measures aren't enough. No one argues that mandatory headlights on cars make streetlamps unnecessary.
I am a regular user of the SW bike path as a daily bike commuter and occasional walker. I'm writing to strongly support installation of lighting on the bike path. If we want to encourage folks to use bikes to get around our city instead of driving cars, we need bikepaths that are safe and functional at night as well as during the day. Bikepaths are for transportation, like the city streets. If they function as pleasant greenspace too, that's great. But let's not forget their primary purpose is for transportation.
Yes, bikers are required to use lights, and walkers after dark should wear reflective clothing. But even if universally implemented, these measures aren't enough. No one argues that mandatory headlights on cars make streetlamps unnecessary.
Posted: 07/18/2012
I was greatly dismayed to hear the city is considering lighting the bike path from Breeze terrace to the beltline. I often commute and ride home in the dark at evening. This is one of the joys of my day, to slip into the quiet of the bike path in the evening, at Breeze Terrace and ride to Glenway, my exit. I take such pleasure in the visual silence of the path, finding it a great reprieve from the glare, noise and bustle of the city. I daily am so grateful for this small haven of peace, and am very sad to see yet one more place in the city succumb to the incessant need for light and safety to the point of destroying what was there in the first place.
A bike light is more than ample light for both my ability to see and others to see me. I think that if users feel the need for more light they should carry one, and not expect the city to pay for another expense that can easily and simply be handled by the citizens. There are so many other needs that we can not handle without city funds.
Another reason I hate to see the lights going in is that living in a city, I and all of the other inhabitants of the area, two footed, four footed and winged, have so little reprieve from the ever present glaring lights of the city. Current research has shown that it is unhealthy for humans to be bombarded by light in the night, as shown in a public television special aired several weeks ago. It is also known to be disruptive to many cycles and activities of the animal kingdom. It is an awful thing to subject the neighbors and animal residents to this on a nightly basis.
As to the fear of walking in an unlit public space at night, esp. as a woman, I feel that to demand lighting on a pleasure/natural/bike trail is asking too much. There are many paths near the arboretum, or even along city bike trails that I feel cautious about, but this stretch feels quite safe, and there are other options to choose from. If fear is an issue, stick to the sidewalks where it is lit.
And to the people that feel that this is a commuter trail, and it should be lit to maximize the ease, safety and speed of commuting, I want to say that it is much more than that. There are people strolling, walking dogs and carriages, exercising and visiting with friends, and commuting is only a portion of it's use...night or day. To put in lighting so that everyone can move faster defeats some of the purpose, safety and pleasure of it as it is now.
In a time when funds for anything are so precious, and city lights so ubiquitous, I urge the city to use their funds for something else and let this stretch of our bike path system rest quietly in the night.
I was greatly dismayed to hear the city is considering lighting the bike path from Breeze terrace to the beltline. I often commute and ride home in the dark at evening. This is one of the joys of my day, to slip into the quiet of the bike path in the evening, at Breeze Terrace and ride to Glenway, my exit. I take such pleasure in the visual silence of the path, finding it a great reprieve from the glare, noise and bustle of the city. I daily am so grateful for this small haven of peace, and am very sad to see yet one more place in the city succumb to the incessant need for light and safety to the point of destroying what was there in the first place.
A bike light is more than ample light for both my ability to see and others to see me. I think that if users feel the need for more light they should carry one, and not expect the city to pay for another expense that can easily and simply be handled by the citizens. There are so many other needs that we can not handle without city funds.
Another reason I hate to see the lights going in is that living in a city, I and all of the other inhabitants of the area, two footed, four footed and winged, have so little reprieve from the ever present glaring lights of the city. Current research has shown that it is unhealthy for humans to be bombarded by light in the night, as shown in a public television special aired several weeks ago. It is also known to be disruptive to many cycles and activities of the animal kingdom. It is an awful thing to subject the neighbors and animal residents to this on a nightly basis.
As to the fear of walking in an unlit public space at night, esp. as a woman, I feel that to demand lighting on a pleasure/natural/bike trail is asking too much. There are many paths near the arboretum, or even along city bike trails that I feel cautious about, but this stretch feels quite safe, and there are other options to choose from. If fear is an issue, stick to the sidewalks where it is lit.
And to the people that feel that this is a commuter trail, and it should be lit to maximize the ease, safety and speed of commuting, I want to say that it is much more than that. There are people strolling, walking dogs and carriages, exercising and visiting with friends, and commuting is only a portion of it's use...night or day. To put in lighting so that everyone can move faster defeats some of the purpose, safety and pleasure of it as it is now.
In a time when funds for anything are so precious, and city lights so ubiquitous, I urge the city to use their funds for something else and let this stretch of our bike path system rest quietly in the night.
Posted: 07/18/2012
Given that the path is called the "Southwest Commuter Path" and there are 3000 trips/day you can assume the primary use is commuting and therefore there should be lighting to provide more increased use and safety. I get the concerns of neighbors, but the lighting shouldn't be avoided because of a relatively few NIMBYs when it's for the greater public! As a compromise you can get the lights that shed less light pollution and operate the lights during certain hours/seasons (say up to 10 or 11pm on weeknights and 1am on weekends spring-fall and turn them off earlier during the winter months).
Every once in a while I have to commute home alone from work (downtown) in the dark and I don't feel safe. As a woman, I feel very uncomfortable biking the dark stretches because my headlight doesn't light up the sides of the path or the path itself like a car would. I'm paranoid about what I may hit or some criminal lurking along the path. The next time I have to commute alone at night, I may choose an alternative route on the road.
I give the City staff credit for proposing this great project and persevering despite all the complaints. It may seem like there are more opposed than in support of the project but that's because the ones who are most impacted by a project (the neighbors) speak up and attend meetings more frequently than others in the community. I'm sure there are plenty more that may be in support but don't even have this on their radar or feel as passionately about this issue.
-Rosewood Circle Resident
Given that the path is called the "Southwest Commuter Path" and there are 3000 trips/day you can assume the primary use is commuting and therefore there should be lighting to provide more increased use and safety. I get the concerns of neighbors, but the lighting shouldn't be avoided because of a relatively few NIMBYs when it's for the greater public! As a compromise you can get the lights that shed less light pollution and operate the lights during certain hours/seasons (say up to 10 or 11pm on weeknights and 1am on weekends spring-fall and turn them off earlier during the winter months).
Every once in a while I have to commute home alone from work (downtown) in the dark and I don't feel safe. As a woman, I feel very uncomfortable biking the dark stretches because my headlight doesn't light up the sides of the path or the path itself like a car would. I'm paranoid about what I may hit or some criminal lurking along the path. The next time I have to commute alone at night, I may choose an alternative route on the road.
I give the City staff credit for proposing this great project and persevering despite all the complaints. It may seem like there are more opposed than in support of the project but that's because the ones who are most impacted by a project (the neighbors) speak up and attend meetings more frequently than others in the community. I'm sure there are plenty more that may be in support but don't even have this on their radar or feel as passionately about this issue.
-Rosewood Circle Resident
Posted: 07/18/2012
What ever happened to personal responsibility? As in buying a bike light and pointing it downward so it doesn't glare. What hardship!
Do we need the city to pop for hundreds of thousands of dollars so a relatively small minority doesn't have to be inconvenienced? (I'm a bike commuter so I'm in that minority) One opportunity to keep a semi-natural area semi-natural and peaceful at night. Let's keep what little of the night sky we still have. If bike commuters (like me) can't handle that, there's an alternative 25 yards to the southeast lined with expensive lighting.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? As in buying a bike light and pointing it downward so it doesn't glare. What hardship!
Do we need the city to pop for hundreds of thousands of dollars so a relatively small minority doesn't have to be inconvenienced? (I'm a bike commuter so I'm in that minority) One opportunity to keep a semi-natural area semi-natural and peaceful at night. Let's keep what little of the night sky we still have. If bike commuters (like me) can't handle that, there's an alternative 25 yards to the southeast lined with expensive lighting.
Posted: 07/18/2012
What ever happened to personal responsibility? As in buying a bike light and pointing it downward so it doesn't glare. What hardship!
Do we need the city to pop for hundreds of thousands of dollars so a relatively small minority doesn't have to be inconvenienced? (I'm a bike commuter so I'm in that minority) One opportunity to keep a semi-natural area semi-natural and peaceful at night. Let's keep what little of the night sky we still have. If bike commuters (like me) can't handle that, there's an alternative 25 yards to the southeast lined with expensive lighting.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? As in buying a bike light and pointing it downward so it doesn't glare. What hardship!
Do we need the city to pop for hundreds of thousands of dollars so a relatively small minority doesn't have to be inconvenienced? (I'm a bike commuter so I'm in that minority) One opportunity to keep a semi-natural area semi-natural and peaceful at night. Let's keep what little of the night sky we still have. If bike commuters (like me) can't handle that, there's an alternative 25 yards to the southeast lined with expensive lighting.
Posted: 07/18/2012
I think the lighting project is a good idea. We walk the bike path at night, even in winter. Lighting would help see obstacles on the path. Our adult son uses it every day all year long day and night,
The path is a thoroughfare just as streets are and deserves the same respect
It sounds like the plan is to make the lights as energy efficient, economical and unobtrusive as possible.
Its a good plan.
I think the lighting project is a good idea. We walk the bike path at night, even in winter. Lighting would help see obstacles on the path. Our adult son uses it every day all year long day and night,
The path is a thoroughfare just as streets are and deserves the same respect
It sounds like the plan is to make the lights as energy efficient, economical and unobtrusive as possible.
Its a good plan.
Posted: 07/18/2012
Thank you for allowing this forum and considering the lighting improvement to this high-use path. As a regular user of the path, typically in the late evening or early night hours, I am surprised that significant injuries have not been incurred in collisions between bicyclists and pedestrians wearing dark clothing and no illumination. Calling for bikers to lower their speed ignores the underlying purpose of the path. Arguing that wildlife needs darkness and residents need dark sky views similarly ignores the underlying purpose of the path and confuses the commuter path with a nature trail in the Arboretum. While reasonable conduct should be exhibited by all, the safety and utility of overnight lights on this path cannot be ignored. I support and urge adoption of the illuminated path using the new LED fixtures and baffles. My compliments to city staff for the proactive effort in engineering a great compromise solution.
Thank you for allowing this forum and considering the lighting improvement to this high-use path. As a regular user of the path, typically in the late evening or early night hours, I am surprised that significant injuries have not been incurred in collisions between bicyclists and pedestrians wearing dark clothing and no illumination. Calling for bikers to lower their speed ignores the underlying purpose of the path. Arguing that wildlife needs darkness and residents need dark sky views similarly ignores the underlying purpose of the path and confuses the commuter path with a nature trail in the Arboretum. While reasonable conduct should be exhibited by all, the safety and utility of overnight lights on this path cannot be ignored. I support and urge adoption of the illuminated path using the new LED fixtures and baffles. My compliments to city staff for the proactive effort in engineering a great compromise solution.
Posted: 07/18/2012
Below is the actual statement from the WISDOT Bicycle Facilities Handbook that was used as a main rationale to support this lighting project (see "Why Light?" slide in City/Traffic Engineering December PowerPoint Presentation).
"Wisconsin State Statutes require front bicycle lights to be visible
from at least 500 ft. There is no requirement for lights to illuminate the
path and objects in front of a bicyclist. Many new bicycle lights are good
at providing efficient lighting visible from long distances, but are relatively poor at illuminating the paths of bicyclists"
This is a *minimum requirement* that was originated in the Federal 1924 Uniform Vehicle Code (the Honorable Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce & Chairman, apparently thought 300ft was OK back then).
Anyone that takes this as evidence that a modern bike light won't light the pavement (in the absence of overhead lights, especially) either hasn't used a modern bike light lately, or is simply being disingenuous.
Since the City (and now the Bike Fed and others) seem anxious to use this mis-interpretation of a *minimum legal requirement* to justify a need for this project, here are some other quotes from the same 2006 handbook that were apparently not included in the city's presentation at the December meeting. These may have been left out because they actually indicate that these glare-producing overhead fixtures and the current installation plan go *against* many of the WISDOT recommendations for bike/pedestrian paths.
"Even where lighting is not used for the path itself, lighting of intersections at trails and roadways should be strongly considered."
(SW path does not currently have specific lighting at intersections with streets. There is, for example NO lighting at all at the intersection with Commonwealth)
"Night vision: Both bicyclists and pedestrians have
specific requirements for nighttime seeing. Both need to
see small obstacles and changes in pavement surfaces
to feel safe using paths at night. *Uniform* illumination
should be provided that avoids “hot spots” and deep
shadows, and care must be taken to avoid glare, which
can compromise night vision."
(This project has very non-uniform lighting and very glare-inducing fixtures)
"Illumination levels: Recommended light levels for shared use
paths are considerably lower than those for roadways and
other outdoor lighting applications"
(one would be able to read the fine print on a wasteful purchasing contract under these lights)
"Luminaire Design: Typical pole-mounted roadway lights are
a poor choice for illuminating narrow paths. Standard Type II
horizontal lamps create spill light off the path, and require
excess wattage and/or more frequent placement to maintain
uniformity. If pole mounted lights are specified, Type I horizontal
lamps should be used."
(this issue was largely accommodated with the baffles, but it points out that pole-mounted fixtures are not necessarily the best choice)
"Uniformity of illumination is particularly important for shared-use paths. Bicyclists moving between“hot spots” from poorly placed luminaires may be unable to see in the interspersed shadows. Providing some overlap allows for a more constant visual environment, and can help
prevent crashes."
(Debris and obstacles will be virtually invisible between lights with this project because of uneven illumination and complete destruction of rider's night vision)
"Glare from cobra-style luminaires should be
avoided in all cases. Particular attention should be given to
pathways adjacent to residences, waterways, or natural areas
Full cutoff luminaires are a *minimum* requirement for all path illumination, while special shielding may be required for more sensitive areas."
(The proposed LED fixtures are arrays of super-bright point sources and therefore one of the most glaring examples of glare-producing fixtures ever made. They are far worse than typical cobra fixtures, but were basically unknown in the trade when the handbook was written)
"Bollards: Lights mounted below eye level can also be used
for illuminating shared-use paths (fig. 4-55). More frequent
spacing, combined with lower wattage bulbs, can meet recommended
levels of illuminance and uniformity while reducing
operating costs. When choosing these fixtures, select a type that
eliminates glare, since bicyclists’ eye level will be just
above these lights. These fixtures should be placed at least
2 ft (0.6 m) from the path edge."
(For best visual acuity and safety of all users, the current overhead lights at ramp entries should be replaced by glare-free bollard fixtures, and groups of glare-free bollards should be used at intersections with streets. Too bad bollards are not in the repertoire of Traffic Engineering, so we end up with completely inappropriate and counterproductive lighting proposals)
Thanks for this forum
Southwest Path Alliance
Below is the actual statement from the WISDOT Bicycle Facilities Handbook that was used as a main rationale to support this lighting project (see "Why Light?" slide in City/Traffic Engineering December PowerPoint Presentation).
"Wisconsin State Statutes require front bicycle lights to be visible
from at least 500 ft. There is no requirement for lights to illuminate the
path and objects in front of a bicyclist. Many new bicycle lights are good
at providing efficient lighting visible from long distances, but are relatively poor at illuminating the paths of bicyclists"
This is a *minimum requirement* that was originated in the Federal 1924 Uniform Vehicle Code (the Honorable Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce & Chairman, apparently thought 300ft was OK back then).
Anyone that takes this as evidence that a modern bike light won't light the pavement (in the absence of overhead lights, especially) either hasn't used a modern bike light lately, or is simply being disingenuous.
Since the City (and now the Bike Fed and others) seem anxious to use this mis-interpretation of a *minimum legal requirement* to justify a need for this project, here are some other quotes from the same 2006 handbook that were apparently not included in the city's presentation at the December meeting. These may have been left out because they actually indicate that these glare-producing overhead fixtures and the current installation plan go *against* many of the WISDOT recommendations for bike/pedestrian paths.
"Even where lighting is not used for the path itself, lighting of intersections at trails and roadways should be strongly considered."
(SW path does not currently have specific lighting at intersections with streets. There is, for example NO lighting at all at the intersection with Commonwealth)
"Night vision: Both bicyclists and pedestrians have
specific requirements for nighttime seeing. Both need to
see small obstacles and changes in pavement surfaces
to feel safe using paths at night. *Uniform* illumination
should be provided that avoids “hot spots” and deep
shadows, and care must be taken to avoid glare, which
can compromise night vision."
(This project has very non-uniform lighting and very glare-inducing fixtures)
"Illumination levels: Recommended light levels for shared use
paths are considerably lower than those for roadways and
other outdoor lighting applications"
(one would be able to read the fine print on a wasteful purchasing contract under these lights)
"Luminaire Design: Typical pole-mounted roadway lights are
a poor choice for illuminating narrow paths. Standard Type II
horizontal lamps create spill light off the path, and require
excess wattage and/or more frequent placement to maintain
uniformity. If pole mounted lights are specified, Type I horizontal
lamps should be used."
(this issue was largely accommodated with the baffles, but it points out that pole-mounted fixtures are not necessarily the best choice)
"Uniformity of illumination is particularly important for shared-use paths. Bicyclists moving between“hot spots” from poorly placed luminaires may be unable to see in the interspersed shadows. Providing some overlap allows for a more constant visual environment, and can help
prevent crashes."
(Debris and obstacles will be virtually invisible between lights with this project because of uneven illumination and complete destruction of rider's night vision)
"Glare from cobra-style luminaires should be
avoided in all cases. Particular attention should be given to
pathways adjacent to residences, waterways, or natural areas
Full cutoff luminaires are a *minimum* requirement for all path illumination, while special shielding may be required for more sensitive areas."
(The proposed LED fixtures are arrays of super-bright point sources and therefore one of the most glaring examples of glare-producing fixtures ever made. They are far worse than typical cobra fixtures, but were basically unknown in the trade when the handbook was written)
"Bollards: Lights mounted below eye level can also be used
for illuminating shared-use paths (fig. 4-55). More frequent
spacing, combined with lower wattage bulbs, can meet recommended
levels of illuminance and uniformity while reducing
operating costs. When choosing these fixtures, select a type that
eliminates glare, since bicyclists’ eye level will be just
above these lights. These fixtures should be placed at least
2 ft (0.6 m) from the path edge."
(For best visual acuity and safety of all users, the current overhead lights at ramp entries should be replaced by glare-free bollard fixtures, and groups of glare-free bollards should be used at intersections with streets. Too bad bollards are not in the repertoire of Traffic Engineering, so we end up with completely inappropriate and counterproductive lighting proposals)
Thanks for this forum
Southwest Path Alliance
Posted: 07/18/2012
I am a regular night-time user (bike and ped) of the SW path and a Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood resident. Until now I have been on the fence about supporting the path lighting. After much deliberation, review of other's comments, observing the trial fixtures, and talking with others, I am now supportive of the path lighting. I am in favor of this investment. Thanks, Andrew.
I am a regular night-time user (bike and ped) of the SW path and a Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood resident. Until now I have been on the fence about supporting the path lighting. After much deliberation, review of other's comments, observing the trial fixtures, and talking with others, I am now supportive of the path lighting. I am in favor of this investment. Thanks, Andrew.
Posted: 07/18/2012
I don''t live on path but sometimes use it. The test light process is incomplete. It really needs at least 3 lights spaced apart as proposed. That's necessary so people can experience the light variation between each. When biking, it will be hard to see as you go between light and dark spots. Lighting the path is a bad idea. Use the money for better things. Maybe purchase more bikes for bike cops, or educate bikers to follow rules like putting lights on their bikes! Plus, this is a pretty neat area for darkness in the city. Let people enjoy it. Thanks.
I don''t live on path but sometimes use it. The test light process is incomplete. It really needs at least 3 lights spaced apart as proposed. That's necessary so people can experience the light variation between each. When biking, it will be hard to see as you go between light and dark spots. Lighting the path is a bad idea. Use the money for better things. Maybe purchase more bikes for bike cops, or educate bikers to follow rules like putting lights on their bikes! Plus, this is a pretty neat area for darkness in the city. Let people enjoy it. Thanks.
Posted: 07/17/2012
I commuted on that path for four years when I lived on the SW side of Madison. From start to finish, I, a strong, athletic, willing-to-fight-back rider have considered it too dark for safe night use. When riders respond by having bright lights, those in front of us are temporarily blinded - creating an unsafe situation for someone else. I support smart, reasonably bright lighting. There's no need to have "street lights", because we don't travel at car speeds, but lighting is required.
I commuted on that path for four years when I lived on the SW side of Madison. From start to finish, I, a strong, athletic, willing-to-fight-back rider have considered it too dark for safe night use. When riders respond by having bright lights, those in front of us are temporarily blinded - creating an unsafe situation for someone else. I support smart, reasonably bright lighting. There's no need to have "street lights", because we don't travel at car speeds, but lighting is required.
Posted: 07/17/2012
Thank you for providing this forum for everyone to share their input and thoughts about lighting on the path. It's an important and considerate way to provide a venue for sharing.
Could the city please take measures to remove the personal propaganda homeowners have placed on the path right-of-way (specifically, the corridor between Glenway west towards Odana, on both sides of the path)? Property owners have placed signs and flyers in the public space. Please direct these folks to share their opinions through the formally designated channels (like this website), and to move their signs to their PERSONAL property if they wish to display an opinion (are signs even allowed on personal property? I am not sure).
I think we all have the right to express our opinions, but that right should not infringe on the users accessing public space.
Thanks!
Thank you for providing this forum for everyone to share their input and thoughts about lighting on the path. It's an important and considerate way to provide a venue for sharing.
Could the city please take measures to remove the personal propaganda homeowners have placed on the path right-of-way (specifically, the corridor between Glenway west towards Odana, on both sides of the path)? Property owners have placed signs and flyers in the public space. Please direct these folks to share their opinions through the formally designated channels (like this website), and to move their signs to their PERSONAL property if they wish to display an opinion (are signs even allowed on personal property? I am not sure).
I think we all have the right to express our opinions, but that right should not infringe on the users accessing public space.
Thanks!
Posted: 07/17/2012
Yes, Lights are OK at homes (where lights can actually provide some measure of crime deterrence). These very obtrusive and glaring overhead lights are NOT OK in this public space.
I don't want to be put "up on stage" in a light tunnel where I can't see anything off to the sides, but someone hiding 10ft into the dark can easily see me and tell whether there is anyone else coming from either direction. It would make me FEEL less safe and actually BE less safe.
Also, I think it is pretty patronizing and presumptuous for somebody else to tell everyone how they should use their eyes. At night, I prefer rods over cones, and to light my own way, thank you!
Yes, Lights are OK at homes (where lights can actually provide some measure of crime deterrence). These very obtrusive and glaring overhead lights are NOT OK in this public space.
I don't want to be put "up on stage" in a light tunnel where I can't see anything off to the sides, but someone hiding 10ft into the dark can easily see me and tell whether there is anyone else coming from either direction. It would make me FEEL less safe and actually BE less safe.
Also, I think it is pretty patronizing and presumptuous for somebody else to tell everyone how they should use their eyes. At night, I prefer rods over cones, and to light my own way, thank you!
Posted: 07/17/2012
I support the lights on the SW Path. The current test fixtures are definitely OK. These appear to spill light no more than 15 feet from the pavement.
I am a resident of the Dudgeon Monroe Neighborhood and am a regular user of the path, both as a walker and bike rider.
When walking the path the other night at 10:00 a brief visual survey at houses from Sheldon St to Council Crest found that 65 have porch, flood, and/or landscape lighting in their back yards. could this mean that lights are OK at home but not in a public transportation corridor?
I support the lights on the SW Path. The current test fixtures are definitely OK. These appear to spill light no more than 15 feet from the pavement.
I am a resident of the Dudgeon Monroe Neighborhood and am a regular user of the path, both as a walker and bike rider.
When walking the path the other night at 10:00 a brief visual survey at houses from Sheldon St to Council Crest found that 65 have porch, flood, and/or landscape lighting in their back yards. could this mean that lights are OK at home but not in a public transportation corridor?
Posted: 07/17/2012
There have been some recent comments lately about sticking to the facts when deciding whether overhead lighting should be placed on the SW path. Well, here are some new facts that in the end will probably determine whether lighting goes in at all. FY 2012 was a good year for the City of Madison. With its operating budget in the black it was able to put $10 million in a rainy day fund. That won't happen again any time soon. Even when raising property taxes to the maximum allowed, the City is facing a $10 million dollar projected deficit for FY 2013. In a meeting several weeks ago the City's finance director delivered the bad news to the Common Council- yes, 2013 is going to be a bad year, and 2014, 2015, and 2016 are going to be even worse. Thanks to Governor Walker's extremely tight revenue controls, rising operating costs including debt service costs, and little or no growth, budgets for a city like Madison are going to be nearly impossible to balance without significantly cutting existing services. From here on in our City's managers are going to have to pay attention to detail and make ever smarter fiscal decisions. Which gets me back to the decision with the overhead lighting. City Engineering's capital budget for projects like the lighting proposal have increased considerably since FY 2010 in both the number of projects and in total budget. It's even added a new budget category for just bike and pedestrian projects. All of these projects appear to be funded with G.O. bonding which has to be paid back with interest. Most of these projects are necessary for getting people out of their cars and making cities more livable, but some really are luxuries we can no longer afford. The lighting proposal is one such luxury. With so much controversy and with a majority of citizens actually against it, by any measure it's time to find a better use for this money. Any safety concerns really revolve around how people use the path. Right now, most bicyclists are not following traffic laws which make cycling at night more dangerous. If you don't believe me, spend an hour at Glenway Street and the bike path and see for yourself. Mayor Soglin and the Common Council will need to decide whether the benefits of lighting are truly worth the costs because their future maintenance, debt service, and electricity will all have to be paid for at the expense of EXISTING services.
There have been some recent comments lately about sticking to the facts when deciding whether overhead lighting should be placed on the SW path. Well, here are some new facts that in the end will probably determine whether lighting goes in at all. FY 2012 was a good year for the City of Madison. With its operating budget in the black it was able to put $10 million in a rainy day fund. That won't happen again any time soon. Even when raising property taxes to the maximum allowed, the City is facing a $10 million dollar projected deficit for FY 2013. In a meeting several weeks ago the City's finance director delivered the bad news to the Common Council- yes, 2013 is going to be a bad year, and 2014, 2015, and 2016 are going to be even worse. Thanks to Governor Walker's extremely tight revenue controls, rising operating costs including debt service costs, and little or no growth, budgets for a city like Madison are going to be nearly impossible to balance without significantly cutting existing services. From here on in our City's managers are going to have to pay attention to detail and make ever smarter fiscal decisions. Which gets me back to the decision with the overhead lighting. City Engineering's capital budget for projects like the lighting proposal have increased considerably since FY 2010 in both the number of projects and in total budget. It's even added a new budget category for just bike and pedestrian projects. All of these projects appear to be funded with G.O. bonding which has to be paid back with interest. Most of these projects are necessary for getting people out of their cars and making cities more livable, but some really are luxuries we can no longer afford. The lighting proposal is one such luxury. With so much controversy and with a majority of citizens actually against it, by any measure it's time to find a better use for this money. Any safety concerns really revolve around how people use the path. Right now, most bicyclists are not following traffic laws which make cycling at night more dangerous. If you don't believe me, spend an hour at Glenway Street and the bike path and see for yourself. Mayor Soglin and the Common Council will need to decide whether the benefits of lighting are truly worth the costs because their future maintenance, debt service, and electricity will all have to be paid for at the expense of EXISTING services.
Posted: 07/16/2012
We oppose lighting the path.
We live in Nakoma. My wife and I and our children use the path many times per week to access downtown and Monroe Street. We have almost always used lights on our bikes. We also walk the path sometimes at night and prefer the darkness. We oppose lighting the path for many of the reasons already set forth by others including, light pollution, neighbors, peacefulness, wildlife. Thanks for considering public input.
We oppose lighting the path.
We live in Nakoma. My wife and I and our children use the path many times per week to access downtown and Monroe Street. We have almost always used lights on our bikes. We also walk the path sometimes at night and prefer the darkness. We oppose lighting the path for many of the reasons already set forth by others including, light pollution, neighbors, peacefulness, wildlife. Thanks for considering public input.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I want to thank the city for listening to the concerns of the community. Using the low light LEDs is a great solution and a well thought out compromise. It helps to make the path safer, while minimizing excessive light. Thank you!
I want to thank the city for listening to the concerns of the community. Using the low light LEDs is a great solution and a well thought out compromise. It helps to make the path safer, while minimizing excessive light. Thank you!
Posted: 07/16/2012
Hello! Thank you so much for follow-through and consideration of lighting the SW Bike Path. As a daily bike commuter and regular walker, I have traversed the path many a time at dawn, dusk and dark.
While I have never had a concern about debris on the path or errant dogs, I always have concerns about the "unlit traveller." There are way too many people travelling the path who simply do not use lighting or reflective gear to make it safe for everyone.
While people have suggested that these folks just get lights, we know in reality that these types of things cannot be mandated. We can educate and encourage, but people are free to use the path as they wish. There will always be people on an unlit path who choose to not use lighting on their bikes or bodies.
Other suggest that bikers simply use the side streets if they want a lighted route of travel. For many nights, this is not practical, with ice, snow and other hazards of the road (i.e., 2000 pound cars). Travelling on a city street can be even more dangerous than travelling on the path with unlit walkers and bikers. The path was designed to provide a bike and pedestrian corridor, and the original intent was to provide lighting. Asking us to NOT use the path because it is not appropriately lit does not make sense. Research clearly shows that a path of this nature with this amount of use *should* have appropriate lighting.
Arguments abound right now in the Monroe Street and Westmorland neighbohood adjacent to the path that this is a wildlife sanctuary, and lighting the path will be disruptive to their habitiat. Is this true? Has a study been conducted that points towards wildlife habitat disruption? If yes, please share that! We all love the owls and coyotes, but would lighting really interrupt their environment?
Thank you for your consideration of how to make this a win/win, rather than an us (want the lighting) vs. them (don't want it). Here's to hoping we can reach a compromise and settle on a lighting solution that will allow for safe passage while preserving the best that the path has to offer (wildlife, night sky, etc.).
Come on Madison, WE CAN DO THIS!!
Hello! Thank you so much for follow-through and consideration of lighting the SW Bike Path. As a daily bike commuter and regular walker, I have traversed the path many a time at dawn, dusk and dark.
While I have never had a concern about debris on the path or errant dogs, I always have concerns about the "unlit traveller." There are way too many people travelling the path who simply do not use lighting or reflective gear to make it safe for everyone.
While people have suggested that these folks just get lights, we know in reality that these types of things cannot be mandated. We can educate and encourage, but people are free to use the path as they wish. There will always be people on an unlit path who choose to not use lighting on their bikes or bodies.
Other suggest that bikers simply use the side streets if they want a lighted route of travel. For many nights, this is not practical, with ice, snow and other hazards of the road (i.e., 2000 pound cars). Travelling on a city street can be even more dangerous than travelling on the path with unlit walkers and bikers. The path was designed to provide a bike and pedestrian corridor, and the original intent was to provide lighting. Asking us to NOT use the path because it is not appropriately lit does not make sense. Research clearly shows that a path of this nature with this amount of use *should* have appropriate lighting.
Arguments abound right now in the Monroe Street and Westmorland neighbohood adjacent to the path that this is a wildlife sanctuary, and lighting the path will be disruptive to their habitiat. Is this true? Has a study been conducted that points towards wildlife habitat disruption? If yes, please share that! We all love the owls and coyotes, but would lighting really interrupt their environment?
Thank you for your consideration of how to make this a win/win, rather than an us (want the lighting) vs. them (don't want it). Here's to hoping we can reach a compromise and settle on a lighting solution that will allow for safe passage while preserving the best that the path has to offer (wildlife, night sky, etc.).
Come on Madison, WE CAN DO THIS!!
Posted: 07/16/2012
The Southwest Bike Path does not need overhead lighting, and I think it would be much diminished by streetlights. Cyclists and pedestrians can easily take steps to be safe on the path at night, and the City should not attempt an overkill solution to an extremely small or non-existent problem. My fondest moments riding the path are on my commute home after dark in winter, with new snow on the ground and the glow of the moon lighting the way. I think anyone who has experienced this scene would be opposed to the lighting project.
I suggest the City conduct a campaign to educate users of the path about their responsibility to behave predictably, dress so as to be visible, moderate the speed of one's bicycle when others are present, and use proper lighting for safety.
The Southwest Bike Path does not need overhead lighting, and I think it would be much diminished by streetlights. Cyclists and pedestrians can easily take steps to be safe on the path at night, and the City should not attempt an overkill solution to an extremely small or non-existent problem. My fondest moments riding the path are on my commute home after dark in winter, with new snow on the ground and the glow of the moon lighting the way. I think anyone who has experienced this scene would be opposed to the lighting project.
I suggest the City conduct a campaign to educate users of the path about their responsibility to behave predictably, dress so as to be visible, moderate the speed of one's bicycle when others are present, and use proper lighting for safety.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I live in a neighborhood directly adjacent to the Southwest Bike Path and ride the path for commuting and recreation several times each week, usually early in the morning. I have lights on the front and back of my bike and on my helmet, but I am amazed at the number of walkers, cyclists, and runners, who use no personal lighting or reflective clothing at all. The path is heavily used, and the already present dangers from people walking side-by-side, cyclists traveling too fast and not obeying signage, runners listening to music with headphones, etc., are compounded when it is dark. I understand the concerns of those whose houses back up to the path, but this is an important public thoroughfare for thousands of daily bike commuters, not to mention other recreational users, and lighting the path is an important step to take for public safety. Let's find a way to light the path with the least impact on the surrounding homeowners.
I live in a neighborhood directly adjacent to the Southwest Bike Path and ride the path for commuting and recreation several times each week, usually early in the morning. I have lights on the front and back of my bike and on my helmet, but I am amazed at the number of walkers, cyclists, and runners, who use no personal lighting or reflective clothing at all. The path is heavily used, and the already present dangers from people walking side-by-side, cyclists traveling too fast and not obeying signage, runners listening to music with headphones, etc., are compounded when it is dark. I understand the concerns of those whose houses back up to the path, but this is an important public thoroughfare for thousands of daily bike commuters, not to mention other recreational users, and lighting the path is an important step to take for public safety. Let's find a way to light the path with the least impact on the surrounding homeowners.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I use the path regularly for running, walking and mostly biking. It can be dangerous enough during the day with the number of bikes and walkers. To leave the path unlit at night is inviting tragedy. Let's not wait until something happens. P.S. I as a resident of the near West side I appreciate the efforts being made to limit light diffusion into yards.
I use the path regularly for running, walking and mostly biking. It can be dangerous enough during the day with the number of bikes and walkers. To leave the path unlit at night is inviting tragedy. Let's not wait until something happens. P.S. I as a resident of the near West side I appreciate the efforts being made to limit light diffusion into yards.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I have heard comments that people should just use bike lights including rear flashers. There are many bikers oblivious to how blinding their high intensity lights are, especially when they are not aimed down like dims on cars. I’ve had to stop because I cannot see anything but their light. Also some flashers are so intense that they provoke migraines. I strongly prefer the path LEDs.
I have heard comments that people should just use bike lights including rear flashers. There are many bikers oblivious to how blinding their high intensity lights are, especially when they are not aimed down like dims on cars. I’ve had to stop because I cannot see anything but their light. Also some flashers are so intense that they provoke migraines. I strongly prefer the path LEDs.
Posted: 07/16/2012
Here are some negative impacts that overhead lighting would have on navigational safety on the Southwest Path:
1. Reduce the visual acuity, attentiveness and comfort (squinting) of all users.
2. Reduce use of reflectors and portable lights by both cyclists and pedestrians.
3. Reduce effectiveness of reflectors and portable lights (currently visible at great distances).
4. Remove an automatic visual cue that a bike is approaching from behind (reflectors along the path reflect a bike’s light back to pedestrians that are ahead of the cyclist).
5. Introduce a new periodic obstacle (light poles) next to the heavily-used footpath. This adds a new (daytime especially) hazard for runners, runners with dogs, and cyclists that have to ride past them.
6. Introduce widely varying illumination, thereby putting user’s eyes in a constantly state of fast adjustment, with a greatly reduced visual acuity baseline.
7. Will actually obscure obstacles and debris in areas between fixtures due to glare and non-uniform lighting.
8. Allows cyclists to increase their speed at night by “out-riding” their lights.
Here are some negative impacts that overhead lighting would have on navigational safety on the Southwest Path:
1. Reduce the visual acuity, attentiveness and comfort (squinting) of all users.
2. Reduce use of reflectors and portable lights by both cyclists and pedestrians.
3. Reduce effectiveness of reflectors and portable lights (currently visible at great distances).
4. Remove an automatic visual cue that a bike is approaching from behind (reflectors along the path reflect a bike’s light back to pedestrians that are ahead of the cyclist).
5. Introduce a new periodic obstacle (light poles) next to the heavily-used footpath. This adds a new (daytime especially) hazard for runners, runners with dogs, and cyclists that have to ride past them.
6. Introduce widely varying illumination, thereby putting user’s eyes in a constantly state of fast adjustment, with a greatly reduced visual acuity baseline.
7. Will actually obscure obstacles and debris in areas between fixtures due to glare and non-uniform lighting.
8. Allows cyclists to increase their speed at night by “out-riding” their lights.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I have commuted on this path for years in all types of weather and very often in the dark (especially in wintertime). I have never seen "unsupervised children", any sketchy people, or any off-leash dogs running around or posing a hazard to me, after dark, *ever*.
I have also never had a "close call" after dark either, *ever*, despite plenty in the daytime. Anyone that claims that a modern bike light does not deliver plenty of illumination for safely riding on this path at night either: 1) hasn't tried it, 2) is riding crazily irresponsibly (overhead lights won't diminish that), 3) is making stuff up, or 4) being careful not to discern daytime issues due to high use and speed vs night-time issues due to any purported visibility deficit.
Here's something to consider for people now concerned about debris on this path (since the Bike Fed's recent mass mis-information email):
Any of the fairly rare and usually small debris on the path would be *much* harder to detect with the uneven illumination from these widely-spaced overhead lights. The WISDOT bicycle facilities handbook specifically warns about uneven illumination on bike paths for this reason.
This effect is easy to see for yourself near the Council Crest test lights. Instead of letting careless issue-advocates guide your thinking, you will actually have to go for a bike ride after dark to evaluate this for yourself, however, so for some, it might not be worth it.
Here's a crazy idea that some of us commuters pioneered after the path went in: If you see debris on the path, slow down, stop, circle back and kick it off to the side. Has anyone ever seen a issue-advocacy mass-email advocating anything like that? Maybe it could not be chalked up as a public policy "win" for "bikers", so not worth it.
I have commuted on this path for years in all types of weather and very often in the dark (especially in wintertime). I have never seen "unsupervised children", any sketchy people, or any off-leash dogs running around or posing a hazard to me, after dark, *ever*.
I have also never had a "close call" after dark either, *ever*, despite plenty in the daytime. Anyone that claims that a modern bike light does not deliver plenty of illumination for safely riding on this path at night either: 1) hasn't tried it, 2) is riding crazily irresponsibly (overhead lights won't diminish that), 3) is making stuff up, or 4) being careful not to discern daytime issues due to high use and speed vs night-time issues due to any purported visibility deficit.
Here's something to consider for people now concerned about debris on this path (since the Bike Fed's recent mass mis-information email):
Any of the fairly rare and usually small debris on the path would be *much* harder to detect with the uneven illumination from these widely-spaced overhead lights. The WISDOT bicycle facilities handbook specifically warns about uneven illumination on bike paths for this reason.
This effect is easy to see for yourself near the Council Crest test lights. Instead of letting careless issue-advocates guide your thinking, you will actually have to go for a bike ride after dark to evaluate this for yourself, however, so for some, it might not be worth it.
Here's a crazy idea that some of us commuters pioneered after the path went in: If you see debris on the path, slow down, stop, circle back and kick it off to the side. Has anyone ever seen a issue-advocacy mass-email advocating anything like that? Maybe it could not be chalked up as a public policy "win" for "bikers", so not worth it.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I bike this path nearly every weekday for commuting, and every weekend for recreation, rain or shine, summer or winter. I also use both front and rear headlights on my bicycle, and I ride "defensively" at all times. Even so, the mixed-use nature of this path, the steep grade of the shoulder, the frequent unleashed dogs on and beside the path, the presence of unsupervised children, the incidences of debris on the path, and the nighttime use of the path by some users without adequate lighting both on foot and on bicycle suggest to me that lights are required for the safety of all users. I sympathize with the concerns of the residents whose property abuts the path; however, all residents of the city benefit from safe bicycle paths where usage increases over time. These public-interest benefits include cleaner air and water, fewer cars on the roads and in parking lots, quieter and safer streets, and healthier citizens with fewer lost work days and a smaller drain on public health resources. However, I would be open to a compromise solution where the residential portion of the path could be considered a "greenway" akin to a public park where the lights could be turned off after 11pm.
I bike this path nearly every weekday for commuting, and every weekend for recreation, rain or shine, summer or winter. I also use both front and rear headlights on my bicycle, and I ride "defensively" at all times. Even so, the mixed-use nature of this path, the steep grade of the shoulder, the frequent unleashed dogs on and beside the path, the presence of unsupervised children, the incidences of debris on the path, and the nighttime use of the path by some users without adequate lighting both on foot and on bicycle suggest to me that lights are required for the safety of all users. I sympathize with the concerns of the residents whose property abuts the path; however, all residents of the city benefit from safe bicycle paths where usage increases over time. These public-interest benefits include cleaner air and water, fewer cars on the roads and in parking lots, quieter and safer streets, and healthier citizens with fewer lost work days and a smaller drain on public health resources. However, I would be open to a compromise solution where the residential portion of the path could be considered a "greenway" akin to a public park where the lights could be turned off after 11pm.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I am in favor of adding additional lighting on the SW bikepath. When I am on it at dusk, there are a lot of other people (riders and walkers) on the trail. I am always a bit nervous because not everyone turns on their lights and the critters are darting all over the path. Having lighting may eliminate groups congregating at night. When it gets dark at 5:00 during the winter, there are a lot of us riding home from work on the trail in the dark. With the baffles on the lights, they wouldn't be shining in family's windows, especially if they are strategically placed to eliminate how close they are to a house. The only argument for NOT installing more lights, is whether it would disturb the natural patterns of wildlife at night. If someone has looked into this and knows that the lights would not be disruptive, then I don't see what the hesitation is. Lighting the SW bikepath is a matter of safety. Let's be proactive and install the lights BEFORE something happens (crime related or other trail related safety situations-like collisions, or not seeing debris on the path) that will leave everyone wondering why we didn't do this sooner.
I am in favor of adding additional lighting on the SW bikepath. When I am on it at dusk, there are a lot of other people (riders and walkers) on the trail. I am always a bit nervous because not everyone turns on their lights and the critters are darting all over the path. Having lighting may eliminate groups congregating at night. When it gets dark at 5:00 during the winter, there are a lot of us riding home from work on the trail in the dark. With the baffles on the lights, they wouldn't be shining in family's windows, especially if they are strategically placed to eliminate how close they are to a house. The only argument for NOT installing more lights, is whether it would disturb the natural patterns of wildlife at night. If someone has looked into this and knows that the lights would not be disruptive, then I don't see what the hesitation is. Lighting the SW bikepath is a matter of safety. Let's be proactive and install the lights BEFORE something happens (crime related or other trail related safety situations-like collisions, or not seeing debris on the path) that will leave everyone wondering why we didn't do this sooner.
Posted: 07/16/2012
I am opposed to lighting the path. I live on Gregory and my house backs up to the path a few houses down from the test light. The grade is quite steep along Gregory,which means the light pours directly into our yards, even with the baffles. Right now I can only imagine what it will be like in the winter without the foliage. I bike to work on the path, to campus, to the Monroe St. Shops, to farmers market, and I was delighted to buy my home knowing the path would be built on the old railroad bed. My family bikes, runs and walks the path in the dark. For ten years it has been a safe and quiet place in the dark. Sometimes we hear owls, coyotes, and birds. Please don't light the path. Gregory street itself is a well-lit alternative for those who feel they need a lit up street for biking or walking. And during the dark hours, there is very little street traffic. The mayor is asking all city departments to cut their budgets by 5%. Holding off on this project would be an easy way to save money.
I am opposed to lighting the path. I live on Gregory and my house backs up to the path a few houses down from the test light. The grade is quite steep along Gregory,which means the light pours directly into our yards, even with the baffles. Right now I can only imagine what it will be like in the winter without the foliage. I bike to work on the path, to campus, to the Monroe St. Shops, to farmers market, and I was delighted to buy my home knowing the path would be built on the old railroad bed. My family bikes, runs and walks the path in the dark. For ten years it has been a safe and quiet place in the dark. Sometimes we hear owls, coyotes, and birds. Please don't light the path. Gregory street itself is a well-lit alternative for those who feel they need a lit up street for biking or walking. And during the dark hours, there is very little street traffic. The mayor is asking all city departments to cut their budgets by 5%. Holding off on this project would be an easy way to save money.
Posted: 07/15/2012
I live near the bike path. I do not support the City spending funds on lighting the path. I believe bikers should be responsible for lighting their way by having a headlamp on their bike (which I believe is a law). In conjunction with this, ALL bikers should pay for bike licenses to help fund projects specific only to them. As to the pedestrians, I believe they should also take personal responsibility and wear reflective clothing.
I live near the bike path. I do not support the City spending funds on lighting the path. I believe bikers should be responsible for lighting their way by having a headlamp on their bike (which I believe is a law). In conjunction with this, ALL bikers should pay for bike licenses to help fund projects specific only to them. As to the pedestrians, I believe they should also take personal responsibility and wear reflective clothing.
Posted: 07/15/2012
I don't ride this path, but if neighbors think the lighting proposed now is still too intrusive, why not place shorter lower lights closer to the surface of the path to illuminate the path surface and not the whole area? From your email it sounds like the main problem is that bikers cannot see the path surface or debris or animals on it. Bikers & bikes themselves will be illuminated by their helmets or bike light. This solution may provide safety for bikers while keeping the lighting less intrusive. It's possible the city may have concerns that lights placed that low will be vandalized or stolen so that may be a consideration, but it seems the light boxes or cages could be designed to deter vandalism or theft and light pollution could be avoided.
Thanks for your consideration of these ideas.
I don't ride this path, but if neighbors think the lighting proposed now is still too intrusive, why not place shorter lower lights closer to the surface of the path to illuminate the path surface and not the whole area? From your email it sounds like the main problem is that bikers cannot see the path surface or debris or animals on it. Bikers & bikes themselves will be illuminated by their helmets or bike light. This solution may provide safety for bikers while keeping the lighting less intrusive. It's possible the city may have concerns that lights placed that low will be vandalized or stolen so that may be a consideration, but it seems the light boxes or cages could be designed to deter vandalism or theft and light pollution could be avoided.
Thanks for your consideration of these ideas.
Posted: 07/15/2012
This effort is a great use of city resources. The path is very dangerous at night with debris and people walking that can not easily be seen and will be hurt by a bike as will the bike rider. I am unwilling to ride this path at night after my last fall when I hit a tree limb that was partially on the pavement. I live on E. Wilson and work on Odana (near West Town) so these roads are my highway...would you want folks driving on a city street without lighting? The same concern for safety should apply here.
This effort is a great use of city resources. The path is very dangerous at night with debris and people walking that can not easily be seen and will be hurt by a bike as will the bike rider. I am unwilling to ride this path at night after my last fall when I hit a tree limb that was partially on the pavement. I live on E. Wilson and work on Odana (near West Town) so these roads are my highway...would you want folks driving on a city street without lighting? The same concern for safety should apply here.
Posted: 07/15/2012
I am a resident from Dudgeon-Monroe and a daily bike commuter. My house is on Gregory street and thus my back yard backs up against the path. My bike has front and back lighting and I wear a helmet 100% of the time.
I have experienced a number of after-dark snarls on my evening commute that put me and those pedestrians, dogs and other commuters without flashlights at risk. The worst I've got is a bruise and scrape, but I am one snarl away from breaking my collar bone.
More lighting would give me the opportunity to anticipate hazards far in advance of coming upon them. We are all moving from point A to point B up there. Even if I don't pass a pedestrian in the apron of light I will have had a chance to see them enter and leave it, and that's the kind of information I need to stay safe.
Using the SW path is like a refreshing swim, especially at night. The test light has not diminished my sense of serenity.
I am a resident from Dudgeon-Monroe and a daily bike commuter. My house is on Gregory street and thus my back yard backs up against the path. My bike has front and back lighting and I wear a helmet 100% of the time.
I have experienced a number of after-dark snarls on my evening commute that put me and those pedestrians, dogs and other commuters without flashlights at risk. The worst I've got is a bruise and scrape, but I am one snarl away from breaking my collar bone.
More lighting would give me the opportunity to anticipate hazards far in advance of coming upon them. We are all moving from point A to point B up there. Even if I don't pass a pedestrian in the apron of light I will have had a chance to see them enter and leave it, and that's the kind of information I need to stay safe.
Using the SW path is like a refreshing swim, especially at night. The test light has not diminished my sense of serenity.
Posted: 07/15/2012
As a property owner and regular user of the bath by foot and less often by bike, I object to the proposed night lighting. Here are two among several of my reasons for opposing the idea.
The SW Path is part of a rich ecosystem for animals and vegetation that stretches south across Lake Wingra and the Arboretum. It would be a tragedy to significantly alter this enviromental park that defines our neighborhood. In my opinion, it is foremost a recreational path, and secondly a daytime bike path.
The City of Madison already has invested considerable funds redesigning our arterial streets to include both wide and narrower bicycle lanes, and at some inconvenience to motor vehicles. Most major streets proximate to the SW Path have these lanes. Bike commuters who prefer a lighted route should use them.
As a property owner and regular user of the bath by foot and less often by bike, I object to the proposed night lighting. Here are two among several of my reasons for opposing the idea.
The SW Path is part of a rich ecosystem for animals and vegetation that stretches south across Lake Wingra and the Arboretum. It would be a tragedy to significantly alter this enviromental park that defines our neighborhood. In my opinion, it is foremost a recreational path, and secondly a daytime bike path.
The City of Madison already has invested considerable funds redesigning our arterial streets to include both wide and narrower bicycle lanes, and at some inconvenience to motor vehicles. Most major streets proximate to the SW Path have these lanes. Bike commuters who prefer a lighted route should use them.
Posted: 07/15/2012
There are too many walkers, dog walkers, runners and biker riders using the trail at dusk and in the dark who do no wear any kind of reflective clothing or use any working lights.
I have been criticized because I use several very bright lights on my bike in an attempt to see and be seen
Then there are the trail users with ear buds who are oblivious to their surroundings.
Regarding the reports of drunks wandering home along the path, I wonder how much if any of this happens more than a couple of blocks from the stadium.
There are too many walkers, dog walkers, runners and biker riders using the trail at dusk and in the dark who do no wear any kind of reflective clothing or use any working lights.
I have been criticized because I use several very bright lights on my bike in an attempt to see and be seen
Then there are the trail users with ear buds who are oblivious to their surroundings.
Regarding the reports of drunks wandering home along the path, I wonder how much if any of this happens more than a couple of blocks from the stadium.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I share many of the concerns raised by the neighbors affected by this proposed by this plan. The lights would change the character of the path and the neighborhood.
One additional concern is that the lights would change the nature of the commuters on the path. I bought a home in this neighborhood is because I was tired of living on a street where I had to listen to drunks returning from bars late at night. Putting late-night lights on the bike path makes it more feasible for those returning from bars to think of the path as an alternate route home. We already get some of these commuters occasionally show up at the moment (I just heard some last night), and I worry their volume will increase with a well-lit bike path.
I would prefer to keep the path as it is. I also recognize some commuters would prefer to have the lights. I would be much more supportive if they were limited to 10pm or so, as one other commenter suggested.
I share many of the concerns raised by the neighbors affected by this proposed by this plan. The lights would change the character of the path and the neighborhood.
One additional concern is that the lights would change the nature of the commuters on the path. I bought a home in this neighborhood is because I was tired of living on a street where I had to listen to drunks returning from bars late at night. Putting late-night lights on the bike path makes it more feasible for those returning from bars to think of the path as an alternate route home. We already get some of these commuters occasionally show up at the moment (I just heard some last night), and I worry their volume will increase with a well-lit bike path.
I would prefer to keep the path as it is. I also recognize some commuters would prefer to have the lights. I would be much more supportive if they were limited to 10pm or so, as one other commenter suggested.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I'm a daily early morning pedestrian commuter on the Southwest Commuter Path, definitely in the dark in the winter, and also use the path for biking. I'm 61 and have never owned a car, so take both walking and biking VERY seriously. On my pre-dawn walking commute on the path I wear both front and back flashing lights and also a reflective triangle on my back. My bicycles are also well equipped with lights and reflectors.
I know from personal experience how hazardous careless bicycling can be. My right elbow is held together with steel plates and bolts, a "gift" I received as a pedestrian from a bicyclist on campus in the middle of the day who didn't understand that traffic signals applied to him. That one put me in the hospital for over a week and left me with permanent limited extension in my arm.
So needless to say, I am THRILLED that we have a quarter of a million dollars to spend on bicycle safety. But lighting the path is definitely not our first and foremost need. What we desperately need instead is to educate bicyclists on safety and responsible biking at ANY time of the day, and to enforce existing bicycle laws.
I was a passenger in a car a few days ago and watched as a spandex-clad bicyclist in front of us sped though two stop signs without stopping or even slowing down. When we caught up with him I leaned out the window and shared with him, politely, the simple fact that bicycles have the same legal requirement to stop at stop signs as cars do. He replied with great disdain that "There wasn't anybody there." I see this kind of behavior by bicyclists just about every single day as I walk to and from work. As a serious cyclist myself, I think it's INCREDIBLY important to communicate to drivers that I do indeed know and respect the rules of the road so that cars take me seriously. It infuriates me to see that undermined by cyclists who don't seem to have a clue that simple traffic laws apply to them as well.
I TOTALLY support the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin's efforts to promote bicycle commuting as a serious form of transportation and a legitimate alternative to having more cars on the road. But from my daily observations it's clear that we've got a VERY long way to go before the majority of bicyclists behave in a way that will allow this to happen. Lighting this section of the bike path isn't going to remedy that. Spending money instead on education and enforcement will. Let's examine our priorities and put our money where it's most needed.
If I had a chance to meet the folks who are asking for the path to be lit, I'd have several questions to ask them about how they use it:
- Is your bicycle properly lit?
- Do you ride faster on the path than is safe for yourself or other path users?
- Are you one of the 9 out of 10 cyclists who speed past me without telling me that you're passing on the left?
- Do you ride two abreast, spilling over into oncoming traffic?
- Do you speed past other bikes or pedestrians when there's oncoming traffic?
- If you're a pedestrian, do you wear lights in the dark?
- Do you let your dog run free on the path, in the daytime or in the dark?
That's just the short list of questions I'd have. I see behavior on and off the path every day that needs to be addressed. Lighting the path is just a band-aid approach to a much larger serious problem. Let's spend our money first on serious education and enforcement, and then come back and revisit the lighting issue when path users are behaving significantly more responsibly and when more than a few bicyclists know and observe the rules of the road. Sadly, we've got a long way to go before we get to that point.
I'm a daily early morning pedestrian commuter on the Southwest Commuter Path, definitely in the dark in the winter, and also use the path for biking. I'm 61 and have never owned a car, so take both walking and biking VERY seriously. On my pre-dawn walking commute on the path I wear both front and back flashing lights and also a reflective triangle on my back. My bicycles are also well equipped with lights and reflectors.
I know from personal experience how hazardous careless bicycling can be. My right elbow is held together with steel plates and bolts, a "gift" I received as a pedestrian from a bicyclist on campus in the middle of the day who didn't understand that traffic signals applied to him. That one put me in the hospital for over a week and left me with permanent limited extension in my arm.
So needless to say, I am THRILLED that we have a quarter of a million dollars to spend on bicycle safety. But lighting the path is definitely not our first and foremost need. What we desperately need instead is to educate bicyclists on safety and responsible biking at ANY time of the day, and to enforce existing bicycle laws.
I was a passenger in a car a few days ago and watched as a spandex-clad bicyclist in front of us sped though two stop signs without stopping or even slowing down. When we caught up with him I leaned out the window and shared with him, politely, the simple fact that bicycles have the same legal requirement to stop at stop signs as cars do. He replied with great disdain that "There wasn't anybody there." I see this kind of behavior by bicyclists just about every single day as I walk to and from work. As a serious cyclist myself, I think it's INCREDIBLY important to communicate to drivers that I do indeed know and respect the rules of the road so that cars take me seriously. It infuriates me to see that undermined by cyclists who don't seem to have a clue that simple traffic laws apply to them as well.
I TOTALLY support the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin's efforts to promote bicycle commuting as a serious form of transportation and a legitimate alternative to having more cars on the road. But from my daily observations it's clear that we've got a VERY long way to go before the majority of bicyclists behave in a way that will allow this to happen. Lighting this section of the bike path isn't going to remedy that. Spending money instead on education and enforcement will. Let's examine our priorities and put our money where it's most needed.
If I had a chance to meet the folks who are asking for the path to be lit, I'd have several questions to ask them about how they use it:
- Is your bicycle properly lit?
- Do you ride faster on the path than is safe for yourself or other path users?
- Are you one of the 9 out of 10 cyclists who speed past me without telling me that you're passing on the left?
- Do you ride two abreast, spilling over into oncoming traffic?
- Do you speed past other bikes or pedestrians when there's oncoming traffic?
- If you're a pedestrian, do you wear lights in the dark?
- Do you let your dog run free on the path, in the daytime or in the dark?
That's just the short list of questions I'd have. I see behavior on and off the path every day that needs to be addressed. Lighting the path is just a band-aid approach to a much larger serious problem. Let's spend our money first on serious education and enforcement, and then come back and revisit the lighting issue when path users are behaving significantly more responsibly and when more than a few bicyclists know and observe the rules of the road. Sadly, we've got a long way to go before we get to that point.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I'm in favor of not lighting the SW Path. I commute year round on that path from Meadowood to the UW campus and I've never felt unsafe. Cyclists should have good lights and pedestrians carry a light or wear reflective clothing if you're out in the dark. The lights are a solution in search of a problem.
I'm in favor of not lighting the SW Path. I commute year round on that path from Meadowood to the UW campus and I've never felt unsafe. Cyclists should have good lights and pedestrians carry a light or wear reflective clothing if you're out in the dark. The lights are a solution in search of a problem.
Posted: 07/14/2012
As a regular recreational and commuting user of the SW path I do not support the lighting proposal. My bike is equipped with headlight, taillight , and reflectors and I have no problem seeing or being seen on the darkest parts of the path. Based on my observations of the test lighting that has been installed I've found that the alternating light and dark areas actually make it harder to see and the shadows between the lit areas seem darker than without any lighting. Also, lighting the path doesn't provide any incentive to the "ghost" bikers out there to get some reasonable lighting which you need for the inevitable part of any ride where you're on a street.
As a regular recreational and commuting user of the SW path I do not support the lighting proposal. My bike is equipped with headlight, taillight , and reflectors and I have no problem seeing or being seen on the darkest parts of the path. Based on my observations of the test lighting that has been installed I've found that the alternating light and dark areas actually make it harder to see and the shadows between the lit areas seem darker than without any lighting. Also, lighting the path doesn't provide any incentive to the "ghost" bikers out there to get some reasonable lighting which you need for the inevitable part of any ride where you're on a street.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I bike commute to work from the SW side to UW Hospital. My shift starts at 7AM. In the fall when the mornings are dark the trail is hazardous. I use multiple lights and reflective vest to be visible. Other pedestrians, pedestrains with dogs on leashes, runners and bikers are very difficult to spot in the dark. Evens those with the little blinking lights are often unaware that their lights are obscured by folds of their clothing, or the lights have shifted out of view. Worse, there are always some people with no lights at all. After a storm there is the possiblity a limb my have fallen accross the trail. A lighted trail would be a great benefit for my commuting safety and peace of mind.
I bike commute to work from the SW side to UW Hospital. My shift starts at 7AM. In the fall when the mornings are dark the trail is hazardous. I use multiple lights and reflective vest to be visible. Other pedestrians, pedestrains with dogs on leashes, runners and bikers are very difficult to spot in the dark. Evens those with the little blinking lights are often unaware that their lights are obscured by folds of their clothing, or the lights have shifted out of view. Worse, there are always some people with no lights at all. After a storm there is the possiblity a limb my have fallen accross the trail. A lighted trail would be a great benefit for my commuting safety and peace of mind.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I am thrilled that the City is considering a modest system of lights for this path. I often commute during nighttime hours in the winter and can't count how many times I've been surprised by a sudden encounter with another biker, pedestrian with a pet on a leash or just a walker who seems to appear out of nowhere. There are many times when I have decided to ride on City streets instead of taking chances on the path, but that also seems unsafe and certainly bothers drivers when there is snow, and I would like to have a clearly safe alternative, which a lit path would provide.
I understand the neighbors' concerns regarding lighting, but I feel the City has done an excellent job in searching out solutions that absolutely minimize the effects on neighboring properties. Ultimately this is a public thoroughfare and discreet lighting of the sort the City is contemplating is quite appropriate for safety and to promote bike commuting, which benefits the City and the environment.
I did not notice the hours during which the City is proposing the path to be lighted. Perhaps lighting it from dusk until, say, 10:00 p.m. would represent a reasonable compromise that would ensure the neighbors are not disturbed by lights, though again I have to say the lighting choices the City has searched out seem to avoid problems in any case.
A lit bike path would be a huge asset for Madison, and given the commendable efforts the City staff have made to find a reasonable way of accomplishing that end, I strongly support lighting the path.
I am thrilled that the City is considering a modest system of lights for this path. I often commute during nighttime hours in the winter and can't count how many times I've been surprised by a sudden encounter with another biker, pedestrian with a pet on a leash or just a walker who seems to appear out of nowhere. There are many times when I have decided to ride on City streets instead of taking chances on the path, but that also seems unsafe and certainly bothers drivers when there is snow, and I would like to have a clearly safe alternative, which a lit path would provide.
I understand the neighbors' concerns regarding lighting, but I feel the City has done an excellent job in searching out solutions that absolutely minimize the effects on neighboring properties. Ultimately this is a public thoroughfare and discreet lighting of the sort the City is contemplating is quite appropriate for safety and to promote bike commuting, which benefits the City and the environment.
I did not notice the hours during which the City is proposing the path to be lighted. Perhaps lighting it from dusk until, say, 10:00 p.m. would represent a reasonable compromise that would ensure the neighbors are not disturbed by lights, though again I have to say the lighting choices the City has searched out seem to avoid problems in any case.
A lit bike path would be a huge asset for Madison, and given the commendable efforts the City staff have made to find a reasonable way of accomplishing that end, I strongly support lighting the path.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I do not support lighting the path under the current plan. Reading previous comments, it seems that the jury is out on whether or not this will be a deterrent for possible crime. And though I've had many near misses on this path, ALL of them have been in broad daylight, with people moving erratically or unaware of their surroundings. Educating folks to ride and walk like they drive (e.g. following rules and convention), and enforcing this on our busy paths would be a better use of time and money.
I do not support lighting the path under the current plan. Reading previous comments, it seems that the jury is out on whether or not this will be a deterrent for possible crime. And though I've had many near misses on this path, ALL of them have been in broad daylight, with people moving erratically or unaware of their surroundings. Educating folks to ride and walk like they drive (e.g. following rules and convention), and enforcing this on our busy paths would be a better use of time and money.
Posted: 07/14/2012
Do not light the path. Only an idiot would ride that path after dark without a light. Two idiots may crash into each other. It could happen.
These lights will not stop any potential crime out there, if anything, the lights will give muggers more visibility.
I am a member of the Bike Fed and I disagree with them on this big time.
Do not light the path. Only an idiot would ride that path after dark without a light. Two idiots may crash into each other. It could happen.
These lights will not stop any potential crime out there, if anything, the lights will give muggers more visibility.
I am a member of the Bike Fed and I disagree with them on this big time.
Posted: 07/14/2012
Thank you for trying so hard to please everyone.
I use the trail, but feel unsafe using it at night, due to the lack of lighting on the path. Suffice to say, I support lighting the path for safety.
Thank you for trying so hard to please everyone.
I use the trail, but feel unsafe using it at night, due to the lack of lighting on the path. Suffice to say, I support lighting the path for safety.
Posted: 07/14/2012
I have a hard time believing that anyone who opposes lighting this bike road has ever ridden it at night, especially the sections south of Odana. It is simply impossible to see anything on the path besides another bicycle with a front and rear lights. Pedestrians are mostly invisible. Collisions between bikes and bikes or bikes and pedestrians can be fatal. There was one that happened on the lakeshore path near the natatorium. Will it take a death or serious injury before the opponents allow the path to be lit?
The opponents assert that the lights will be as bright as those at interstate interchanges; I know this isn't true. There is a light on the east rail corridor path between Russell and Division which only shines directly down. City staff has put in a lot of effort trying to forge a compromise between the people who want to bike safely on the path and those nearby residents who want no lighting. No compromise is possible because many of the residents want NO lighting and want no compromise. Somehow this major bicycle corridor belongs only to them. That is both selfish and wrong. Should bicyclists be forced to use city streets at night because they fear hurting an unlit dog walker or other pedestrian? I think not. I live near downtown and therefore pay an enormous amount of property taxes. So much goes for services I never use, massive suburban road building as one example.
I light on a street with about one-tenth the traffic as on the southwest path. Yet there is a very bright streetlight that shines into my bedroom window every night. It's part of living in a city.
The bike path is a road used by bicyclists and pedestrians. It is in an urban area. It needs to be lit at night, much like car roads are. Those people opposing lighting this bike road are essentially saying that bicyclists are not transportation vehicles and do not deserve the amenities car drivers receive as a matter of course. This double standard is wrong. I hope the city proceeds with the lighting project. It has certainly received the message that the lighting should be discreet. But it needs to be there.
I have a hard time believing that anyone who opposes lighting this bike road has ever ridden it at night, especially the sections south of Odana. It is simply impossible to see anything on the path besides another bicycle with a front and rear lights. Pedestrians are mostly invisible. Collisions between bikes and bikes or bikes and pedestrians can be fatal. There was one that happened on the lakeshore path near the natatorium. Will it take a death or serious injury before the opponents allow the path to be lit?
The opponents assert that the lights will be as bright as those at interstate interchanges; I know this isn't true. There is a light on the east rail corridor path between Russell and Division which only shines directly down. City staff has put in a lot of effort trying to forge a compromise between the people who want to bike safely on the path and those nearby residents who want no lighting. No compromise is possible because many of the residents want NO lighting and want no compromise. Somehow this major bicycle corridor belongs only to them. That is both selfish and wrong. Should bicyclists be forced to use city streets at night because they fear hurting an unlit dog walker or other pedestrian? I think not. I live near downtown and therefore pay an enormous amount of property taxes. So much goes for services I never use, massive suburban road building as one example.
I light on a street with about one-tenth the traffic as on the southwest path. Yet there is a very bright streetlight that shines into my bedroom window every night. It's part of living in a city.
The bike path is a road used by bicyclists and pedestrians. It is in an urban area. It needs to be lit at night, much like car roads are. Those people opposing lighting this bike road are essentially saying that bicyclists are not transportation vehicles and do not deserve the amenities car drivers receive as a matter of course. This double standard is wrong. I hope the city proceeds with the lighting project. It has certainly received the message that the lighting should be discreet. But it needs to be there.
Posted: 07/13/2012
To whom it may concern,
I am glad that you are planning to light the Southwest Bike Path. When the weather permits I ride my bike from my house on the northside of Madison to my job in Verona, utilizing the path most of the way. Due to my hours, I leave my house at 4:30 am, which means the path is still dark when I ride on it. It is absolutely imperative that the city light the path to keep cyclists and pedestrians safe. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jason Knoll
To whom it may concern,
I am glad that you are planning to light the Southwest Bike Path. When the weather permits I ride my bike from my house on the northside of Madison to my job in Verona, utilizing the path most of the way. Due to my hours, I leave my house at 4:30 am, which means the path is still dark when I ride on it. It is absolutely imperative that the city light the path to keep cyclists and pedestrians safe. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jason Knoll
Posted: 07/13/2012
I don't own a car and my bike is my only mode of transportation. I work on-call at a hospital and in the case of emergency surgeries must bike in no matter the time of night. Having the paths lit would make me feel much safer while I use them at night. Please light the SW bike path to help minimize crime and crashes.
I don't own a car and my bike is my only mode of transportation. I work on-call at a hospital and in the case of emergency surgeries must bike in no matter the time of night. Having the paths lit would make me feel much safer while I use them at night. Please light the SW bike path to help minimize crime and crashes.
Posted: 07/13/2012
The Bicycle Federation asked me to advocate for lighting the path — but I don't support that. Please don't think that all bicyclists want the path to be lit. Bicyclists in Madison are already required to use front and rear lights; these lights have been more than enough in my experience to prevent collisions and alert others to my presence on the Southwest Bike Path. Finally, unnecessary lighting detracts from the enjoyment of the night sky and increases carbon emissions through the burning of coal for electricity, something that many bicyclists try to avoid through lifestyle choices like biking. Thank you for considering this perspective.
The Bicycle Federation asked me to advocate for lighting the path — but I don't support that. Please don't think that all bicyclists want the path to be lit. Bicyclists in Madison are already required to use front and rear lights; these lights have been more than enough in my experience to prevent collisions and alert others to my presence on the Southwest Bike Path. Finally, unnecessary lighting detracts from the enjoyment of the night sky and increases carbon emissions through the burning of coal for electricity, something that many bicyclists try to avoid through lifestyle choices like biking. Thank you for considering this perspective.
Posted: 07/13/2012
From Wisconsin Bike Fed's email sent out yesterday:
( lighting would: )
"Deter muggings and other crime BEFORE they become a problem: While crime has not been a problem on this stretch of the SW Path, there has been a distrurbing increase in muggings and violence along many other bike paths in Madison. Lighting can deter criminal activity before it becomes a problem."
This is either misguided assumption or fear-mongering misinformation.
Here's why:
Sensible lighting of *private* property (in populated areas) can provide a crime deterrent because criminals know they might be seen in a place where they do not belong. This deterrent mechanism does not exist on the Southwest path for two reasons:
1. It is a public space; everybody “belongs”.
2. It is isolated; potential witnesses are sporadic late at night.
Here are the main ways that overhead lighting would actually *reduce* actual personal security:
1) Provides potential assailants with easier concealment in high-contrast shadows along the sides of the path.
2) Potential victims become identifiable in terms of gender, possessions, and physical stature.
3) Reduces a potential victim’s visual field to the “light tunnel” of the lighted path.
4) Allows an assailant to quickly confirm whether or not witnesses are approaching (this is especially true on this relatively straight path).
5) Makes night entry easier into backyards of homes on the path.
6) Lighting of isolated public spaces is known to *attract* criminal behavior.
7) the large number of local residents that enjoy the peace, privacy and beauty of the night sky would cease to use the path, thereby reducing the pool of potential "capable guardians" during late hours.
8) The normal "cross to the other side of the street when somebody sketchy is ahead" option (which mainly applies to pedestrians anyways) does not exist on this path with very few exits.
Here are a couple of pages with links to even more actual studies:
http://docs.darksky.org/PG/ida_safety_brochure.pdf
http://www.illinoislighting.org/safety.html
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html?7O
As a city and a society, we should base our public policy decisions on facts rather than misguided fear-based assumptions. There should be a very high bar to cross when it comes to implementing expensive projects that have very debatable positives but certain negatives.
Thanks for this forum,
Southwest Path Alliance
From Wisconsin Bike Fed's email sent out yesterday:
( lighting would: )
"Deter muggings and other crime BEFORE they become a problem: While crime has not been a problem on this stretch of the SW Path, there has been a distrurbing increase in muggings and violence along many other bike paths in Madison. Lighting can deter criminal activity before it becomes a problem."
This is either misguided assumption or fear-mongering misinformation.
Here's why:
Sensible lighting of *private* property (in populated areas) can provide a crime deterrent because criminals know they might be seen in a place where they do not belong. This deterrent mechanism does not exist on the Southwest path for two reasons:
1. It is a public space; everybody “belongs”.
2. It is isolated; potential witnesses are sporadic late at night.
Here are the main ways that overhead lighting would actually *reduce* actual personal security:
1) Provides potential assailants with easier concealment in high-contrast shadows along the sides of the path.
2) Potential victims become identifiable in terms of gender, possessions, and physical stature.
3) Reduces a potential victim’s visual field to the “light tunnel” of the lighted path.
4) Allows an assailant to quickly confirm whether or not witnesses are approaching (this is especially true on this relatively straight path).
5) Makes night entry easier into backyards of homes on the path.
6) Lighting of isolated public spaces is known to *attract* criminal behavior.
7) the large number of local residents that enjoy the peace, privacy and beauty of the night sky would cease to use the path, thereby reducing the pool of potential "capable guardians" during late hours.
8) The normal "cross to the other side of the street when somebody sketchy is ahead" option (which mainly applies to pedestrians anyways) does not exist on this path with very few exits.
Here are a couple of pages with links to even more actual studies:
http://docs.darksky.org/PG/ida_safety_brochure.pdf
http://www.illinoislighting.org/safety.html
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html?7O
As a city and a society, we should base our public policy decisions on facts rather than misguided fear-based assumptions. There should be a very high bar to cross when it comes to implementing expensive projects that have very debatable positives but certain negatives.
Thanks for this forum,
Southwest Path Alliance
Posted: 07/13/2012
I would like to see some lighting on the trail but definitely understand the residents point of view too. I live near the trail and ride it weekly. I support the new lighting with baffles as more non-invasive to the residents and safer for all trail users.
Mineral Point Road has new lighting that I feel is way over the top bright. They could have saved money and light polution by eliminating half the lights/light poles there.
I would like to see some lighting on the trail but definitely understand the residents point of view too. I live near the trail and ride it weekly. I support the new lighting with baffles as more non-invasive to the residents and safer for all trail users.
Mineral Point Road has new lighting that I feel is way over the top bright. They could have saved money and light polution by eliminating half the lights/light poles there.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Since the Southwest Commuter Path is a major thoroughfare into and out of the urban core of Madison, it should be lit to make that process easier. While I am sensitive to concerns about the environmental corridor that might be impacted, and I encourage the city to utilize available "dark sky" lighting technology, we should not lose sight of the fact that the path is not a neighborhood park or public space designed to accommodate a huge variety of uses. It is primarily for transportation and recreation, and its infrastructure should reflect its purpose.
Since the Southwest Commuter Path is a major thoroughfare into and out of the urban core of Madison, it should be lit to make that process easier. While I am sensitive to concerns about the environmental corridor that might be impacted, and I encourage the city to utilize available "dark sky" lighting technology, we should not lose sight of the fact that the path is not a neighborhood park or public space designed to accommodate a huge variety of uses. It is primarily for transportation and recreation, and its infrastructure should reflect its purpose.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I use the SW Bikepath to get to work and back home everyday. I think there should be lighting for safety reasons. Many people do not use lights and it is hard to see them.
While it is important to consider the negative impact of the light fixtures on our neighbors quality of life, the net gain to our community, which is equitably distributed among all bike path users, outweighs the costs felt by relatively few residents. That said, we must put effort into finding a technology that provides adequate lighting, with a minimal level of light pollution.
I use the SW Bikepath to get to work and back home everyday. I think there should be lighting for safety reasons. Many people do not use lights and it is hard to see them.
While it is important to consider the negative impact of the light fixtures on our neighbors quality of life, the net gain to our community, which is equitably distributed among all bike path users, outweighs the costs felt by relatively few residents. That said, we must put effort into finding a technology that provides adequate lighting, with a minimal level of light pollution.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I support the lighting on the SW bike path. As an Orchard Ridge resident this alternate route to Monroe street, campus and the square is an important route. Safety from crime and physical dangers makes lighting the path as important as keeping my house lights on, which everybody encourages me to do. So I encourage the city to light the path. Thank you.
I support the lighting on the SW bike path. As an Orchard Ridge resident this alternate route to Monroe street, campus and the square is an important route. Safety from crime and physical dangers makes lighting the path as important as keeping my house lights on, which everybody encourages me to do. So I encourage the city to light the path. Thank you.
Posted: 07/13/2012
"Bike lights are not meant to illuminate the road or path in front of the bike like a car headlight is meant to do. Their sole purpose is to make the bicyclist more visible to oncoming road/path users. Even with a $40 or $60 stronger light, there is still little visiblity of the road/path pavement ahead."
Above is copied from Bike Federations page.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. Good quality bike headlights are available and ccertainly meant to illuminate the pathway ahead.
We have enough light pollution already. Much of the Capital City Trail south of Madison through Fitchburg is very dark at night. A good headlight makes it quite safe to ride through this area.
WE CAN'T LIGHT UP EVERYTHING. and we don't need to.
"Bike lights are not meant to illuminate the road or path in front of the bike like a car headlight is meant to do. Their sole purpose is to make the bicyclist more visible to oncoming road/path users. Even with a $40 or $60 stronger light, there is still little visiblity of the road/path pavement ahead."
Above is copied from Bike Federations page.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. Good quality bike headlights are available and ccertainly meant to illuminate the pathway ahead.
We have enough light pollution already. Much of the Capital City Trail south of Madison through Fitchburg is very dark at night. A good headlight makes it quite safe to ride through this area.
WE CAN'T LIGHT UP EVERYTHING. and we don't need to.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I live near the southwest commuter path but not immediately adjoining. I use it regularly and consider it part of the good life in the neighborhood and the city.
However, there are limits to what we can reasonably expect in terms of safety from a commuter path that runs thru wooded areas compared to next to highly visible and safe, policed streets. Lighting the path will leave deep shadow only a few feet off the path. Putting more people on the path after dark only invites more people not to properly consider their own safety, lulled into false security that lighting only means safety and the presumption of policing...it doesn't.
As to biker safety from collisions and other such on dark paths, a little better lighting on the bike and a little less speed would go a long way, as well as moving to lighted and policed streets after dark.
I live near the southwest commuter path but not immediately adjoining. I use it regularly and consider it part of the good life in the neighborhood and the city.
However, there are limits to what we can reasonably expect in terms of safety from a commuter path that runs thru wooded areas compared to next to highly visible and safe, policed streets. Lighting the path will leave deep shadow only a few feet off the path. Putting more people on the path after dark only invites more people not to properly consider their own safety, lulled into false security that lighting only means safety and the presumption of policing...it doesn't.
As to biker safety from collisions and other such on dark paths, a little better lighting on the bike and a little less speed would go a long way, as well as moving to lighted and policed streets after dark.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Making sure that bicycles using the path are properly equipped with lighting would be more helpful at a much lower cost. I use the path 5 days a week, twice a day, summer and winter. I have a good headlight and lights in the rear. I can see fine. Except when a bicycle with no lighting (ghost bike) approaches from the front or rear. This occurance happens much too often. It is illegal and dangerous.
Making sure that bicycles using the path are properly equipped with lighting would be more helpful at a much lower cost. I use the path 5 days a week, twice a day, summer and winter. I have a good headlight and lights in the rear. I can see fine. Except when a bicycle with no lighting (ghost bike) approaches from the front or rear. This occurance happens much too often. It is illegal and dangerous.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I would only support lighting the path if it were done in such a way as to avoid additional light polution, excessive bright spots (glare) and deepening shadows...much like what happens when people use extremely bright porch lights.
That said, I do not think this is the best use of city funds at a time when ALL city resources are stretched to the limit, budgets are being cut, resources for the poorest in our community being slashed, and few bikers are responsible enough to even purchase licenses (which could be used help fund more bike oriented projects if more bikers actually purchased them)?
I would only support lighting the path if it were done in such a way as to avoid additional light polution, excessive bright spots (glare) and deepening shadows...much like what happens when people use extremely bright porch lights.
That said, I do not think this is the best use of city funds at a time when ALL city resources are stretched to the limit, budgets are being cut, resources for the poorest in our community being slashed, and few bikers are responsible enough to even purchase licenses (which could be used help fund more bike oriented projects if more bikers actually purchased them)?
Posted: 07/13/2012
I sometimes use the Southwest Bike Path after dark between the UW campus and Hammersley Rd just south of the Beltline, and support additional lighting. First priority should be given to lighting of intersections where bikes and pedestrians enter the bike path. Where the bike path passes under bridges, lights centered under the bridges will minimize impact on neighboring properties.
I sometimes use the Southwest Bike Path after dark between the UW campus and Hammersley Rd just south of the Beltline, and support additional lighting. First priority should be given to lighting of intersections where bikes and pedestrians enter the bike path. Where the bike path passes under bridges, lights centered under the bridges will minimize impact on neighboring properties.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I support lights on the bike path for safety reasons; although I realize that there will be an impact due to light pollution, I hope that someone clever can come up with a solution that will work for everyone. I do believe that people's gardens are in the right-of-way; they are charming and beautiful, but technically, it's OK to put lights by the path, whereas technically, gardens aren't OK - but surely both can co-exist peacefully.
I support lights on the bike path for safety reasons; although I realize that there will be an impact due to light pollution, I hope that someone clever can come up with a solution that will work for everyone. I do believe that people's gardens are in the right-of-way; they are charming and beautiful, but technically, it's OK to put lights by the path, whereas technically, gardens aren't OK - but surely both can co-exist peacefully.
Posted: 07/13/2012
The SW Bike Path is a major bike connection from the Orchard Ridge Neighborhood to the UW and Madison Isthmus. It is used by commuters throughout the year and it was constructed as a bike arterial.
That portion of the SW Bike Path that runs through Orchard Ridge has had lighting from the inception. The path is also has lighting from Breeze Terrace to Lake Monona.
The Orchard Ridge Neighborhood is at the "Summit" of the SW Path. We are trying to make bike commuting more attractive to our residents and biking a reason to reside in Orchard Ridge. We support lighting the portion from Breeze Terrace to the Beltline Highway, the middle portion of the path.
Larry D Nelson
President, Orchard Ridge Neighborhood
The SW Bike Path is a major bike connection from the Orchard Ridge Neighborhood to the UW and Madison Isthmus. It is used by commuters throughout the year and it was constructed as a bike arterial.
That portion of the SW Bike Path that runs through Orchard Ridge has had lighting from the inception. The path is also has lighting from Breeze Terrace to Lake Monona.
The Orchard Ridge Neighborhood is at the "Summit" of the SW Path. We are trying to make bike commuting more attractive to our residents and biking a reason to reside in Orchard Ridge. We support lighting the portion from Breeze Terrace to the Beltline Highway, the middle portion of the path.
Larry D Nelson
President, Orchard Ridge Neighborhood
Posted: 07/13/2012
I use Madison's bike paths though all seasons. I support lighting the SW path. I think UW should increase its lighting along the Lakeshore path too.
I use Madison's bike paths though all seasons. I support lighting the SW path. I think UW should increase its lighting along the Lakeshore path too.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I'm a year-round commuter who supports lighting the path. I have a pretty powerful headlight and I don't ride that fast, but I still have trouble spotting pedestrians and debris on unlit bike paths. And while I don't worry a lot about crime, I'd like to be able to spot suspicious characters far enough ahead so that I could turn around.
I'm a year-round commuter who supports lighting the path. I have a pretty powerful headlight and I don't ride that fast, but I still have trouble spotting pedestrians and debris on unlit bike paths. And while I don't worry a lot about crime, I'd like to be able to spot suspicious characters far enough ahead so that I could turn around.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I am an avid bicycle commuter, and normally would be in 100% support of this, but I really think lighting bike paths is of secondary importance as compared to expanding bike path coverage citywide. I'd rather see the money spent on adding new paths.
I am an avid bicycle commuter, and normally would be in 100% support of this, but I really think lighting bike paths is of secondary importance as compared to expanding bike path coverage citywide. I'd rather see the money spent on adding new paths.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I would like to express my full support for lighting the SW Commuter Bike path. As a road biker, there have been many times where I have altered my route at dusk/night and chosen to ride on city streets rather than that section of bike path because of the dark. I would feel much safer as a biker riding on the bike path, but even with my own headlight the darkness makes me feel very uneasy. Thus, I take my route to the street, where the danger of cars is much higher, but I feel safer because I can see.
While I understand the objections of the residents (wanting to preserve wildlife habitat and tranquility), the truth is that we live in an urban area. If Madison wants to promote bicycling as a real alternative, it has to take measure to keep the bikers feeling safe. Lighting is a must have for this.
Thanks.
I would like to express my full support for lighting the SW Commuter Bike path. As a road biker, there have been many times where I have altered my route at dusk/night and chosen to ride on city streets rather than that section of bike path because of the dark. I would feel much safer as a biker riding on the bike path, but even with my own headlight the darkness makes me feel very uneasy. Thus, I take my route to the street, where the danger of cars is much higher, but I feel safer because I can see.
While I understand the objections of the residents (wanting to preserve wildlife habitat and tranquility), the truth is that we live in an urban area. If Madison wants to promote bicycling as a real alternative, it has to take measure to keep the bikers feeling safe. Lighting is a must have for this.
Thanks.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I fully support lighting the SW commuter path. Lighting would make the path safer for bikers and walkers. The city has done all it can to reduce the negative effects of the lights. No one living in a city should reasonably expect total darkness (even in their backyards) at night.
I fully support lighting the SW commuter path. Lighting would make the path safer for bikers and walkers. The city has done all it can to reduce the negative effects of the lights. No one living in a city should reasonably expect total darkness (even in their backyards) at night.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I support lighting the Southwest Path. As a transportation and recreational cyclist, I think lighting the path would provide a safer environment for cyclists, walkers, and other path users.
Even with lights, the path can be a dangerous riding experience due to un-lit pedestrians, bikes, debris, animals, and ice patches in the winter. When riding the path in the winter on my way home from work I had a pretty hard spill when I hit a patch of ice on the path that was not visible with my front headlight.
I've been very impressed with the City Traffic Engineering department's transparant, flexible, and open-forum approach to this discussion. It has been impressive to see their willingness to listen to those not in favor.
I believe that, despite local neighbor's current oppostion, when the lights go in on the path people will be largely in favor of them in hindsight. If I recall, wasn't there widespread local neighbor opposition to the Southwest Path when it was originally being planned? Clearly, the construction of the path has proven itself to be a momentously favorable thing for the City of Madison and the local neighborhood. I believe that the installation of the lights will follow a similar route of acceptance. In 5 years, people wouldn't be able to imagine why there would have been resistance to the idea.
I support lighting the Southwest Path. As a transportation and recreational cyclist, I think lighting the path would provide a safer environment for cyclists, walkers, and other path users.
Even with lights, the path can be a dangerous riding experience due to un-lit pedestrians, bikes, debris, animals, and ice patches in the winter. When riding the path in the winter on my way home from work I had a pretty hard spill when I hit a patch of ice on the path that was not visible with my front headlight.
I've been very impressed with the City Traffic Engineering department's transparant, flexible, and open-forum approach to this discussion. It has been impressive to see their willingness to listen to those not in favor.
I believe that, despite local neighbor's current oppostion, when the lights go in on the path people will be largely in favor of them in hindsight. If I recall, wasn't there widespread local neighbor opposition to the Southwest Path when it was originally being planned? Clearly, the construction of the path has proven itself to be a momentously favorable thing for the City of Madison and the local neighborhood. I believe that the installation of the lights will follow a similar route of acceptance. In 5 years, people wouldn't be able to imagine why there would have been resistance to the idea.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I support lighting the Southwest Path. As a transportation and recreational cyclist, I think lighting the path would provide a safer environment for cyclists, walkers, and other path users.
Even with lights, the path can be a dangerous riding experience due to un-lit pedestrians, bikes, debris, animals, and ice patches in the winter. When riding the path in the winter on my way home from work, and had a pretty hard spill when I hit a patch of ice on the path that was not visible with my front headlight.
I've been very impressed with the City Traffic Engineering department's transparant, flexible, and open-forum approach to this discussion. It has been impressive to see their willingness to listen to those not in favor.
I believe that, despite local neighbor's current oppostion, when the lights go in on the path people will be largely in favor of them in hindsight. If I recall, wasn't there widespread local neighbor opposition to the Southwest Path when it was originally being planned? Clearly, the construction of the path has proven itself to be a momentously favorable thing for the City of Madison and the local neighborhood. I believe that the installation of the lights will follow a similar route of acceptance. In 5 years, people wouldn't be able to imagine why there would have been resistance to the idea.
I support lighting the Southwest Path. As a transportation and recreational cyclist, I think lighting the path would provide a safer environment for cyclists, walkers, and other path users.
Even with lights, the path can be a dangerous riding experience due to un-lit pedestrians, bikes, debris, animals, and ice patches in the winter. When riding the path in the winter on my way home from work, and had a pretty hard spill when I hit a patch of ice on the path that was not visible with my front headlight.
I've been very impressed with the City Traffic Engineering department's transparant, flexible, and open-forum approach to this discussion. It has been impressive to see their willingness to listen to those not in favor.
I believe that, despite local neighbor's current oppostion, when the lights go in on the path people will be largely in favor of them in hindsight. If I recall, wasn't there widespread local neighbor opposition to the Southwest Path when it was originally being planned? Clearly, the construction of the path has proven itself to be a momentously favorable thing for the City of Madison and the local neighborhood. I believe that the installation of the lights will follow a similar route of acceptance. In 5 years, people wouldn't be able to imagine why there would have been resistance to the idea.
Posted: 07/13/2012
If Madison truly wants to be a bike-friendly city, I see going forward on this lighting project as essential: Yes, there are cyclists who are comfortable riding in the dark with just their personal bike lights, but there are many other cyclists who are not. In order for cycling to become more than just a fringe transportation option for the brave, we need to build out a real infrastructure of safe, accessible paths. And adequate lighting is a critical part of this infrastructure.
If Madison truly wants to be a bike-friendly city, I see going forward on this lighting project as essential: Yes, there are cyclists who are comfortable riding in the dark with just their personal bike lights, but there are many other cyclists who are not. In order for cycling to become more than just a fringe transportation option for the brave, we need to build out a real infrastructure of safe, accessible paths. And adequate lighting is a critical part of this infrastructure.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I live on the west side of Madison and commute downtown regularly by bike on the SW path. This well-used commuting route has lots of benefits to all - reduction in car traffic congestion, excercise, cost savings, enviromental benefits. Lighting would be a welcome, needed improvement to the safety and utility of the path.
I know the residents of about 1/2 mile section of the SW path are sensitive about/opposed to lighting. Maybe a less bright lighting solution is appropriate for that 1/2 mile stretch, with brighter lighting on the rest of the SW path.
Another option to explore which would be sensitive to residents' concerns is limited hours and/or brightness of lighting. Most of the path users who would benefit from lighting probably use the path until the 8-10pm range, and then starting at 5am. Perhaps at off-peak night hours, lights could be dimmed or turned off.
I live on the west side of Madison and commute downtown regularly by bike on the SW path. This well-used commuting route has lots of benefits to all - reduction in car traffic congestion, excercise, cost savings, enviromental benefits. Lighting would be a welcome, needed improvement to the safety and utility of the path.
I know the residents of about 1/2 mile section of the SW path are sensitive about/opposed to lighting. Maybe a less bright lighting solution is appropriate for that 1/2 mile stretch, with brighter lighting on the rest of the SW path.
Another option to explore which would be sensitive to residents' concerns is limited hours and/or brightness of lighting. Most of the path users who would benefit from lighting probably use the path until the 8-10pm range, and then starting at 5am. Perhaps at off-peak night hours, lights could be dimmed or turned off.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Many of the comments in the "pro-lighting" category are repetitive and a bit nonsensical. A recent argument seems to be that it is a hi volume transportation corridor and therefor it is like a street. Aside from the fact that the path is thankfully *not* like a street (e.g. no exhaust, noise, or car traffic) This comparison ignores the fact that the vast majority of the high volume is during warm weather and daytime. It also ignores the fact that a large number of people would use this corridor *less* at night if it were lit.
Trying to say it should have the same urban-blight streetlights as a street (the usefulness of which is even arguable) because "it is like a street" smacks of infrastructure envy at best, and an attempt by some two-wheelers (of which I am one) to try and effect a takeover from the other users of this MULTI-USE path. The motivations of some "urbanizers" seem to have more to do with marking territory and promoting a mis-directed "pro-biking" cause than with the actual overall safety and utility of this path.
The city isn't helping to steward this wonderful non-motorized transportation corridor and NATURAL COMMUNITY RESOURCE by having street signs on this segment that say "BIKE PATH" and calling it a "bike path" on this website. Signs on adjacent segments say "SOUTHWEST PATH", for example.
The new "you are here" map sign at the entry of this path by the stadium is also backwards (left on the path is right on the map when looking at the map). It is also arguably a safety hazard in and of itself because it requires people entering the path at its most busy entrance (lots of newbies, in fact) to cross over into the oncoming lane to read it!
If night-time safety was really the main concern, wouldn't there be at least some mention on this new sign cautioning against dark clothing, using visibility aids and having a light on your bike? If actual overall safety was really the concern wouldn't there be some mention on this sign for bikes to moderate their speed and maybe even ride single file when its busy? Perhaps even a mention that it is a multi-use path?
Instead of effecting some simple improvements to benefit day and night safety, we jump all the way to a very disruptive (naturally, visually and socially) and expensive infrastructure project with a very questionable benefit to overall safety. There have been virtually no accidents at night here (but a few in the daytime). Lights won't produce a negative number of accidents at night. Such a fundamental change of the night environment here can only increase accidents at night or leave them at basically zero.
The vocal (sorry, but kind of foot-stomping also) minority that insists that this is just like a street and therefor should be urbanized clearly do not appreciate what is alongside and above them while they perhaps careen through here as fast as their front light will let them. That is their choice. They also might not appreciate the fact that their vision is greatly compromised by overhead light fixtures that already exist here and possibly even by an overly bright front light and reflections off their own bike.
Here's the thing: many of us *do* appreciate the nature of this area a great deal and have been working our butts off together for many years to try and make it a higher-quality natural area. Here's another thing: many of us like to use our eyes as they evolved to see at night, instead of having our vision saturated by a tunnel of artificial light that will just make bikers ride faster and everyone less attentive (and arguably *less* secure from crime) at night.
Along with coupling CO2 emissions to biking and walking here for the first time, this project is insulting to the intelligence and responsibility of all path users. This is perhaps one of the most insidious aspects of this project from a human ecology and government policy standpoint.
Many of us that live around here and use this path daily (biking, running and walking) have been beneficially and sometimes profoundly changed by our interactions with nature and each other along this corridor. If you are in the tiny subset of cyclists that views anyone walking along the path (day or night) as simply a momentum-robbing obstacle, please try and re-evaluate your attitude about the few minutes you have to spend traversing through our community. Maybe instead of trying to change the path, the path can change you too (?)
Use a light, take it easy, enjoy the ride, love and respect your neighbors and fellow travelers.
Many of the comments in the "pro-lighting" category are repetitive and a bit nonsensical. A recent argument seems to be that it is a hi volume transportation corridor and therefor it is like a street. Aside from the fact that the path is thankfully *not* like a street (e.g. no exhaust, noise, or car traffic) This comparison ignores the fact that the vast majority of the high volume is during warm weather and daytime. It also ignores the fact that a large number of people would use this corridor *less* at night if it were lit.
Trying to say it should have the same urban-blight streetlights as a street (the usefulness of which is even arguable) because "it is like a street" smacks of infrastructure envy at best, and an attempt by some two-wheelers (of which I am one) to try and effect a takeover from the other users of this MULTI-USE path. The motivations of some "urbanizers" seem to have more to do with marking territory and promoting a mis-directed "pro-biking" cause than with the actual overall safety and utility of this path.
The city isn't helping to steward this wonderful non-motorized transportation corridor and NATURAL COMMUNITY RESOURCE by having street signs on this segment that say "BIKE PATH" and calling it a "bike path" on this website. Signs on adjacent segments say "SOUTHWEST PATH", for example.
The new "you are here" map sign at the entry of this path by the stadium is also backwards (left on the path is right on the map when looking at the map). It is also arguably a safety hazard in and of itself because it requires people entering the path at its most busy entrance (lots of newbies, in fact) to cross over into the oncoming lane to read it!
If night-time safety was really the main concern, wouldn't there be at least some mention on this new sign cautioning against dark clothing, using visibility aids and having a light on your bike? If actual overall safety was really the concern wouldn't there be some mention on this sign for bikes to moderate their speed and maybe even ride single file when its busy? Perhaps even a mention that it is a multi-use path?
Instead of effecting some simple improvements to benefit day and night safety, we jump all the way to a very disruptive (naturally, visually and socially) and expensive infrastructure project with a very questionable benefit to overall safety. There have been virtually no accidents at night here (but a few in the daytime). Lights won't produce a negative number of accidents at night. Such a fundamental change of the night environment here can only increase accidents at night or leave them at basically zero.
The vocal (sorry, but kind of foot-stomping also) minority that insists that this is just like a street and therefor should be urbanized clearly do not appreciate what is alongside and above them while they perhaps careen through here as fast as their front light will let them. That is their choice. They also might not appreciate the fact that their vision is greatly compromised by overhead light fixtures that already exist here and possibly even by an overly bright front light and reflections off their own bike.
Here's the thing: many of us *do* appreciate the nature of this area a great deal and have been working our butts off together for many years to try and make it a higher-quality natural area. Here's another thing: many of us like to use our eyes as they evolved to see at night, instead of having our vision saturated by a tunnel of artificial light that will just make bikers ride faster and everyone less attentive (and arguably *less* secure from crime) at night.
Along with coupling CO2 emissions to biking and walking here for the first time, this project is insulting to the intelligence and responsibility of all path users. This is perhaps one of the most insidious aspects of this project from a human ecology and government policy standpoint.
Many of us that live around here and use this path daily (biking, running and walking) have been beneficially and sometimes profoundly changed by our interactions with nature and each other along this corridor. If you are in the tiny subset of cyclists that views anyone walking along the path (day or night) as simply a momentum-robbing obstacle, please try and re-evaluate your attitude about the few minutes you have to spend traversing through our community. Maybe instead of trying to change the path, the path can change you too (?)
Use a light, take it easy, enjoy the ride, love and respect your neighbors and fellow travelers.
Posted: 07/13/2012
As a year round daily commuter on the bike path I understand the value of and the need for a safer, more inviting environment for after sundown riding on the bike path. I have had many near misses by cyclists without lights or even light colored clothing. Some kind of lighting is needed.
However, the proposed lighting (I visited two mights ago) is not the right choice. I strongly oppose the proposed lighting. It is necessarily bright and blinding to cyclists at night with relatively little reach.
I would hope that the city would investigate "wayfindg lighting" that would involve knee level or waist level lights (perhaps red so that it wouldn't interfere with nocturnal birds.) I would also favor a requirement for cyclists to use front and rear lights after dusk. We cyclists have the same rights as cars, we should accept some of the same conditions for operating our vehicles.
To repeat, I am very strongly opposed to the lighting that is on display on the bike path right now. It would set a horrible precedent for future trail lighting.
As a year round daily commuter on the bike path I understand the value of and the need for a safer, more inviting environment for after sundown riding on the bike path. I have had many near misses by cyclists without lights or even light colored clothing. Some kind of lighting is needed.
However, the proposed lighting (I visited two mights ago) is not the right choice. I strongly oppose the proposed lighting. It is necessarily bright and blinding to cyclists at night with relatively little reach.
I would hope that the city would investigate "wayfindg lighting" that would involve knee level or waist level lights (perhaps red so that it wouldn't interfere with nocturnal birds.) I would also favor a requirement for cyclists to use front and rear lights after dusk. We cyclists have the same rights as cars, we should accept some of the same conditions for operating our vehicles.
To repeat, I am very strongly opposed to the lighting that is on display on the bike path right now. It would set a horrible precedent for future trail lighting.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I support the installation of lights that balance the needs to light the path with the concerns of the local residents to not flood the area with unnecessary illumination. Even with the simple bike lighting many riders use, it can still be very difficult to identify other users in dark clothing. I have have a few personal experiences and I feel as a transportation corridor, lighting is required.
I support the installation of lights that balance the needs to light the path with the concerns of the local residents to not flood the area with unnecessary illumination. Even with the simple bike lighting many riders use, it can still be very difficult to identify other users in dark clothing. I have have a few personal experiences and I feel as a transportation corridor, lighting is required.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I strongly support enhanced lighting for the SW Commuter Path. My wife took a spill in the dark on that path because she couldn't see the lip and ended up with a handlebar stabbed into her leg. This incident could have been deadly.
While reflectors along the path showing the edges would be helpful for personal safety, they would do little to address visibility of other users and hazards on the path. I have personally had many close calls with unlighted pedestrians and cyclists. During the winter, it's very hard to see icy spots on the path even with a bright bike light.
Beams with a narrow focus on the path could help minimize light pollution if that is a concern for the path's neighbors.
I strongly support enhanced lighting for the SW Commuter Path. My wife took a spill in the dark on that path because she couldn't see the lip and ended up with a handlebar stabbed into her leg. This incident could have been deadly.
While reflectors along the path showing the edges would be helpful for personal safety, they would do little to address visibility of other users and hazards on the path. I have personally had many close calls with unlighted pedestrians and cyclists. During the winter, it's very hard to see icy spots on the path even with a bright bike light.
Beams with a narrow focus on the path could help minimize light pollution if that is a concern for the path's neighbors.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I use the path to commute 8-9 months of the year and strongly support lighting the path. There are many path users (on foot and on two wheels) that wear dark clothing, without adequate lights or reflective gear. If you tell them that they're hard to see, they get mad. Several times in the early morning dark, I have come upon the aftermath of collisions between cyclists and joggers/pedestrians. Those people that claim there've never been any such collisions obviously never use the path during the early morning rush hour. At this time of the year, it's still light in the early morning, but in a couple of months it will be dark again, so please light the path!
I use the path to commute 8-9 months of the year and strongly support lighting the path. There are many path users (on foot and on two wheels) that wear dark clothing, without adequate lights or reflective gear. If you tell them that they're hard to see, they get mad. Several times in the early morning dark, I have come upon the aftermath of collisions between cyclists and joggers/pedestrians. Those people that claim there've never been any such collisions obviously never use the path during the early morning rush hour. At this time of the year, it's still light in the early morning, but in a couple of months it will be dark again, so please light the path!
Posted: 07/13/2012
I am in support of the new light fixtures. I think they they are a closer compromise between not bothering neighbors and keeping the path safe.
In addition, the crime deterrent effects of the lights will also benefit the neighborhood.
I am in support of the new light fixtures. I think they they are a closer compromise between not bothering neighbors and keeping the path safe.
In addition, the crime deterrent effects of the lights will also benefit the neighborhood.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I support lighting the path. It is often difficult to see pedestrians in the dark on this path and I worry about accidentally running into them. Lighting would also make it a more inviting path to use for all user groups. It sounds like the lighting can be designed to minimize intrusion.
I support lighting the path. It is often difficult to see pedestrians in the dark on this path and I worry about accidentally running into them. Lighting would also make it a more inviting path to use for all user groups. It sounds like the lighting can be designed to minimize intrusion.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Please do not put lights on the path. They would actually make me feel less safe, as they prevent my eyes becoming accustomed to the dark, and make shadows darker and more pronounced.
Please do not put lights on the path. They would actually make me feel less safe, as they prevent my eyes becoming accustomed to the dark, and make shadows darker and more pronounced.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Please do not put lights on the path. They would actually make me feel less safe, as they prevent my eyes becoming accustomed to the dark, and make shadows darker and more pronounced.
Please do not put lights on the path. They would actually make me feel less safe, as they prevent my eyes becoming accustomed to the dark, and make shadows darker and more pronounced.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I use this everyday to bike to work many times before the sun has risen, lights would make all the difference in terms of safety for myself and all other using the trail. Thanks!
I use this everyday to bike to work many times before the sun has risen, lights would make all the difference in terms of safety for myself and all other using the trail. Thanks!
Posted: 07/13/2012
Please provide lighting on the path. This is a basic safety issue and also speaks to whether biking is and will be a serious transportation option for Madison commuters.
Please provide lighting on the path. This is a basic safety issue and also speaks to whether biking is and will be a serious transportation option for Madison commuters.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I strongly support lighting the path.
The fact that the path isn't lit doesn't usually deter me from using it as a cyclist, but I would be much more comfortable if there were lights. I'm not worried about getting mugged or not being able to see the road because I always have lights on my bike. My biggest problem with the path after dark is that it's hard to see non-cyclists runners, joggers, dog walkers, etc., who don't wear lights and blend in with the background. To me, that's the real danger.
I strongly support lighting the path.
The fact that the path isn't lit doesn't usually deter me from using it as a cyclist, but I would be much more comfortable if there were lights. I'm not worried about getting mugged or not being able to see the road because I always have lights on my bike. My biggest problem with the path after dark is that it's hard to see non-cyclists runners, joggers, dog walkers, etc., who don't wear lights and blend in with the background. To me, that's the real danger.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I am a daily user of the commuter path and am in full support of the necessary upgrades. The path is a public right of way and part of the urban infrastructure. The commuter path is not a private path for the neighborhood any more than Monroe st, Regent St or Lakeside St are private roads.
I am a daily user of the commuter path and am in full support of the necessary upgrades. The path is a public right of way and part of the urban infrastructure. The commuter path is not a private path for the neighborhood any more than Monroe st, Regent St or Lakeside St are private roads.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I'm all for lighting the trails as a bicycling commuter who has to work late pm's. I agree that the most dangerous obstacles are unlit pedestrians walking their dogs at night.
I'm all for lighting the trails as a bicycling commuter who has to work late pm's. I agree that the most dangerous obstacles are unlit pedestrians walking their dogs at night.
Posted: 07/13/2012
The Madison area trail system provides safe commuting routes through the city. It should be addressed the same as any other city commuting route and given adequate safety features which includes lighting. This will encourage more bicycle based commuting.
The Madison area trail system provides safe commuting routes through the city. It should be addressed the same as any other city commuting route and given adequate safety features which includes lighting. This will encourage more bicycle based commuting.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I am opposed to lighting the path. It's unnecessary, creates light pollution, and uses resources needed much more badly elsewhere. Instead, use signage and enforcement as necessary to encourage night bikers to use lights, and walkers to wear reflective clothing.
I am opposed to lighting the path. It's unnecessary, creates light pollution, and uses resources needed much more badly elsewhere. Instead, use signage and enforcement as necessary to encourage night bikers to use lights, and walkers to wear reflective clothing.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I think it is a BIG waste of money.
Most people who ride their bikes regularly have lights.
Many of the homes in that neighborhood houses would be lower than where the lights are
and would be subjected to the light entering their homes, this is bad.
I think it is a BIG waste of money.
Most people who ride their bikes regularly have lights.
Many of the homes in that neighborhood houses would be lower than where the lights are
and would be subjected to the light entering their homes, this is bad.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Lighting the SW Path would be great. Currently, I avoid using this path when it is dark due to a variety of natural and human hazards in the dark. Unfortunately, this means I have to ride in the sometimes small bike lanes on city streets instead. This results in traffic hazard but the SW path is not really very safe in the dark. It would be wonderful to have it lighted! Thanks for considering the project.
Lighting the SW Path would be great. Currently, I avoid using this path when it is dark due to a variety of natural and human hazards in the dark. Unfortunately, this means I have to ride in the sometimes small bike lanes on city streets instead. This results in traffic hazard but the SW path is not really very safe in the dark. It would be wonderful to have it lighted! Thanks for considering the project.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I live and bike on the SW bike path constantly, winter and summer. I do not see any need for this wasteful expenditure and think it will degrade the charm of the area (although this is a minor issue). I bike on the path at night quite frequently, have for longer than it has been in existence (yes, back when it was a railroad track) and do not believe there is a problem to be solved here.
I live and bike on the SW bike path constantly, winter and summer. I do not see any need for this wasteful expenditure and think it will degrade the charm of the area (although this is a minor issue). I bike on the path at night quite frequently, have for longer than it has been in existence (yes, back when it was a railroad track) and do not believe there is a problem to be solved here.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I think there is valid arguments for either side. The path is beautiful in early dusk and would be shame to light. However, given its importance as a transportation route, lighting may be necessary.
I support limited hours lighting of the path, at most until 9 PM. Growing up in Chicago with constant light pollution makes me appreciate the parts of Madison that still get dark.
I think there is valid arguments for either side. The path is beautiful in early dusk and would be shame to light. However, given its importance as a transportation route, lighting may be necessary.
I support limited hours lighting of the path, at most until 9 PM. Growing up in Chicago with constant light pollution makes me appreciate the parts of Madison that still get dark.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I bike this path every day. In the mornings, before sunrise, there are too many walkers w or wo/dogs that do not carry any lighting and many wear dark clothing. So far, I have not hit any of them, but I have come close. It would be nice to have a lite trail to make seeing those not on Bikes easier. I imagine most of the walkers I have a hard time seeing are neighborhood residents. I would support having the lights turn off later in the evening to reduce light pollution for the neighbors right on the trail. We need the lights.
I bike this path every day. In the mornings, before sunrise, there are too many walkers w or wo/dogs that do not carry any lighting and many wear dark clothing. So far, I have not hit any of them, but I have come close. It would be nice to have a lite trail to make seeing those not on Bikes easier. I imagine most of the walkers I have a hard time seeing are neighborhood residents. I would support having the lights turn off later in the evening to reduce light pollution for the neighbors right on the trail. We need the lights.
Posted: 07/13/2012
The SW path is a very unique place in the city. It has lots of nature... I have seen deer, owls, turkeys and the little critters too. One reason I ride is to be in the outdoors and enjoy the wildlife, the stars and the sounds of the night. Those things will get pushed out of this greenway if lights are installed.
I would much rather see enforcement of current light laws and a “lights on bikes” campaign than push all wildlife to the edge of town.
As a city, we barely have $ to keep emergency services running (just wait for the next city budget). This project is set for $250,000 (plus electricity cost once installed). If we really have $250,000+ to spend on cycling I would much rather see more bike lanes and green boxes installed. Paint is cheap.
-daily SW path user.
The SW path is a very unique place in the city. It has lots of nature... I have seen deer, owls, turkeys and the little critters too. One reason I ride is to be in the outdoors and enjoy the wildlife, the stars and the sounds of the night. Those things will get pushed out of this greenway if lights are installed.
I would much rather see enforcement of current light laws and a “lights on bikes” campaign than push all wildlife to the edge of town.
As a city, we barely have $ to keep emergency services running (just wait for the next city budget). This project is set for $250,000 (plus electricity cost once installed). If we really have $250,000+ to spend on cycling I would much rather see more bike lanes and green boxes installed. Paint is cheap.
-daily SW path user.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I strongly support the lighting of the SW path. The numerous, very dark sections of the path pose a significant safety hazard to both cyclists and pedestrians especially because most pedestrians and many cyclists are not adequately lit after dark.
I strongly support the lighting of the SW path. The numerous, very dark sections of the path pose a significant safety hazard to both cyclists and pedestrians especially because most pedestrians and many cyclists are not adequately lit after dark.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I would be supportive of small reflectors on either side of the path to indicate the edges, but no more.
I would be supportive of small reflectors on either side of the path to indicate the edges, but no more.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I do not feel that the path needs lights.
I enjoy biking on the path at night alone. It is calming, relaxing and fun to ride in the dark. My bike lights illuminate the path just fine! It seems like a waste of money to me to put in ugly expensive lights along the corridor.
I do not feel that the path needs lights.
I enjoy biking on the path at night alone. It is calming, relaxing and fun to ride in the dark. My bike lights illuminate the path just fine! It seems like a waste of money to me to put in ugly expensive lights along the corridor.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I am strongly in support of lighting the Southwest Path. This path is a transportation corridor, was built with transportation funds, and should be treated like any other transportation corridor. The city would never dream of not providing streetlights on a street carrying 2,000+ vehicles per day, which is how many vehicles the path carries.
If the city does not light the path, it should strongly consider banning pedestrians from the path from dusk till dawn. Neighborhood residents often walk (often with dogs on illegally long leashes) the path in the dark with no lighting or reflective clothing on and are a hazard.
Addionally, the city should consider removing the street lights from Gregory, Commonwealth, and other neighborhood streets with ADTs below 3,000. If the path does not require lighting for that volume, the streets don't either.
Please light the path.
Kevin
I am strongly in support of lighting the Southwest Path. This path is a transportation corridor, was built with transportation funds, and should be treated like any other transportation corridor. The city would never dream of not providing streetlights on a street carrying 2,000+ vehicles per day, which is how many vehicles the path carries.
If the city does not light the path, it should strongly consider banning pedestrians from the path from dusk till dawn. Neighborhood residents often walk (often with dogs on illegally long leashes) the path in the dark with no lighting or reflective clothing on and are a hazard.
Addionally, the city should consider removing the street lights from Gregory, Commonwealth, and other neighborhood streets with ADTs below 3,000. If the path does not require lighting for that volume, the streets don't either.
Please light the path.
Kevin
Posted: 07/13/2012
I simply support and respect the light intrusion issue into the surrounding yards by installing shielded lighting.
I simply support and respect the light intrusion issue into the surrounding yards by installing shielded lighting.
Posted: 07/13/2012
As a daily bike commuter, I have to side with the neighbors on this one. the path belongs more to the neighborhood than to commuters, in my opinion, and they are largely opposed. cyclists like me can take responsibility for themselves to carry their own lighting if they need it, and not force the expense of overbuilt unwanted permanent lighting in a time of tough budgets. Also, I don't like the precedent that all bike paths need to be lit like the Beltline. Darkness is a dwindling resource that needs to be protected - not to mention budgets and electricity! Thanks, MC
As a daily bike commuter, I have to side with the neighbors on this one. the path belongs more to the neighborhood than to commuters, in my opinion, and they are largely opposed. cyclists like me can take responsibility for themselves to carry their own lighting if they need it, and not force the expense of overbuilt unwanted permanent lighting in a time of tough budgets. Also, I don't like the precedent that all bike paths need to be lit like the Beltline. Darkness is a dwindling resource that needs to be protected - not to mention budgets and electricity! Thanks, MC
Posted: 07/13/2012
The Westmorland Committee to Review the SW Commuter Lighting Proposal surveyed Westmorland residents who live adjacent to the SW path. 49 responses were received. 65% were opposed to the project, 18% were in a "maybe" category meaning certain conditions need to be met before agreeing with the proposal, 12% were in favor of the project. 45% of the adjacent property owners who responded use the path at night. 82% would not use the path more at night if it were lighted. Also, non adjacent neighborhood residents were provided the opportunity to complete the survey. 35 responses were received. 51% were opposed to the project, 31% in favor and 17% in the "maybe" category. 71% of the respondents use the path at night. 77% would not use the path more at night if it were lighted.
The Westmorland Committee to Review the SW Commuter Lighting Proposal surveyed Westmorland residents who live adjacent to the SW path. 49 responses were received. 65% were opposed to the project, 18% were in a "maybe" category meaning certain conditions need to be met before agreeing with the proposal, 12% were in favor of the project. 45% of the adjacent property owners who responded use the path at night. 82% would not use the path more at night if it were lighted. Also, non adjacent neighborhood residents were provided the opportunity to complete the survey. 35 responses were received. 51% were opposed to the project, 31% in favor and 17% in the "maybe" category. 71% of the respondents use the path at night. 77% would not use the path more at night if it were lighted.
Posted: 07/13/2012
A busy transportation corridor such as this should have lighting. If this was a busy road, there wouldn't be any debate.
A busy transportation corridor such as this should have lighting. If this was a busy road, there wouldn't be any debate.
Posted: 07/13/2012
It's disappointing to read so many comments from people that claim to be frequent path users and also claim that there are rarely users who don't wear lights. There are always many users who don't (pedestrian, dog and bike) and they do create a hazard for everyone else on the path. I enjoy the dark and understand the desire for neighbors to keep their country feel, but I do not feel safe on the path and I don't scare easily. I always ride with lights and have bought an even brighter light just because of this path-it's still not enough. This is a critical piece of Madison's bike transportation infrastructure and needs to support that function. I absolutely support thoughtful design to minimize the negative impact to local residents, but this path does need to be lit. It's not a neighborhood question or decision; this about the city, its residents and its commitment to a high quality transportation infrastructure that goes beyond cars.
It's disappointing to read so many comments from people that claim to be frequent path users and also claim that there are rarely users who don't wear lights. There are always many users who don't (pedestrian, dog and bike) and they do create a hazard for everyone else on the path. I enjoy the dark and understand the desire for neighbors to keep their country feel, but I do not feel safe on the path and I don't scare easily. I always ride with lights and have bought an even brighter light just because of this path-it's still not enough. This is a critical piece of Madison's bike transportation infrastructure and needs to support that function. I absolutely support thoughtful design to minimize the negative impact to local residents, but this path does need to be lit. It's not a neighborhood question or decision; this about the city, its residents and its commitment to a high quality transportation infrastructure that goes beyond cars.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I'm one of the lucky ones who lives along the bike path and uses it in some form almost daily - a bike ride, walking to trader joes, commuting, running, and occasionally rollerskiing. I see the hundreds or thousands of commuters morning and evening, and also see the joggers, dog walkers, rollerbladers, walkers, and baby stroller pushers. When the days are short and darkness falls early it is essential that some form of lighting is provided to make it safe for all of us. Asking or requiring that everyone that uses the path after 5pm in the winter to have a light is unrealistic and ridiculous. All of us that have property that abuts the trail have large enough back yards that any lighting will not interfere any more than the street lights in front of our homes or our neighbors lights. The second test light does not throw light into the yards of the homeowners due to the baffle and angle. Please move forward with this project! I apologize for the NIMBY protesters who don't seem to recognize the need for lighting to make this valuable multi-use trail safely available to all users after dark.
I'm one of the lucky ones who lives along the bike path and uses it in some form almost daily - a bike ride, walking to trader joes, commuting, running, and occasionally rollerskiing. I see the hundreds or thousands of commuters morning and evening, and also see the joggers, dog walkers, rollerbladers, walkers, and baby stroller pushers. When the days are short and darkness falls early it is essential that some form of lighting is provided to make it safe for all of us. Asking or requiring that everyone that uses the path after 5pm in the winter to have a light is unrealistic and ridiculous. All of us that have property that abuts the trail have large enough back yards that any lighting will not interfere any more than the street lights in front of our homes or our neighbors lights. The second test light does not throw light into the yards of the homeowners due to the baffle and angle. Please move forward with this project! I apologize for the NIMBY protesters who don't seem to recognize the need for lighting to make this valuable multi-use trail safely available to all users after dark.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I fully support lighting the bike path. I commute from the near-west side to Fitchburg for work, so this is a critical commuting link for me.
I have a powerful bike light, but this still doesn't help make the path feel any safer at night.
Perhaps a better alternative to the tall pole lights would be lower to the ground lights that would illuminate the path (and could be placed more frequently for full lighting) and have minimal impact on lighting of the homeowners on the path.
I fully support lighting the bike path. I commute from the near-west side to Fitchburg for work, so this is a critical commuting link for me.
I have a powerful bike light, but this still doesn't help make the path feel any safer at night.
Perhaps a better alternative to the tall pole lights would be lower to the ground lights that would illuminate the path (and could be placed more frequently for full lighting) and have minimal impact on lighting of the homeowners on the path.
Posted: 07/13/2012
Thank you for considering lighting on the SW Bike Path. Even though there are legitimate concerns about the lights, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Like so many other commuters, I have concerns about night commuting. This will increase the number of trips taken by bicycle and reduce vehicle trips.
Thank you for considering lighting on the SW Bike Path. Even though there are legitimate concerns about the lights, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Like so many other commuters, I have concerns about night commuting. This will increase the number of trips taken by bicycle and reduce vehicle trips.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I heard a discussion about the lighting on WORT this morning. I regularly bike at night and have front and back lights on my bike. I think bicyclists should have lights at night to see and be seen. I also bike more slowly at night for safety reasons. I know that some lights along trails can hamper your night vision. I don't think a lighted bike path is necessary and as a woman who bikes at night I don't feel safer just because an area is brighter.
I heard a discussion about the lighting on WORT this morning. I regularly bike at night and have front and back lights on my bike. I think bicyclists should have lights at night to see and be seen. I also bike more slowly at night for safety reasons. I know that some lights along trails can hamper your night vision. I don't think a lighted bike path is necessary and as a woman who bikes at night I don't feel safer just because an area is brighter.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I think everyone forgets that a bicycle is considered a vehicle. That's why the path has stop signs when it crosses roads! Please obey the signs! If you are walking, you are a pedestrian and have the right of way in the crosswalk, but if you are riding a bike, you are a vehicle crossing the road in a crosswalk and the cars have the right of way.
As a vehicle travelling after sunset, lighting is required on your bike. So, people riding bikes on the path in the dark need to follow the rules and have lights on their bike. Lighting the path is a solution looking for a problem.
i've ridden the path in dark only limited times and see people with lights and some without ligths. I've also seen walkiers with blinkie lights. If you ride responsibly with a light, you should be able to minimize collisions with walkers. If you ride a bike without a light, you are a problem and need to fix it by following the rules.
The dark path is a beautiful isolation of nature from the lighted city. I think it would be great to maintain the path without lights.
Thanks for this discussion forum.
I think everyone forgets that a bicycle is considered a vehicle. That's why the path has stop signs when it crosses roads! Please obey the signs! If you are walking, you are a pedestrian and have the right of way in the crosswalk, but if you are riding a bike, you are a vehicle crossing the road in a crosswalk and the cars have the right of way.
As a vehicle travelling after sunset, lighting is required on your bike. So, people riding bikes on the path in the dark need to follow the rules and have lights on their bike. Lighting the path is a solution looking for a problem.
i've ridden the path in dark only limited times and see people with lights and some without ligths. I've also seen walkiers with blinkie lights. If you ride responsibly with a light, you should be able to minimize collisions with walkers. If you ride a bike without a light, you are a problem and need to fix it by following the rules.
The dark path is a beautiful isolation of nature from the lighted city. I think it would be great to maintain the path without lights.
Thanks for this discussion forum.
Posted: 07/13/2012
I favor lights on the SW, Cannonball, and similar transportation paths, but not recreational trails like the Fitchburg leg of the Capital City Trail. I appreciate the research that City Engineering has done to find fixtures with the tightest possible pattern and the highest energy efficiency. (I have a older-style street fixture in my back yard that requires me to pull blinds closed at night, and so agree that dark skies and minimum spill are important issues.) I have two forward facing lights and frequently ride at night, but still want paths lighted to avoid debris and unlighted path users.
I favor lights on the SW, Cannonball, and similar transportation paths, but not recreational trails like the Fitchburg leg of the Capital City Trail. I appreciate the research that City Engineering has done to find fixtures with the tightest possible pattern and the highest energy efficiency. (I have a older-style street fixture in my back yard that requires me to pull blinds closed at night, and so agree that dark skies and minimum spill are important issues.) I have two forward facing lights and frequently ride at night, but still want paths lighted to avoid debris and unlighted path users.
Posted: 07/11/2012
Somebody informed me yesterday that someone from the city was on the bike path in the early morning and late afternoon surveying bike path users on the proposed lighting. I went looking for this person yesterday and today but wasn't able to find them. Does anyone know if this is accurate or anything about this? If so, is the city providing some other means for residents to take the survey or do we have to just be lucky enough to come across the survey taker when they are there.
I'm also curious to know if the city is surveying people throughout the city or only on the bike path.
Somebody informed me yesterday that someone from the city was on the bike path in the early morning and late afternoon surveying bike path users on the proposed lighting. I went looking for this person yesterday and today but wasn't able to find them. Does anyone know if this is accurate or anything about this? If so, is the city providing some other means for residents to take the survey or do we have to just be lucky enough to come across the survey taker when they are there.
I'm also curious to know if the city is surveying people throughout the city or only on the bike path.
Posted: 07/11/2012
Can we stick to facts? People on both sides of the issue keep tossing out unsubstantiated "facts" and speculation.
Astronomy:
I have attempted and failed to do star gazing (with kids taking astronomy class, multiple nights, multiple weather conditions, with and without moon rise) in the Glenway Golf Course, Forest Hill Cemetary, and along the SW Commuter Bike Path. It just can't be done. The major constellations are just barely visibible, and then only by their brightest stars. Conditions are very difficult. There is too much light pollution from the surrounding city.
Alternatives to Lighting the Path:
If the city will move capital dollars to operational budget, and then keep those dollars available it might be possible to install reflective striping, hand out blinky lights free to "educate" the invisible path users, etc. But I don't think budgets work this way. Maybe the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood association can fund these alternatives?
Wildlife:
This corridor is a degraded "natural" area full of invasives/pest species as well as a few urban-tolerant favored species. I have seen and heard owls, hawks (and heard reports of coyotes) eight blocks away in my well-lit Toepfer Avenue developed residential block. Just because there are owls in my backyard does not qualify my yard or the SW Commuter Bike Path as another city conservation park. Yes it is nice to have birds in the trees along the path. Will they leave if there is some modest lighting added? I am not a biologist so can't say. I don't think there has been a conservation biology study of the wildlife on the SW Commuter Bike Path.
NIMBYism:
There is probably consensus on at least a desire to reduce CO2 and other pollution, reduce sprawl and automobile traffic. But this common agreement is overshadowed by the extreme strident tone of the NIMBY crowd. Instead of solutions we hear "no" from the most outspoken and least informed NIMBYs. The SW Commuter Bike Path is a transportation corridor first, a recreational path second. Part of its construction funding was Federal DOT transporation dollars. The NIMBYers fought the path when it was first proposed. They complain about fast bicyclists "whizzing by" on their path where they walk at night. I recall these same NIMBYs fought to make the path narrower (it is 16' wide near Camp Randall, but only 12' wide from Commonwealth Avenue west to the beltline; so now there is less passing room!). They continue to fight other changes, because it is human nature to resist change. They once had an abandoned railway in their backyards, effectively turning their 60' wide 120' deep small urban yards into 300' deep country estates. They don't want to lose that privacy. So really NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is very apt in this case (instead of OWL Our Wild Lightless path, maybe it should be called NIMBY path?). Which is more important? Keeping the dark wooded backyard in an urban core as a linear conservation park or preventing more sprawl, more CO2 climate change and fine particulate asthma-causing pollution? We all need to come together to increase bicycle use and fight against sprawl-inducing highway construction (like the new Highway 151 Verona Road project), and work to improve the existing conservation parks and wild areas outside of the urban core.
Failure of Current Lighting Design:
The current design does not meet DOT standards because the luminares are spaced too far apart. The proposed LED lighting is too "cold" and makes night vision worse. These are engineering problems the city can and must address. Closer spaced lower intensity LED lights probably installed in bollards would be better. Or use traditional sodium or halogen light bulbs sized and positioned appropriately.
Can we stick to facts? People on both sides of the issue keep tossing out unsubstantiated "facts" and speculation.
Astronomy:
I have attempted and failed to do star gazing (with kids taking astronomy class, multiple nights, multiple weather conditions, with and without moon rise) in the Glenway Golf Course, Forest Hill Cemetary, and along the SW Commuter Bike Path. It just can't be done. The major constellations are just barely visibible, and then only by their brightest stars. Conditions are very difficult. There is too much light pollution from the surrounding city.
Alternatives to Lighting the Path:
If the city will move capital dollars to operational budget, and then keep those dollars available it might be possible to install reflective striping, hand out blinky lights free to "educate" the invisible path users, etc. But I don't think budgets work this way. Maybe the Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood association can fund these alternatives?
Wildlife:
This corridor is a degraded "natural" area full of invasives/pest species as well as a few urban-tolerant favored species. I have seen and heard owls, hawks (and heard reports of coyotes) eight blocks away in my well-lit Toepfer Avenue developed residential block. Just because there are owls in my backyard does not qualify my yard or the SW Commuter Bike Path as another city conservation park. Yes it is nice to have birds in the trees along the path. Will they leave if there is some modest lighting added? I am not a biologist so can't say. I don't think there has been a conservation biology study of the wildlife on the SW Commuter Bike Path.
NIMBYism:
There is probably consensus on at least a desire to reduce CO2 and other pollution, reduce sprawl and automobile traffic. But this common agreement is overshadowed by the extreme strident tone of the NIMBY crowd. Instead of solutions we hear "no" from the most outspoken and least informed NIMBYs. The SW Commuter Bike Path is a transportation corridor first, a recreational path second. Part of its construction funding was Federal DOT transporation dollars. The NIMBYers fought the path when it was first proposed. They complain about fast bicyclists "whizzing by" on their path where they walk at night. I recall these same NIMBYs fought to make the path narrower (it is 16' wide near Camp Randall, but only 12' wide from Commonwealth Avenue west to the beltline; so now there is less passing room!). They continue to fight other changes, because it is human nature to resist change. They once had an abandoned railway in their backyards, effectively turning their 60' wide 120' deep small urban yards into 300' deep country estates. They don't want to lose that privacy. So really NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is very apt in this case (instead of OWL Our Wild Lightless path, maybe it should be called NIMBY path?). Which is more important? Keeping the dark wooded backyard in an urban core as a linear conservation park or preventing more sprawl, more CO2 climate change and fine particulate asthma-causing pollution? We all need to come together to increase bicycle use and fight against sprawl-inducing highway construction (like the new Highway 151 Verona Road project), and work to improve the existing conservation parks and wild areas outside of the urban core.
Failure of Current Lighting Design:
The current design does not meet DOT standards because the luminares are spaced too far apart. The proposed LED lighting is too "cold" and makes night vision worse. These are engineering problems the city can and must address. Closer spaced lower intensity LED lights probably installed in bollards would be better. Or use traditional sodium or halogen light bulbs sized and positioned appropriately.
Posted: 07/11/2012
Don't waste your money. I ride this path multiple times a week. At least once a week, I ride home in the dark. I've done this for years. I use a light and wear reflective clothing. I've had no difficulty whatsoever in negotiating my way home. Perhaps once in a great while I come across someone who is not using these precautions, but I have not had any difficulty in seeing and avoiding them. Although the lights might make it minimally easier for me, I'm afraid they might actually encourage irresponsibility in the form of bikers without lights and pedestrians in dark clothing. The many other downsides of the lights have been posted here by others.
The newspaper proposed this preposterous scenario to justify the lights: A biker without lights hits a pedestrian without reflective clothing. How would anyone find them? So I presume that both of them are incapacitated, otherwise one of them would go for help. (So who exactly initiates the search for them?) And I presume that they land slightly off the path, otherwise the next person coming along the path would stumble across them. And I assume that they miraculously land right under one of the new lights, otherwise the rescuers would still not be able to find them, because they have apparently set out on their search without flashlights!
These lights are a solution in search of a problem.
Don't be afraid of the dark.
Don't waste your money. I ride this path multiple times a week. At least once a week, I ride home in the dark. I've done this for years. I use a light and wear reflective clothing. I've had no difficulty whatsoever in negotiating my way home. Perhaps once in a great while I come across someone who is not using these precautions, but I have not had any difficulty in seeing and avoiding them. Although the lights might make it minimally easier for me, I'm afraid they might actually encourage irresponsibility in the form of bikers without lights and pedestrians in dark clothing. The many other downsides of the lights have been posted here by others.
The newspaper proposed this preposterous scenario to justify the lights: A biker without lights hits a pedestrian without reflective clothing. How would anyone find them? So I presume that both of them are incapacitated, otherwise one of them would go for help. (So who exactly initiates the search for them?) And I presume that they land slightly off the path, otherwise the next person coming along the path would stumble across them. And I assume that they miraculously land right under one of the new lights, otherwise the rescuers would still not be able to find them, because they have apparently set out on their search without flashlights!
These lights are a solution in search of a problem.
Don't be afraid of the dark.
Posted: 07/11/2012
I love to walk the bike path at night with NO LIGHTS, especially in winter. People who use the bike path currently when it's dark seem to be able to purchase a portable light to mount on their person or their bicycle; one sees them frequently.
It's nice that people who don't have houses on the path can say that they don't see any issue, but in my opinion those who will have to actually live with the light in their backyard should be the ones to make the decision.
I love to walk the bike path at night with NO LIGHTS, especially in winter. People who use the bike path currently when it's dark seem to be able to purchase a portable light to mount on their person or their bicycle; one sees them frequently.
It's nice that people who don't have houses on the path can say that they don't see any issue, but in my opinion those who will have to actually live with the light in their backyard should be the ones to make the decision.
Posted: 07/11/2012
I am NOT in favor of the lights being placed on the bike path. My husband and I are daily bicycle commuters on the path from the west side of Madison. We also often take the path on the weekends to downtown and return at 10:00 - 10:30 in the evening. It is OUR responsibility as bikers to use bike lights on our bikes and to ride more slowly and carefully at night. Walkers should carry a flashlight just like I would if I were to walk around my block in the evening. I LOVE the bike paths in Madison and certainly appreciate every aspect of them but let's remember that for the most part these paths are in the backyards of people's homes and now to add lights to that is a mistake. I just don't think it is right or a way to solve the problem of biker's not having lights on their bikes. People with cars put their lights on when driving at night. It's what you do and if we didn't I don't think we'd be rewarded with better lights on our highways. Let's be real, even if the lights shine down, these homeowners will easily see those lights from their back windows.
I am NOT in favor of the lights being placed on the bike path. My husband and I are daily bicycle commuters on the path from the west side of Madison. We also often take the path on the weekends to downtown and return at 10:00 - 10:30 in the evening. It is OUR responsibility as bikers to use bike lights on our bikes and to ride more slowly and carefully at night. Walkers should carry a flashlight just like I would if I were to walk around my block in the evening. I LOVE the bike paths in Madison and certainly appreciate every aspect of them but let's remember that for the most part these paths are in the backyards of people's homes and now to add lights to that is a mistake. I just don't think it is right or a way to solve the problem of biker's not having lights on their bikes. People with cars put their lights on when driving at night. It's what you do and if we didn't I don't think we'd be rewarded with better lights on our highways. Let's be real, even if the lights shine down, these homeowners will easily see those lights from their back windows.
Posted: 07/11/2012
One of the main reasons that I remember many residents being resistant to the path initially was BECAUSE of the possibility of lighting it.
The final recommendation of a very thorough and thoughtful multi-neighborhood panel's report to the Mayor's office at the inception of this path was that there would be no lights unless requested by a majority of residents on a block by block basis.
Riding at night with a bike light is a part of the normal biking skill set that people should learn and become comfortable with. Its not like we have to go out and buy specialized night-vision equipment or something. It is possible that you may not be able to safely travel 25 miles an hour with a typical bike light, but that's how people get crunched (day or night) on multi-use paths anyways.
There should be some tasteful signs advising that it gets dark here at night and tips for visibility improvement. Pedestrians that get caught after dark in the fall should also be able to easily grab a reflector band from posts at path entrances.
This path, along with being one of the greatest commuting experiences and recreational night-riding experiences in Madison, could also become a nationally recognized Urban Dark-Sky Preserve and bird sanctuary. If we simply put streetlights along it- you guessed it, another stripe of urban blight where there used to be a vibrant and unique transportation corridor (and wildlife corridor). The answer is education, not electrification.
Want better lighting and vision everywhere you ride along the path? Get a better (not brighter) front light and mount it so that it doesn't reflect off shiny pieces of your handlebars, fork or wheel into your own eyes.
One of the main reasons that I remember many residents being resistant to the path initially was BECAUSE of the possibility of lighting it.
The final recommendation of a very thorough and thoughtful multi-neighborhood panel's report to the Mayor's office at the inception of this path was that there would be no lights unless requested by a majority of residents on a block by block basis.
Riding at night with a bike light is a part of the normal biking skill set that people should learn and become comfortable with. Its not like we have to go out and buy specialized night-vision equipment or something. It is possible that you may not be able to safely travel 25 miles an hour with a typical bike light, but that's how people get crunched (day or night) on multi-use paths anyways.
There should be some tasteful signs advising that it gets dark here at night and tips for visibility improvement. Pedestrians that get caught after dark in the fall should also be able to easily grab a reflector band from posts at path entrances.
This path, along with being one of the greatest commuting experiences and recreational night-riding experiences in Madison, could also become a nationally recognized Urban Dark-Sky Preserve and bird sanctuary. If we simply put streetlights along it- you guessed it, another stripe of urban blight where there used to be a vibrant and unique transportation corridor (and wildlife corridor). The answer is education, not electrification.
Want better lighting and vision everywhere you ride along the path? Get a better (not brighter) front light and mount it so that it doesn't reflect off shiny pieces of your handlebars, fork or wheel into your own eyes.
Posted: 07/11/2012
Yesterday the local paper reported that the mayor wants each city department to pare down their budgets. Considering how controversial the lights are, isn't that a logical place to start?
Yesterday the local paper reported that the mayor wants each city department to pare down their budgets. Considering how controversial the lights are, isn't that a logical place to start?
Posted: 07/10/2012
Don't install lights!! 24-hour lighting is going to have a bad effect on
the chickens kept along the path
the beehives kept along the path
the bison prairie planting near Midvale
the huge prairie planting near Odana, which continues along the path
the large planting at Glenway
the multiyear ongoing restoration south of the MGE station at Glenway
the enormous number of native plants on the north side of the path
between Midvale and the beltline
Why should never-ending lights ruin the huge amount of work put into developing all the plantings along the path? This is probably the most scenic 5 miles of path in any city. Why destroy it?
BTW, on the same scale, a pathway filled with these lights is going to look
just as attractive as the new power towers on the beltline.
Don't install lights!! 24-hour lighting is going to have a bad effect on
the chickens kept along the path
the beehives kept along the path
the bison prairie planting near Midvale
the huge prairie planting near Odana, which continues along the path
the large planting at Glenway
the multiyear ongoing restoration south of the MGE station at Glenway
the enormous number of native plants on the north side of the path
between Midvale and the beltline
Why should never-ending lights ruin the huge amount of work put into developing all the plantings along the path? This is probably the most scenic 5 miles of path in any city. Why destroy it?
BTW, on the same scale, a pathway filled with these lights is going to look
just as attractive as the new power towers on the beltline.
Posted: 07/10/2012
I support minimizing light pollution and promoting commuter safety. The new light fixtures installed on 6/18 seem to be the best option for both. If everyone who uses the path used appropriate lighting, and if ilicit activity in dark areas did not exist, the alternative lighting proposal would not be needed. However, it seems to be the best option while we each work on improving personal responsibility and together work on larger societal issues.
I support minimizing light pollution and promoting commuter safety. The new light fixtures installed on 6/18 seem to be the best option for both. If everyone who uses the path used appropriate lighting, and if ilicit activity in dark areas did not exist, the alternative lighting proposal would not be needed. However, it seems to be the best option while we each work on improving personal responsibility and together work on larger societal issues.
Posted: 07/10/2012
SW Bikepath lighting.
The bikepath lighting project is necessary for the continued expansion of the use of bikepaths in Madison. I am a daily user for both commuting and recreation. With lighting I would be able to safely take evening classes at the university by bicycle instead of an auto. I would also be able to dine in the capitol area knowing that I could get home safely and avoid using my car.
I understand that when paving of the railroad tracks was proposed there was a huge resistance to the project. And look at the result now. Hundreds, if not thousands of people using their bikes instead of their cars on a daily basis. One could assume that a similar result would occur with the proposed lighting.
It certainly seems to me that this project is a logical and positive step toward continuing to enhance Madison's efforts to be a "Bicycle Friendly City".
SW Bikepath lighting.
The bikepath lighting project is necessary for the continued expansion of the use of bikepaths in Madison. I am a daily user for both commuting and recreation. With lighting I would be able to safely take evening classes at the university by bicycle instead of an auto. I would also be able to dine in the capitol area knowing that I could get home safely and avoid using my car.
I understand that when paving of the railroad tracks was proposed there was a huge resistance to the project. And look at the result now. Hundreds, if not thousands of people using their bikes instead of their cars on a daily basis. One could assume that a similar result would occur with the proposed lighting.
It certainly seems to me that this project is a logical and positive step toward continuing to enhance Madison's efforts to be a "Bicycle Friendly City".
Posted: 07/10/2012
SW Bikepath lighting.
The bikepath lighting project is necessary for the continued expansion of the use of bikepaths in Madison. I am a daily user for both commuting and recreation. With lighting I would be able to safely take evening classes at the university by bicycle instead of an auto. I would also be able to dine in the capitol area knowing that I could get home safely and avoid using my car.
I understand that when paving of the railroad tracks was proposed there was a huge resistance to the project. And look at the result now. Hundreds, if not thousands of people using their bikes instead of their cars on a daily basis. One could assume that a similar result would occur with the proposed lighting.
It certainly seems to me that this project is a logical and positive step toward continuing to enhance Madison's efforts to be a "Bicycle Friendly City".
SW Bikepath lighting.
The bikepath lighting project is necessary for the continued expansion of the use of bikepaths in Madison. I am a daily user for both commuting and recreation. With lighting I would be able to safely take evening classes at the university by bicycle instead of an auto. I would also be able to dine in the capitol area knowing that I could get home safely and avoid using my car.
I understand that when paving of the railroad tracks was proposed there was a huge resistance to the project. And look at the result now. Hundreds, if not thousands of people using their bikes instead of their cars on a daily basis. One could assume that a similar result would occur with the proposed lighting.
It certainly seems to me that this project is a logical and positive step toward continuing to enhance Madison's efforts to be a "Bicycle Friendly City".
Posted: 07/10/2012
My wife and I have been to the path to view the proposed lighting. We are strongly opposed to the project. It is a solution in search of a problem and will add to the light pollution that already exists. We live across from Edgewood's new visual arts building and the visual assault from "downward pointing" parking and walkway lights is obscene. Lighting compromises night vision adaptation, makes a natural space more artificial, adds to our security paranoia, impacts wildlife, and adds another expense to an economy that is already taxed to the max and under pressure. Don't do it.
My wife and I have been to the path to view the proposed lighting. We are strongly opposed to the project. It is a solution in search of a problem and will add to the light pollution that already exists. We live across from Edgewood's new visual arts building and the visual assault from "downward pointing" parking and walkway lights is obscene. Lighting compromises night vision adaptation, makes a natural space more artificial, adds to our security paranoia, impacts wildlife, and adds another expense to an economy that is already taxed to the max and under pressure. Don't do it.
Posted: 07/10/2012
my wife and i are daily users (year round for me). we are NOT in favor
for the already stated reasons. An illogical proposal wasting more tax dollars that can be better used elsewhere.
my wife and i are daily users (year round for me). we are NOT in favor
for the already stated reasons. An illogical proposal wasting more tax dollars that can be better used elsewhere.
Posted: 07/10/2012
There is no need for this. Anyone concerned about their safety is free to wear a light and/or reflective clothing while using the path or take Monroe Street. All the lights do is screw up people's night vision and ruin one of the few places in the city where you can get somewhat away from all the bright lights.
Don't spend our money breaking what's working just fine. Take that 250,000 and feed the homeless or run some fiber to my house or help pay for a bridge or something.
There is no need for this. Anyone concerned about their safety is free to wear a light and/or reflective clothing while using the path or take Monroe Street. All the lights do is screw up people's night vision and ruin one of the few places in the city where you can get somewhat away from all the bright lights.
Don't spend our money breaking what's working just fine. Take that 250,000 and feed the homeless or run some fiber to my house or help pay for a bridge or something.
Posted: 07/10/2012
I am a frequent bike path user, both as a cyclist and a runner. I am very much against increasing the lighting on the bike path for a number of reasons. First and foremost is my desire, shared (I believe) with a substantial segment of Madison, to control light pollution, which impacts nocturnal wildlife and hampers visibility of the night sky. Secondly, the relative darkness of the bike path is one of the things I enjoy about it. I choose to travel by bike or on foot to get away from the busy streets and everything that goes with them, including bright lights. Third, I feel that it is a far more elegant and tailored solution to simply encourage bike path users to supply their own lighting. When cycling at night, I use a bike light; it's common sense. Just as you wouldn't drive on a country road without headlights, it seems fair to expect path users to bring a flashlight for walking in the dark, thus providing low-impact lighting that's only "on" when somebody is on the path. The proposed project would not only be intrusive for path-adjacent property owners, it is a costly solution to a "problem" that can be solved by fostering the good practices of individual users. Installation of these lights would be expensive and disruptive to daytime use of the path as well. Furthermore, the lighting itself causes more of a safety hazard than darkness. Runners and walkers often use the shoulder of the path, which will now be punctuated with obstacles - one more thing to crash into. Finally, the lights are extremely unattractive. I'd much rather be looking at the trees.
I am a frequent bike path user, both as a cyclist and a runner. I am very much against increasing the lighting on the bike path for a number of reasons. First and foremost is my desire, shared (I believe) with a substantial segment of Madison, to control light pollution, which impacts nocturnal wildlife and hampers visibility of the night sky. Secondly, the relative darkness of the bike path is one of the things I enjoy about it. I choose to travel by bike or on foot to get away from the busy streets and everything that goes with them, including bright lights. Third, I feel that it is a far more elegant and tailored solution to simply encourage bike path users to supply their own lighting. When cycling at night, I use a bike light; it's common sense. Just as you wouldn't drive on a country road without headlights, it seems fair to expect path users to bring a flashlight for walking in the dark, thus providing low-impact lighting that's only "on" when somebody is on the path. The proposed project would not only be intrusive for path-adjacent property owners, it is a costly solution to a "problem" that can be solved by fostering the good practices of individual users. Installation of these lights would be expensive and disruptive to daytime use of the path as well. Furthermore, the lighting itself causes more of a safety hazard than darkness. Runners and walkers often use the shoulder of the path, which will now be punctuated with obstacles - one more thing to crash into. Finally, the lights are extremely unattractive. I'd much rather be looking at the trees.
Posted: 07/09/2012
After having a terrifying experience on this bike path in Nov. of 2010, I strongly believe that lighting is essential for the safety of commuters. I immediately called 911 to report what I had witnessed. With a little follow up on my part, I learned from Madison police that this path is actually a common location for drug traffic - especially near the Odana Hills Golf Course. This area is COMPLETELY dark/black by 5pm for much of the year (Oct to Mar). There are plenty of other locations while traveling toward Camp Randall that are completely dark. This is not just a neighborhood issue for those people who live right along the trail.
There are plenty of us who use this trail who live south and west of the Beltline and have had to travel in complete blackness (and our bike lights are just a small sliver of light in the complete dark). Dawn and dusk are common commuter travel times - especially during the shortened daylight hours of fall, winter, and spring. This trail is not just used by residents who live along the trail, but hundreds of commuters as well. Afterall, it is called the Southwest COMMUTER Bike Trail.
After having a terrifying experience on this bike path in Nov. of 2010, I strongly believe that lighting is essential for the safety of commuters. I immediately called 911 to report what I had witnessed. With a little follow up on my part, I learned from Madison police that this path is actually a common location for drug traffic - especially near the Odana Hills Golf Course. This area is COMPLETELY dark/black by 5pm for much of the year (Oct to Mar). There are plenty of other locations while traveling toward Camp Randall that are completely dark. This is not just a neighborhood issue for those people who live right along the trail.
There are plenty of us who use this trail who live south and west of the Beltline and have had to travel in complete blackness (and our bike lights are just a small sliver of light in the complete dark). Dawn and dusk are common commuter travel times - especially during the shortened daylight hours of fall, winter, and spring. This trail is not just used by residents who live along the trail, but hundreds of commuters as well. Afterall, it is called the Southwest COMMUTER Bike Trail.
Posted: 07/09/2012
Does not seem like a good use of $250,000 to me. Another case of paying for someone else's lack of common sense not to have lights or reflective clothing. Not to mention the impact on nocturnal wildlife. Maybe a light or two at streets or intersections. What I would love to see on bike paths is a place to go to the bathroom!
Does not seem like a good use of $250,000 to me. Another case of paying for someone else's lack of common sense not to have lights or reflective clothing. Not to mention the impact on nocturnal wildlife. Maybe a light or two at streets or intersections. What I would love to see on bike paths is a place to go to the bathroom!
Posted: 07/09/2012
I have lived right on this path for 21 years, and remember when the train still went past !
I walk and bike this path , and walk the dog , many times daily, in all weather , and at all hours day and night. I have learned to wear reflective gear, carry a flashlight,put a light on the dog, at all times. I can understand lighting at intersections of the path to streets; but please NO other lights are needed.
Any responsible person wears lights and reflective gear at all times, walking or riding, on this path, and really, on all streets and sidewalks.Not to wear a light is just stupid and thougtless of your own safety and that of others. Lighting the path only enables this behavior . I rarely see anyone without somekind of light. Everyone I ever see has a light or reflective vest etc.. walking or biking, and for the pooch too.
As a homeowner who backs up †o the path, I sure do not want a light shining down into my yard everynight. And, this path is really a wonderful place at night , as well as all the surrounding park/ yard land , for a wealth of wildlife Yes we hear and see owls at night - magic ! People ski in the woods at night ( with lights ) it is also magic. Dont wreck this little bit of wildlife wonderland for a few folks who cant wear a flashilight. Use the money in more productive ways, such as promoting bike safety and manners for all .
I have lived right on this path for 21 years, and remember when the train still went past !
I walk and bike this path , and walk the dog , many times daily, in all weather , and at all hours day and night. I have learned to wear reflective gear, carry a flashlight,put a light on the dog, at all times. I can understand lighting at intersections of the path to streets; but please NO other lights are needed.
Any responsible person wears lights and reflective gear at all times, walking or riding, on this path, and really, on all streets and sidewalks.Not to wear a light is just stupid and thougtless of your own safety and that of others. Lighting the path only enables this behavior . I rarely see anyone without somekind of light. Everyone I ever see has a light or reflective vest etc.. walking or biking, and for the pooch too.
As a homeowner who backs up †o the path, I sure do not want a light shining down into my yard everynight. And, this path is really a wonderful place at night , as well as all the surrounding park/ yard land , for a wealth of wildlife Yes we hear and see owls at night - magic ! People ski in the woods at night ( with lights ) it is also magic. Dont wreck this little bit of wildlife wonderland for a few folks who cant wear a flashilight. Use the money in more productive ways, such as promoting bike safety and manners for all .
Posted: 07/09/2012
While we're at it, lets light up all the sidewalks as well. In these economically troubled times we should be asking nighttime bike riders and walkers to take responsibility for their visibility, not ask the already strapped taxpayer to take on the burden of the safety of the miniscule number of people who walk/bike after dark 9pm to 5am. Any biker out in the dark can easily add a light to their bike and hikers can wear reflective attire. Let's get real, it's about time we quit coddling the very bikers who can't even be bothered to take their own safety into account by obeying the traffic laws.
While we're at it, lets light up all the sidewalks as well. In these economically troubled times we should be asking nighttime bike riders and walkers to take responsibility for their visibility, not ask the already strapped taxpayer to take on the burden of the safety of the miniscule number of people who walk/bike after dark 9pm to 5am. Any biker out in the dark can easily add a light to their bike and hikers can wear reflective attire. Let's get real, it's about time we quit coddling the very bikers who can't even be bothered to take their own safety into account by obeying the traffic laws.
Posted: 07/09/2012
I am NOT in favor of adding lights to this bike path. Biking at night requires biker to have a functioning bike light. I also feel in times like these, $250,000 is an amount that can be better spent on NECESSARY services within the city. I have nothing against biking but I feel we really have to spend city money very carefully.
I am NOT in favor of adding lights to this bike path. Biking at night requires biker to have a functioning bike light. I also feel in times like these, $250,000 is an amount that can be better spent on NECESSARY services within the city. I have nothing against biking but I feel we really have to spend city money very carefully.
Posted: 07/09/2012
Would ground-level lights serve the purpose? Similar to lighting along walkways at residences. Spaced as widely as possible; no tall expensive poles needed.
Would ground-level lights serve the purpose? Similar to lighting along walkways at residences. Spaced as widely as possible; no tall expensive poles needed.
Posted: 07/09/2012
Put up the lights and make the path safe for everyone. While the lights would be a change for a small number of residents with homes which back up to the path an overwhelming number of people would benefit from increased safety and increased availability of the path. Serve the greater good and light the path. Ride on!
Put up the lights and make the path safe for everyone. While the lights would be a change for a small number of residents with homes which back up to the path an overwhelming number of people would benefit from increased safety and increased availability of the path. Serve the greater good and light the path. Ride on!
Posted: 07/09/2012
I live adjacent to the Southwest path, and use it often on foot and by bike. I'm a bike commuter, and like other commenters, often ride after dark. I fully support lighting the path. Invisible pedestrians are at risk without lights. Everything I wanted to say has already been stated eloquently by others: louvers and directionality of the lighting will prevent the light pollution people are opposed to, miscreants can still use the path as a crime corridor whether it is lit or unlit, pedestrian-bicycle near-misses will be prevented if bikers can see formerly invisible pedestrians. Bike lights cannot penetrate the darkness adequately to make pedestrians visible until you're almost upon them. This is my biggest concern; the many, many near-misses I have had with headphone-wearing ninjas in black shorts in the pitch black darkness, and my swerves to avoid them. They can't hear me, and they probably think I can see them because I am lit up like a Christmas tree. But I can't, so it's at best awkward and at worst dangerous to have a mixed-use path without separate lanes for different uses that is pitch black during prime commuting hours. Monona Terrace solved that pretty effectively by dividing ped/bike traffic via separate lanes and those near-misses were a problem in daylight.
I live adjacent to the Southwest path, and use it often on foot and by bike. I'm a bike commuter, and like other commenters, often ride after dark. I fully support lighting the path. Invisible pedestrians are at risk without lights. Everything I wanted to say has already been stated eloquently by others: louvers and directionality of the lighting will prevent the light pollution people are opposed to, miscreants can still use the path as a crime corridor whether it is lit or unlit, pedestrian-bicycle near-misses will be prevented if bikers can see formerly invisible pedestrians. Bike lights cannot penetrate the darkness adequately to make pedestrians visible until you're almost upon them. This is my biggest concern; the many, many near-misses I have had with headphone-wearing ninjas in black shorts in the pitch black darkness, and my swerves to avoid them. They can't hear me, and they probably think I can see them because I am lit up like a Christmas tree. But I can't, so it's at best awkward and at worst dangerous to have a mixed-use path without separate lanes for different uses that is pitch black during prime commuting hours. Monona Terrace solved that pretty effectively by dividing ped/bike traffic via separate lanes and those near-misses were a problem in daylight.
Posted: 07/09/2012
I regularly use the SW bike path and love the delicate balance the path provides between wild Madison, commuting Madison, and recreational Madison. I am writing to register my STRONG opposition to lighting the SW bike path between the Beltline and Breese Terrace.
I do not live on or behind or even adjacent to the bike path but I do live in a house on the corner of a major intersection nearby, where a street light stands and shines through my livingroom, sunroom, and bedroom windows all night long every night of the year. I mention the circumstances of my residence to indicate that I know that property owners along the bike path would be inconvenienced by the conversion of this dark-at-night recreational path into the equivalent of a street with year-round night-time street lighting.
However, I believe lighting the path is unwarranted not simply because of the inconvenience to neighbors of the bike path, but primarily because the bike path provides city residents the opportunity to walk and experience dark sky at night, to observe stars, to hear and perhaps catch a glimpse of undisturbed nocturnal wildlife. These opportunities are not available for persons who wish to take a walk at night on sidewalks within city neighborhoods, where streetlights occur at regular intervals. Furthermore, the bike path provides a corridor for nocturnal wildlife to pass through or reside within undisturbed by lighting.
As for bikers or walkers or runners who may be concerned for their safety on the bike path because the bike path is not lit at night, these individuals have other lighted options within the city: the lighted streets and sidewalks of neighborhoods and other commuter-friendly thoroughfares. If these runners, walkers, or bikers choose to use the unlit bike path, these individuals could reduce the risk of dark-path collisions by wearing reflective clothing and using headlights and taillights on their bikes.
In sum, I believe the proposed installation of lights on the SW bike path is unnecessary on many levels: fiscally, environmentally and from a public safety and convenience perspective. Thank you for your consideration.
I regularly use the SW bike path and love the delicate balance the path provides between wild Madison, commuting Madison, and recreational Madison. I am writing to register my STRONG opposition to lighting the SW bike path between the Beltline and Breese Terrace.
I do not live on or behind or even adjacent to the bike path but I do live in a house on the corner of a major intersection nearby, where a street light stands and shines through my livingroom, sunroom, and bedroom windows all night long every night of the year. I mention the circumstances of my residence to indicate that I know that property owners along the bike path would be inconvenienced by the conversion of this dark-at-night recreational path into the equivalent of a street with year-round night-time street lighting.
However, I believe lighting the path is unwarranted not simply because of the inconvenience to neighbors of the bike path, but primarily because the bike path provides city residents the opportunity to walk and experience dark sky at night, to observe stars, to hear and perhaps catch a glimpse of undisturbed nocturnal wildlife. These opportunities are not available for persons who wish to take a walk at night on sidewalks within city neighborhoods, where streetlights occur at regular intervals. Furthermore, the bike path provides a corridor for nocturnal wildlife to pass through or reside within undisturbed by lighting.
As for bikers or walkers or runners who may be concerned for their safety on the bike path because the bike path is not lit at night, these individuals have other lighted options within the city: the lighted streets and sidewalks of neighborhoods and other commuter-friendly thoroughfares. If these runners, walkers, or bikers choose to use the unlit bike path, these individuals could reduce the risk of dark-path collisions by wearing reflective clothing and using headlights and taillights on their bikes.
In sum, I believe the proposed installation of lights on the SW bike path is unnecessary on many levels: fiscally, environmentally and from a public safety and convenience perspective. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted: 07/09/2012
I am a runner on the path and I am strongly opposed to this project. There are many animals that use this area, including owls, deer, and many types of birds. Lighting the area would disturb their habitats, which is one of the few of its kind in Madison.
Also, adding the lights will add to traffic on the path at unusual hours. There are lighted city sidewalks and roadways that can be used in lieu of the path. The path is on a residential stretch, not a commercial stretch. Lighting the path would increase traffic during hours that could increase crime in this area.
There is no pressing need for this type of project. In fact, it would create problems, as opposed to solving them. Please do not install the lights.
I am a runner on the path and I am strongly opposed to this project. There are many animals that use this area, including owls, deer, and many types of birds. Lighting the area would disturb their habitats, which is one of the few of its kind in Madison.
Also, adding the lights will add to traffic on the path at unusual hours. There are lighted city sidewalks and roadways that can be used in lieu of the path. The path is on a residential stretch, not a commercial stretch. Lighting the path would increase traffic during hours that could increase crime in this area.
There is no pressing need for this type of project. In fact, it would create problems, as opposed to solving them. Please do not install the lights.
Posted: 07/09/2012
Chalk up another 'No' vote on lighting bikers already are required to have lamps; joggers can get a headlamp if they'd like to use the path after dark.
It's nice having someplace dark in this overlit city to walk/bike. Plus, the neighbors don't want it, and the city already has a huge budget hole a pet project by the transportation staff shouldn't be a priority in the overall scope of the city budget.
Chalk up another 'No' vote on lighting bikers already are required to have lamps; joggers can get a headlamp if they'd like to use the path after dark.
It's nice having someplace dark in this overlit city to walk/bike. Plus, the neighbors don't want it, and the city already has a huge budget hole a pet project by the transportation staff shouldn't be a priority in the overall scope of the city budget.
Posted: 07/09/2012
The SW bike path runs virtually through my backyard, and I have been a regular night time user for the past 10 years. Until a few nights ago, I was mildly opposed to the the proposed lighting based mainly on the "don't fix what isn't broken" argument (NOT because the path happens to border my back yard). Nonetheless, I had pretty much accepted that the lights were probably an inevitable result of "progress".
After encountering the test fixture while running a few nights ago, however, my opposition has strengthened. Based on the descriptions of the fixtures, I had envisioned something much more subtle. In fact, I thought the light was barely distinguishable from a standard street light - extremely bright and noticeable from a distance. The encounter reminded me that while the anti-light pollution argument may evoke some eye rolling by some, there is something to be said for it.
I am in favor of tabling this project until 1)an actual crime and/or collision problem develops (I have yet to hear of ANY evidence suggesting one now exists), and 2)better lighting alternatives become available.
The SW bike path runs virtually through my backyard, and I have been a regular night time user for the past 10 years. Until a few nights ago, I was mildly opposed to the the proposed lighting based mainly on the "don't fix what isn't broken" argument (NOT because the path happens to border my back yard). Nonetheless, I had pretty much accepted that the lights were probably an inevitable result of "progress".
After encountering the test fixture while running a few nights ago, however, my opposition has strengthened. Based on the descriptions of the fixtures, I had envisioned something much more subtle. In fact, I thought the light was barely distinguishable from a standard street light - extremely bright and noticeable from a distance. The encounter reminded me that while the anti-light pollution argument may evoke some eye rolling by some, there is something to be said for it.
I am in favor of tabling this project until 1)an actual crime and/or collision problem develops (I have yet to hear of ANY evidence suggesting one now exists), and 2)better lighting alternatives become available.
Posted: 07/09/2012
Lighting the bike paths is as important as lighting city streets. Lighting makes the paths safer for cyclists, runners and pedestrians.
Lighting the bike paths is as important as lighting city streets. Lighting makes the paths safer for cyclists, runners and pedestrians.
Posted: 07/09/2012
I now regularly use the SW Bike Path to commute to and from work. Over the two months I have averaged at least seven trips per week. Prior to the last two months I commuted less regularly, but I have commuted in all seasons and in all weather, including the winter months.
In my opinion lighting the path is not necessary. I personally feel that lighting the path would make it more difficult to see persons or animals standing in the shadows off of the bike path. This will increase the opportunity for crime and accidents. I find that it is easier for my eyes to adjust to a constant level of light than to have to shift focus between lit areas and unlit areas. I believe that there is a substantial amount of literature on the topic of how lighting and the shadows that it creates can provide hiding places for criminals.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
I now regularly use the SW Bike Path to commute to and from work. Over the two months I have averaged at least seven trips per week. Prior to the last two months I commuted less regularly, but I have commuted in all seasons and in all weather, including the winter months.
In my opinion lighting the path is not necessary. I personally feel that lighting the path would make it more difficult to see persons or animals standing in the shadows off of the bike path. This will increase the opportunity for crime and accidents. I find that it is easier for my eyes to adjust to a constant level of light than to have to shift focus between lit areas and unlit areas. I believe that there is a substantial amount of literature on the topic of how lighting and the shadows that it creates can provide hiding places for criminals.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Posted: 07/09/2012
I ride the SW bike path regularly and enjoy the dark, semi-natural corridor through the city. I use a head and tail light when riding at night, as the law requires, and see no additional benefit from overhead lights. I strongly oppose the proposed lighting plan and suggest the city instead use education and enforcement of existing laws to maintain safety for cyclists and pedestrians on the SW path and other paths around Madison.
I ride the SW bike path regularly and enjoy the dark, semi-natural corridor through the city. I use a head and tail light when riding at night, as the law requires, and see no additional benefit from overhead lights. I strongly oppose the proposed lighting plan and suggest the city instead use education and enforcement of existing laws to maintain safety for cyclists and pedestrians on the SW path and other paths around Madison.
Posted: 07/09/2012
Some years back in pre dawn darkness on a Campus bike path, one cyclist was killed and another critically injured in a literal head-on crash. While most bikes used after dark are outfitted with lights, batteries and bulbs tend to fail at inconvenient moments. Dogs abound, many on illegally long 'extendo-leashes'. I've had to stop my bike for three abreast pedestrians with no lights or reflective material among them. Response to my bell ringing: a mock "oh, SORRY!"
This is a TRANSPORTATION corridor, not the extended backyard of lucky homeowners. A serious transportation corridor now, just look at the counts.
Federal "ICETEA" funds were employed, and not to make it a better place to crap your dog. Lighting design would minimize the output off the trail. We should remember that these westside homeowners fought against building the path for years, arguing that it would be a crime corridor. Now they want to compromise the cycling public's safety in their selfish interests.
It is time to make this safety upgrade. No one seriously argues against lighting on roads; the SW Commuter Path IS a road, just a road without motorized traffic.
Some years back in pre dawn darkness on a Campus bike path, one cyclist was killed and another critically injured in a literal head-on crash. While most bikes used after dark are outfitted with lights, batteries and bulbs tend to fail at inconvenient moments. Dogs abound, many on illegally long 'extendo-leashes'. I've had to stop my bike for three abreast pedestrians with no lights or reflective material among them. Response to my bell ringing: a mock "oh, SORRY!"
This is a TRANSPORTATION corridor, not the extended backyard of lucky homeowners. A serious transportation corridor now, just look at the counts.
Federal "ICETEA" funds were employed, and not to make it a better place to crap your dog. Lighting design would minimize the output off the trail. We should remember that these westside homeowners fought against building the path for years, arguing that it would be a crime corridor. Now they want to compromise the cycling public's safety in their selfish interests.
It is time to make this safety upgrade. No one seriously argues against lighting on roads; the SW Commuter Path IS a road, just a road without motorized traffic.
Posted: 07/06/2012
Get the lights. The path is too dark, especially during early winter commutes. Between bikes, walkers and dogs you need to be able to see. It's unfortunate that common sense is not enough, not everyone uses lights ( walkers included).
Get the lights. The path is too dark, especially during early winter commutes. Between bikes, walkers and dogs you need to be able to see. It's unfortunate that common sense is not enough, not everyone uses lights ( walkers included).
Posted: 07/05/2012
An other safety concers AGAINST the project:
A bike potentially colliding with the sharp square concrete foundation is asking for a disaster. It is a safety hazard
An other safety concers AGAINST the project:
A bike potentially colliding with the sharp square concrete foundation is asking for a disaster. It is a safety hazard
Posted: 07/05/2012
I am a regular user of the path both during daylight hours and in the dark. I do not live in the vicinity of the path, so my perspective is just a user's perpective.
Please do NOT proceed with this project.
I have three reasons:
1. There is no problem with the path as it is. Actually the lighs would make it less safe for user and for wildlife. The cited reasons for the light fixtures are falsh, and many comment pointed out already.
2. It is a waste of taxpayers money. The City budget is in deficit, you can save money on this one.
3. It is a waste of energy and resources spent on producing the hardware and energy providing the light.
I am a regular user of the path both during daylight hours and in the dark. I do not live in the vicinity of the path, so my perspective is just a user's perpective.
Please do NOT proceed with this project.
I have three reasons:
1. There is no problem with the path as it is. Actually the lighs would make it less safe for user and for wildlife. The cited reasons for the light fixtures are falsh, and many comment pointed out already.
2. It is a waste of taxpayers money. The City budget is in deficit, you can save money on this one.
3. It is a waste of energy and resources spent on producing the hardware and energy providing the light.
Posted: 07/05/2012
I support lighting the sw path. I commute on bike via this path. The assertions that this area provides important habitat for wildlife are rediculous. It is a former railroad corridor filled with invasive species. Making these pedestrian paths as easy to use as possible is key to the future of transportation in Madison.
I support lighting the sw path. I commute on bike via this path. The assertions that this area provides important habitat for wildlife are rediculous. It is a former railroad corridor filled with invasive species. Making these pedestrian paths as easy to use as possible is key to the future of transportation in Madison.
Posted: 07/05/2012
In ten years of regular night-time running with a rear-visible blinker and biking with a moderate bike light, I have *never* had a close call at night. I have only had close calls while running during the day, when sometimes a biker will fly by a little close for my taste. Why facilitate this scenario at night as well?
There is apparently no evidence of safety issues from collision or crime at night in unlighted areas of this path.
Where is the evidence that if there actually *were* safety problems, that overhead lighting would provide a net advantage?
Bikers going faster at night and not using bike lights as much doesn't increase overall safety between bikes and pedestrians. The increase in speed, complacency, and the reduction in biker's night vision could easily overwhelm any potential visibility advantage of overhead lights.
Eliminating important visual cues for both bikers and pedestrians from reflective path markers and personal blinkers doesn't help make anyone safer. Currently these cues are visible for great distances; not so if there were overhead lights.
Putting everyone "on stage" in the artificial light tunnel while any "miscreant" can sit in the dark along the sides and evaluate who goes by doesn't increase actual or even perceived safety from crime at night.
Making it easy for a "miscreant" to tell whether there are witnesses anywhere along the adjacent stretches of path doesn't make any path user safer at night.
Making it obvious to "miscreants" how to enter the back yards of houses at night all along the path doesn't make anyone any safer.
The resulting hedges and fences that would go up in place of the yards that residents have opened up to the path would not result in a safer or nicer path in the long term.
The animosity created by this ill-conceived project is harmful to biking and the development of bike paths in Madison.
There is no reason this path should not also be a dark sky preserve, "night ride" route, and bird sanctuary. It will cost us $300,000 to turn it into the equivalent of a strip mall parking lot and prevent any of these possibilities forever.
In ten years of regular night-time running with a rear-visible blinker and biking with a moderate bike light, I have *never* had a close call at night. I have only had close calls while running during the day, when sometimes a biker will fly by a little close for my taste. Why facilitate this scenario at night as well?
There is apparently no evidence of safety issues from collision or crime at night in unlighted areas of this path.
Where is the evidence that if there actually *were* safety problems, that overhead lighting would provide a net advantage?
Bikers going faster at night and not using bike lights as much doesn't increase overall safety between bikes and pedestrians. The increase in speed, complacency, and the reduction in biker's night vision could easily overwhelm any potential visibility advantage of overhead lights.
Eliminating important visual cues for both bikers and pedestrians from reflective path markers and personal blinkers doesn't help make anyone safer. Currently these cues are visible for great distances; not so if there were overhead lights.
Putting everyone "on stage" in the artificial light tunnel while any "miscreant" can sit in the dark along the sides and evaluate who goes by doesn't increase actual or even perceived safety from crime at night.
Making it easy for a "miscreant" to tell whether there are witnesses anywhere along the adjacent stretches of path doesn't make any path user safer at night.
Making it obvious to "miscreants" how to enter the back yards of houses at night all along the path doesn't make anyone any safer.
The resulting hedges and fences that would go up in place of the yards that residents have opened up to the path would not result in a safer or nicer path in the long term.
The animosity created by this ill-conceived project is harmful to biking and the development of bike paths in Madison.
There is no reason this path should not also be a dark sky preserve, "night ride" route, and bird sanctuary. It will cost us $300,000 to turn it into the equivalent of a strip mall parking lot and prevent any of these possibilities forever.
Posted: 07/05/2012
I do not live on the path, but use it intermittently for both walking and biking. I see no good reason to light the path. Even if lighted, miscreants who want to do harm to people can easily drag their victims off the lighted path and make their escape. If you want to increase safty in the city, change policies that attract degenerates to the city from the large metro areas to the southeast, east, and northwest. Money saved by not lighting the path should remain with the taxpayers, rather than being spent on other stupid ideas!
I do not live on the path, but use it intermittently for both walking and biking. I see no good reason to light the path. Even if lighted, miscreants who want to do harm to people can easily drag their victims off the lighted path and make their escape. If you want to increase safty in the city, change policies that attract degenerates to the city from the large metro areas to the southeast, east, and northwest. Money saved by not lighting the path should remain with the taxpayers, rather than being spent on other stupid ideas!
Posted: 07/05/2012
I strongly opposed.
Question: As it seems there is overwhelming oppositionI have noticed flyers, signage and postings on the poles (which were torn down), what are the next steps?
Will the City consider omitting this project from the budget?
If so, what will happen to the lights already installed?
As a taxpayer, I sure hope you saved your receipts to the "big, ugly pole" store.
I strongly opposed.
Question: As it seems there is overwhelming oppositionI have noticed flyers, signage and postings on the poles (which were torn down), what are the next steps?
Will the City consider omitting this project from the budget?
If so, what will happen to the lights already installed?
As a taxpayer, I sure hope you saved your receipts to the "big, ugly pole" store.
Posted: 07/05/2012
I believe that we are making a mountain out of a molehill here...let's not get bogged down in emotions or flowery language.
1. If it ain't broke don't fix it...is there a crime wave on the SWBP that this will curtail? I'm under the impression that a vast majority of nighttime assaults and robberies happen downtown as partygoers stumble home.
2. It is AGAINST the LAW to bike without a white headlight and red tailight. Forget REI, Menards carries a Rayovac LED light that takes one AAA battery for $2.97, it is plenty to illuminate the path in front of me.
3. When every city department is cutting back spending, I have to wonder if there might be dozens of more pressing ways to spend taxpayer money. Like staffing for MPD bike officers, path user education, and giving away a few thousand of those AAA lights, just as an ideaall of which I would bet would be cheaper. As a public safety employee and resident adjacent to the SWBP, I used to be a lighting supporter, but I have "seen the light"...put this project to bed and let's move on to more pressing issues.
I believe that we are making a mountain out of a molehill here...let's not get bogged down in emotions or flowery language.
1. If it ain't broke don't fix it...is there a crime wave on the SWBP that this will curtail? I'm under the impression that a vast majority of nighttime assaults and robberies happen downtown as partygoers stumble home.
2. It is AGAINST the LAW to bike without a white headlight and red tailight. Forget REI, Menards carries a Rayovac LED light that takes one AAA battery for $2.97, it is plenty to illuminate the path in front of me.
3. When every city department is cutting back spending, I have to wonder if there might be dozens of more pressing ways to spend taxpayer money. Like staffing for MPD bike officers, path user education, and giving away a few thousand of those AAA lights, just as an ideaall of which I would bet would be cheaper. As a public safety employee and resident adjacent to the SWBP, I used to be a lighting supporter, but I have "seen the light"...put this project to bed and let's move on to more pressing issues.
Posted: 07/01/2012
What a ridiculous use of scarce public funds, especially when the great majority of taxpayers neighboring the path are strongly opposed. How about using the money to provide greater accessibility to commuter paths and sidewalks for our citizens with limited mobility, especially during the winter. This reminds me of when my kids get their allowance and it seems to be burning a hole in their pockets, so they have to spend it! Where is the evidence that there are safety problems that need fixing?
What a ridiculous use of scarce public funds, especially when the great majority of taxpayers neighboring the path are strongly opposed. How about using the money to provide greater accessibility to commuter paths and sidewalks for our citizens with limited mobility, especially during the winter. This reminds me of when my kids get their allowance and it seems to be burning a hole in their pockets, so they have to spend it! Where is the evidence that there are safety problems that need fixing?
Posted: 07/01/2012
I do not live adjacent to the bike path in question, but do commute on it daily. Most of the year my morning ride is in darkness. I do enjoy traveling through this last little bit of unlit urban landscape and have never had cause to fear for my safety. As other commenters have noted, my bikelight does an adequate job of illuminating the way and feel that this project is unnecessary as well as unwanted. Concerns raised by residents whose property do abut the path, in particular those whose yards are "below-grade", need to be fairly considered.
My fear, however, is given the fact that the electrical infrastructure has now been installed, this project will be moving forward regardless of feedback. Why wasn't public input sought prior to the work already done? I suspect this really isn't about if it will happen, but when. The "public comment" period is just another bone the city throws us.
I do not live adjacent to the bike path in question, but do commute on it daily. Most of the year my morning ride is in darkness. I do enjoy traveling through this last little bit of unlit urban landscape and have never had cause to fear for my safety. As other commenters have noted, my bikelight does an adequate job of illuminating the way and feel that this project is unnecessary as well as unwanted. Concerns raised by residents whose property do abut the path, in particular those whose yards are "below-grade", need to be fairly considered.
My fear, however, is given the fact that the electrical infrastructure has now been installed, this project will be moving forward regardless of feedback. Why wasn't public input sought prior to the work already done? I suspect this really isn't about if it will happen, but when. The "public comment" period is just another bone the city throws us.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I bike on the path often, including at night. I would prefer it if the city did NOT install street lights along the path, even of the modified type now envisaged. If you have a good bike light there is no need for raised lighting above the path. I am really concerned about the impact on wildlife and the added light pollution.
I bike on the path often, including at night. I would prefer it if the city did NOT install street lights along the path, even of the modified type now envisaged. If you have a good bike light there is no need for raised lighting above the path. I am really concerned about the impact on wildlife and the added light pollution.
Posted: 07/01/2012
Have you stopped taking comments?
Have you stopped taking comments?
Posted: 07/01/2012
I commute year-round using the SW bike path and, although I do use small blinking lights, I have always enjoyed the relative darkness of the night rides. TW
I commute year-round using the SW bike path and, although I do use small blinking lights, I have always enjoyed the relative darkness of the night rides. TW
Posted: 07/01/2012
Today or last night someone has been up to mischief and has climbed the 20' light pole on the SW commuter path between Glenway and Fox/Virginia Terrace. The light is now covered with a black plastic bag. Unfortunately now the public cannot view the light to best judge the impact of the changed design. Whoever did this really is not helping their cause.
Today or last night someone has been up to mischief and has climbed the 20' light pole on the SW commuter path between Glenway and Fox/Virginia Terrace. The light is now covered with a black plastic bag. Unfortunately now the public cannot view the light to best judge the impact of the changed design. Whoever did this really is not helping their cause.
Posted: 07/01/2012
The money spent on lighting the bike path could go to many other good causes in Madison. The bike path is a beautiful natural corridor for bikers, walkers, and animals. How many cities have something that natural and peaceful inside their city limits? Let's keep it that way. The only altercations I have heard of on the bike path have occurred during daylight hours, anyway. There haven't been problems at night. If there are no problems, let's not try to fix them - let's use the money where it is truly needed!! There are plenty of well-lit streets for people who feel the need for more light at night. The natural habitat for animals is something worth protecting, as is the refuge for city dwellers who need a totally natural environment to bike and walk in.
The money spent on lighting the bike path could go to many other good causes in Madison. The bike path is a beautiful natural corridor for bikers, walkers, and animals. How many cities have something that natural and peaceful inside their city limits? Let's keep it that way. The only altercations I have heard of on the bike path have occurred during daylight hours, anyway. There haven't been problems at night. If there are no problems, let's not try to fix them - let's use the money where it is truly needed!! There are plenty of well-lit streets for people who feel the need for more light at night. The natural habitat for animals is something worth protecting, as is the refuge for city dwellers who need a totally natural environment to bike and walk in.
Posted: 07/01/2012
A bike path is NOT a street. That's the MAIN IDEA !
Stop trying to put all the urban crap on there and let us continue to use it in peace!
A bike path is NOT a street. That's the MAIN IDEA !
Stop trying to put all the urban crap on there and let us continue to use it in peace!
Posted: 07/01/2012
I am opposed to any additional lighting on the Southwest Path, be it bluish or orange. Sure, we may have a few more cyclists saving a little more gas, and that is great. But doesn't respect for the environment run deeper than the amount of gasoline we consume?
We must respect that this area is home to numerous species of nocturnal animals. They need darkness to hunt effectively and survive.
If women feel intimidated riding in the dark (I am one who is not), they can affix powerful lights to their helmets to light their fields of vision, and any other "notice-me" lights on their bodies and bicycles.
However, if women avoid riding their bikes at night for fear of being attacked, this is a deep, societal problem that won't be solved with the switch of a light. Women need to be empowered and the idea that men are predatory and sinister creatures needs to be abolished.
Until we reach that level of consciousness, let's just let the owls and coyotes feed their babies in peace.
I am opposed to any additional lighting on the Southwest Path, be it bluish or orange. Sure, we may have a few more cyclists saving a little more gas, and that is great. But doesn't respect for the environment run deeper than the amount of gasoline we consume?
We must respect that this area is home to numerous species of nocturnal animals. They need darkness to hunt effectively and survive.
If women feel intimidated riding in the dark (I am one who is not), they can affix powerful lights to their helmets to light their fields of vision, and any other "notice-me" lights on their bodies and bicycles.
However, if women avoid riding their bikes at night for fear of being attacked, this is a deep, societal problem that won't be solved with the switch of a light. Women need to be empowered and the idea that men are predatory and sinister creatures needs to be abolished.
Until we reach that level of consciousness, let's just let the owls and coyotes feed their babies in peace.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I bike and walk the bicycle path day and night. I do not live along the path or in neighborhoods adjacent to the path. I am against lighting along the path . It is not necessary. I enjoy the darkness. I run a light on my bike and carry a flashlight if walking so bikers can see me. The money that would be used for lighting could be used elsewhere. Lighting along the pathway does not increase safety. If people want to walk in lighted areas they should use the sidewalks. NO to lighting the path!
I bike and walk the bicycle path day and night. I do not live along the path or in neighborhoods adjacent to the path. I am against lighting along the path . It is not necessary. I enjoy the darkness. I run a light on my bike and carry a flashlight if walking so bikers can see me. The money that would be used for lighting could be used elsewhere. Lighting along the pathway does not increase safety. If people want to walk in lighted areas they should use the sidewalks. NO to lighting the path!
Posted: 07/01/2012
I have biked in Madison since the 1960s. Put the light fixture money into the trail fund. Bikers/walkers/joggers, etc. should have their own lights when using the trail from dusk to dawn. Do not light up our sky, let our children see the Northern Lights and other sights from our trails. This section of trail is a very family oriented section. Trail users should remember there is safety in numbers.
I have biked in Madison since the 1960s. Put the light fixture money into the trail fund. Bikers/walkers/joggers, etc. should have their own lights when using the trail from dusk to dawn. Do not light up our sky, let our children see the Northern Lights and other sights from our trails. This section of trail is a very family oriented section. Trail users should remember there is safety in numbers.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I strongly support the project to light the bike path. I commute by foot on the path, and there is regular traffic on the path after dark, especially during the winter months, when it's already dark by 4:30. It is pitch black on the path, and even with a pedestrian light, cyclists can't easily see me as they come up behind me. It isn't safe, so I end up lengthening my commute home after work to walk on city streets instead of on the path. I would love to be able to use the path in the evening.
Neighbors whose yards are right against the path simply don't want to deal with the hassle that most of us deal with in having streetlights on the streets. I have a streetlight directly across from our master bedroom that shines right into our bedroom at night. I would much prefer that it be dark, but I accept the inconvenience because I understand the importance of streetlights for the safety of everybody else. This is part of being a good neighbor, accepting minor personal inconveniences for the greater good.
I strongly support the project to light the bike path. I commute by foot on the path, and there is regular traffic on the path after dark, especially during the winter months, when it's already dark by 4:30. It is pitch black on the path, and even with a pedestrian light, cyclists can't easily see me as they come up behind me. It isn't safe, so I end up lengthening my commute home after work to walk on city streets instead of on the path. I would love to be able to use the path in the evening.
Neighbors whose yards are right against the path simply don't want to deal with the hassle that most of us deal with in having streetlights on the streets. I have a streetlight directly across from our master bedroom that shines right into our bedroom at night. I would much prefer that it be dark, but I accept the inconvenience because I understand the importance of streetlights for the safety of everybody else. This is part of being a good neighbor, accepting minor personal inconveniences for the greater good.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I do not support the lighting on the path. Lights do NOT equal safety.
I do not support the lighting on the path. Lights do NOT equal safety.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I must say that I find the proposal to be a bit lavish. I'm not in favor of spending money on what my $30 REI head lamp can easily resolve. Not to mention the fact that I actually like the darkened path. It's quiet and shadowy. All this effort to make the world the safest place possible is really starting to make things very boring.
I must say that I find the proposal to be a bit lavish. I'm not in favor of spending money on what my $30 REI head lamp can easily resolve. Not to mention the fact that I actually like the darkened path. It's quiet and shadowy. All this effort to make the world the safest place possible is really starting to make things very boring.
Posted: 07/01/2012
Please keep the trail dark. This is a special place in Madison. Those who ride, walk or run on the path enjoy using flashlights. Sometimes we just enjoy sitting along the grass enjoying the darkness.
Is it so much to ask that the people who want to use the path at night come prepared? That way, those who want dark can have it and those who want light can have it. Everybody wins.
I urge you to not succumb to big-city urban planning. Keep Madison special.
Please keep the trail dark. This is a special place in Madison. Those who ride, walk or run on the path enjoy using flashlights. Sometimes we just enjoy sitting along the grass enjoying the darkness.
Is it so much to ask that the people who want to use the path at night come prepared? That way, those who want dark can have it and those who want light can have it. Everybody wins.
I urge you to not succumb to big-city urban planning. Keep Madison special.
Posted: 07/01/2012
Please don't light the path. I live a few blocks from the path and use it year round for biking and walking. If you bike it, get a light. If you want to walk or bike where it's lit up, there are plenty of options nearby. There are very few places you can enjoy the evening without obnoxious overhead lights. I think lighting it will only encourage more people to bike at night without a light, putting themselves and others at risk. It is also very difficult for a cyclist with a headlight to see unlit people or pets when you have just passed through a lit area and your eyes haven't adjusted back yet. Do we really have to light every inch of this city at night?
Please don't light the path. I live a few blocks from the path and use it year round for biking and walking. If you bike it, get a light. If you want to walk or bike where it's lit up, there are plenty of options nearby. There are very few places you can enjoy the evening without obnoxious overhead lights. I think lighting it will only encourage more people to bike at night without a light, putting themselves and others at risk. It is also very difficult for a cyclist with a headlight to see unlit people or pets when you have just passed through a lit area and your eyes haven't adjusted back yet. Do we really have to light every inch of this city at night?
Posted: 07/01/2012
I literally just got off the Southwest bike path riding my bicycle. It is around 10:45 pm. I was enjoying the evening. Had a headlamp and rear blinker going. Beautiful moon, stars, darkness.....till I came across the new test light. Nice descriptor sign. How much did that cost us? But more to the point, the new baffle design on the light, really is quite baffling to me. I'm serious, from viewing it tonight, you go 40 maybe 50 ft. on either side of this light and it is pitch black. You propose lights every 180 to 200 ft.. That is a whole lot of darkness in between. At what point does this lighting pursuit become absurd and perhaps the concept of accepting that you don't have to light, but educate might be the best tack. Let's start using the old thinking caps on this one. I really don't think there will be any type of public vilification if the lights don't go in. Probably on the contrary, maybe a hero or two might be born........
I literally just got off the Southwest bike path riding my bicycle. It is around 10:45 pm. I was enjoying the evening. Had a headlamp and rear blinker going. Beautiful moon, stars, darkness.....till I came across the new test light. Nice descriptor sign. How much did that cost us? But more to the point, the new baffle design on the light, really is quite baffling to me. I'm serious, from viewing it tonight, you go 40 maybe 50 ft. on either side of this light and it is pitch black. You propose lights every 180 to 200 ft.. That is a whole lot of darkness in between. At what point does this lighting pursuit become absurd and perhaps the concept of accepting that you don't have to light, but educate might be the best tack. Let's start using the old thinking caps on this one. I really don't think there will be any type of public vilification if the lights don't go in. Probably on the contrary, maybe a hero or two might be born........
Posted: 07/01/2012
Thanks to everyone for such a valuable discussion on this topic. I live just off the SW Path and use it frequently to bike to and from work, for evening walks and morning/afternoon runs.
I love the fact that it gets dark around my house and that there is still some space in the city for the planet's natural cycles to play out. It's one of the reasons I chose this area of the city to live. Path lighting would not affect my home, but it would negatively effect my enjoyment of my neighborhood.
In addition, I feel much safer without overhead lighting on the path because I can still see. The test lights are distracting and destroy my night vision, leaving me feeling more vulnerable than on parts of the path that are not brightly illuminated. From the previous comments, it sounds like research on this topic supports my experience.
Finally, it seems to me that there are far clearer cut places to spend money in these tight budget times. I would support spending city resources to help people who are truly in need right now, or on other critical infrastructure projects. I do not support spending city money on lighting the SW Path.
Thanks to everyone for such a valuable discussion on this topic. I live just off the SW Path and use it frequently to bike to and from work, for evening walks and morning/afternoon runs.
I love the fact that it gets dark around my house and that there is still some space in the city for the planet's natural cycles to play out. It's one of the reasons I chose this area of the city to live. Path lighting would not affect my home, but it would negatively effect my enjoyment of my neighborhood.
In addition, I feel much safer without overhead lighting on the path because I can still see. The test lights are distracting and destroy my night vision, leaving me feeling more vulnerable than on parts of the path that are not brightly illuminated. From the previous comments, it sounds like research on this topic supports my experience.
Finally, it seems to me that there are far clearer cut places to spend money in these tight budget times. I would support spending city resources to help people who are truly in need right now, or on other critical infrastructure projects. I do not support spending city money on lighting the SW Path.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I frequently use many of the city's paths for both recreation and transportation and strongly oppose lighting this section. Money and time would be better spent on more pressing problems facing the people of this city. No lights on this path is not a 'problem'. Cyclists should be using lights after dark and pedestrians wearing reflective or at least light colored clothing would alleviate the danger of quickly coming upon a slower path user. If you are afraid of the dark, there are many well-lit streets to walk upon after the sun goes down. Common sense is a great tool for self-preservation... if you're out after dark carry a light. Slow down when you can't see in front of you.
Let's try to keep some of the natural places that make this city so awesome 'natural'. Thanks.
I frequently use many of the city's paths for both recreation and transportation and strongly oppose lighting this section. Money and time would be better spent on more pressing problems facing the people of this city. No lights on this path is not a 'problem'. Cyclists should be using lights after dark and pedestrians wearing reflective or at least light colored clothing would alleviate the danger of quickly coming upon a slower path user. If you are afraid of the dark, there are many well-lit streets to walk upon after the sun goes down. Common sense is a great tool for self-preservation... if you're out after dark carry a light. Slow down when you can't see in front of you.
Let's try to keep some of the natural places that make this city so awesome 'natural'. Thanks.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I support lighting the path. This will facilitate bicycle commuting during night time hours.
I support lighting the path. This will facilitate bicycle commuting during night time hours.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I commute on the Southwest Bike Path from Hammersley Road to Mills Street, weekdays. I am opposed to lighting the path. I do not think that it is necessary for safety (good lights on one's bicycle or taking an alternate route are safe alternatives, in my experience), and the negative impacts of night lighting on wildlife and the path neighborhoods are truly concerning.
I commute on the Southwest Bike Path from Hammersley Road to Mills Street, weekdays. I am opposed to lighting the path. I do not think that it is necessary for safety (good lights on one's bicycle or taking an alternate route are safe alternatives, in my experience), and the negative impacts of night lighting on wildlife and the path neighborhoods are truly concerning.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I agree with those bikers who have written that if they use their own headlights & blinking lights, that it is sufficient & safe. I also think most of the path's use is in the summer when we have the longest hours of light. As a long term resident of Madison I have not heard of accidents nor crime on this pathway.
Both wildlife & star observers benefit from minimal light pollution. We have a chance to keep it low level by not adding the lighting here where on streets that is not an option.. While this project would try to reduce pollution it won't eliminate it.
For the reasons stated I oppose the lighting proposition.
Thanks, Heidi
I agree with those bikers who have written that if they use their own headlights & blinking lights, that it is sufficient & safe. I also think most of the path's use is in the summer when we have the longest hours of light. As a long term resident of Madison I have not heard of accidents nor crime on this pathway.
Both wildlife & star observers benefit from minimal light pollution. We have a chance to keep it low level by not adding the lighting here where on streets that is not an option.. While this project would try to reduce pollution it won't eliminate it.
For the reasons stated I oppose the lighting proposition.
Thanks, Heidi
Posted: 07/01/2012
Two clarifications to my previous post (The Madison Group). First one: I unfortunately referred to "crime" concerns being alleviated by "dark sky full cutoff fixtures" available from the International Dark Sky Association (darksky.org). I did not mean to give the impression that dark sky lighting is associated with crime reduction. Please note that studies referenced on the IDA site illustrate that path lighting is often known by law enforcement to actually increase crime rather than decrease it. Second one: I did not mean to give the impression that "overhead" dark sky fixtures were possible solutions. The new sample fixture installed by the city is an overhead solution that still brings with it all of the issues raised in an earlier post that someone titled: "Myths vs. Facts." Rather, you might want to discuss with the IDA fixtures they are aware of that involve tiny "pin hole" guide beams at the edge of a path leaving everything in total darkness. Or fixtures that involve "laminar" illumination at ground level using a tiny "slice" of light that leaves everything in total darkness above ankle level much like foot lighting in theater aisles that does not affect night vision or radiate outwards or upwards and is not mounted on poles at all. A much more elegant solution, assuming the path ends up being lit for whatever reason.
Two clarifications to my previous post (The Madison Group). First one: I unfortunately referred to "crime" concerns being alleviated by "dark sky full cutoff fixtures" available from the International Dark Sky Association (darksky.org). I did not mean to give the impression that dark sky lighting is associated with crime reduction. Please note that studies referenced on the IDA site illustrate that path lighting is often known by law enforcement to actually increase crime rather than decrease it. Second one: I did not mean to give the impression that "overhead" dark sky fixtures were possible solutions. The new sample fixture installed by the city is an overhead solution that still brings with it all of the issues raised in an earlier post that someone titled: "Myths vs. Facts." Rather, you might want to discuss with the IDA fixtures they are aware of that involve tiny "pin hole" guide beams at the edge of a path leaving everything in total darkness. Or fixtures that involve "laminar" illumination at ground level using a tiny "slice" of light that leaves everything in total darkness above ankle level much like foot lighting in theater aisles that does not affect night vision or radiate outwards or upwards and is not mounted on poles at all. A much more elegant solution, assuming the path ends up being lit for whatever reason.
Posted: 07/01/2012
6/24/12 10:00pm
Just returned from viewing the newly installed shielded LEDs. From the backyard of a home on Gregory at Pickford the illumination (glare?) from the light is obtrusive, and will become more so once the leaves are off the trees. The photometric cutoff is also clearly visible from below as a section of illuminated vegetation on the slope of the embankment. I would expect snow cover to substantially worsen the effect.
The dual poles at the Council Crest crossing are spaced too far apart for adequate uniformity (i.e.they do not illuminate the path between them). Reducing the spacing between the poles is needed to accommodate the vision of cyclists. The photometric cutoff pattern is excellent and the shielding is adequate for an at-grade installation. I watched as a cyclist came by with a high intensity headlamp that appeared to provide more surface illumination than the installed LEDs. Shortly thereafter a group of cyclists without any lights came by and were only briefly visible as they passed under the poles.
If lights are installed between Odana and the Beltline the new shielded fixtures seem adequate, however the pole spacing must be reduced until uniformity is achieved. This arrangement is not suitable for the path between Odana and Virginia Terrace, where many homes are below the grade of the path. In that area either more extensive back shields, bollards or surface mount lighting will be required to prevent obtrusive lighting.
6/24/12 10:00pm
Just returned from viewing the newly installed shielded LEDs. From the backyard of a home on Gregory at Pickford the illumination (glare?) from the light is obtrusive, and will become more so once the leaves are off the trees. The photometric cutoff is also clearly visible from below as a section of illuminated vegetation on the slope of the embankment. I would expect snow cover to substantially worsen the effect.
The dual poles at the Council Crest crossing are spaced too far apart for adequate uniformity (i.e.they do not illuminate the path between them). Reducing the spacing between the poles is needed to accommodate the vision of cyclists. The photometric cutoff pattern is excellent and the shielding is adequate for an at-grade installation. I watched as a cyclist came by with a high intensity headlamp that appeared to provide more surface illumination than the installed LEDs. Shortly thereafter a group of cyclists without any lights came by and were only briefly visible as they passed under the poles.
If lights are installed between Odana and the Beltline the new shielded fixtures seem adequate, however the pole spacing must be reduced until uniformity is achieved. This arrangement is not suitable for the path between Odana and Virginia Terrace, where many homes are below the grade of the path. In that area either more extensive back shields, bollards or surface mount lighting will be required to prevent obtrusive lighting.
Posted: 07/01/2012
This urban neighborhood, located between the bustling commercial strips of Monroe St. and Regent St., has a true treasure in the unspoiled green space that lies along the bike path between Sheldon and the Beltline. First someone wanted to build a restaurant, and now others are demanding light. Have we become so distanced from nature that we can't handle a little darkness, a little wildness? Is it so difficult to just leave a natural area alone? Every day residents of this neighborhood happily welcome many visitors who come to patronize local merchants, or who just pass through on their way to work (and in the process of speeding down Monroe Street often run us over with their cars). In the evening, when the sounds of traffic soften, we get a little peace, a little darkness, the sound of owls and cicadathings that nourish the body and spirit far more than artificial safety lights. Let us have that.
This urban neighborhood, located between the bustling commercial strips of Monroe St. and Regent St., has a true treasure in the unspoiled green space that lies along the bike path between Sheldon and the Beltline. First someone wanted to build a restaurant, and now others are demanding light. Have we become so distanced from nature that we can't handle a little darkness, a little wildness? Is it so difficult to just leave a natural area alone? Every day residents of this neighborhood happily welcome many visitors who come to patronize local merchants, or who just pass through on their way to work (and in the process of speeding down Monroe Street often run us over with their cars). In the evening, when the sounds of traffic soften, we get a little peace, a little darkness, the sound of owls and cicadathings that nourish the body and spirit far more than artificial safety lights. Let us have that.
Posted: 07/01/2012
The Southwest Bike Path and especially the portion from Breeze Terrace to the Belt line has become a special place, much more than a transportation corridor to be used by commuters. For me, and I would speculate, for those like me, who are involved in restoring areas along the path, the "Path" has become an ecological system with a diversity of species that should be improved for the benefit of all species not just commuters. At one of our meetings about managing Japanese Knot-weed (how its being managed is another story onto itself), we envisioned the Path as a corridor for wildlife and butterflies and one that connects the neighborhoods and human beings that reside within. In short, the Path is a public space within an ecological system.
From this perspective, I question if lights will contribute to the enhancement of the ecological system or to vision of the Path as a public space; in fact there is a potential for unanticipated damage. I am particularly swayed by those who are concerned about the effects on owls and our capacity to enjoy the night skies.
Finally, spending what I heard was $250,000 to solve an assumed problem seems to be illogical because there are alternatives to solving the so called problem of safety. I say "so called" because so far I have seen no information about accidents including night time accidents.
The Southwest Bike Path and especially the portion from Breeze Terrace to the Belt line has become a special place, much more than a transportation corridor to be used by commuters. For me, and I would speculate, for those like me, who are involved in restoring areas along the path, the "Path" has become an ecological system with a diversity of species that should be improved for the benefit of all species not just commuters. At one of our meetings about managing Japanese Knot-weed (how its being managed is another story onto itself), we envisioned the Path as a corridor for wildlife and butterflies and one that connects the neighborhoods and human beings that reside within. In short, the Path is a public space within an ecological system.
From this perspective, I question if lights will contribute to the enhancement of the ecological system or to vision of the Path as a public space; in fact there is a potential for unanticipated damage. I am particularly swayed by those who are concerned about the effects on owls and our capacity to enjoy the night skies.
Finally, spending what I heard was $250,000 to solve an assumed problem seems to be illogical because there are alternatives to solving the so called problem of safety. I say "so called" because so far I have seen no information about accidents including night time accidents.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I'm sure there are a number of types of specialized lighting options, lights that won't light up the sky, 'green' options, etc. In fact, we could spend the money to have the most premier, state of the art lit commuter path in the country. People could come from the four corners of the earth to see Madison's supremely lit bike path. How proud we could be. The fact is, many residents/users don't want it and more importantly, we don't need it. Spend some money instead to inform users of some basic safety rules (there's a great list further down in the comments) and include the suggestion of using headlamps or other personal lighting for night use if someone is worried about the darkness. The argument to light up the path to deter crime is laughable. You'd need the lighting of a Camp Randall night game to have any hope of deterring crime. If crime is going to happen, it's going to happen. Ask anyone who's been assaulted in the daytime.
We use the SW path daily for commuting to work by bike, walking the dog, biking/walking/rollerblading for pleasure and do so in every season. Bike lights and headlamps have always worked for us. And for those times, particularly in winter, when we want a dark night to look for owls and other wildlife, it is wonderful.
I'm sure there are a number of types of specialized lighting options, lights that won't light up the sky, 'green' options, etc. In fact, we could spend the money to have the most premier, state of the art lit commuter path in the country. People could come from the four corners of the earth to see Madison's supremely lit bike path. How proud we could be. The fact is, many residents/users don't want it and more importantly, we don't need it. Spend some money instead to inform users of some basic safety rules (there's a great list further down in the comments) and include the suggestion of using headlamps or other personal lighting for night use if someone is worried about the darkness. The argument to light up the path to deter crime is laughable. You'd need the lighting of a Camp Randall night game to have any hope of deterring crime. If crime is going to happen, it's going to happen. Ask anyone who's been assaulted in the daytime.
We use the SW path daily for commuting to work by bike, walking the dog, biking/walking/rollerblading for pleasure and do so in every season. Bike lights and headlamps have always worked for us. And for those times, particularly in winter, when we want a dark night to look for owls and other wildlife, it is wonderful.
Posted: 07/01/2012
As a regular daytime and occasional nighttime biker on the Southwest bike path, I favor a minimal level of lighting for the full length of the path. In my experience, most walkers and a dismaying percentage of bikers do not use lights on the path at night. It is an adventure to pass dark, slow moving objects while praying not to collide with dark oncoming objects. If the City chooses not to light the Southwest path, bikes, skates and skateboards should be prohibited after dark for safety reasons. This would send nighttime bikers onto washboard side streets where invisible potholes would quickly encourage us to either buy a car or stay home.
As a regular daytime and occasional nighttime biker on the Southwest bike path, I favor a minimal level of lighting for the full length of the path. In my experience, most walkers and a dismaying percentage of bikers do not use lights on the path at night. It is an adventure to pass dark, slow moving objects while praying not to collide with dark oncoming objects. If the City chooses not to light the Southwest path, bikes, skates and skateboards should be prohibited after dark for safety reasons. This would send nighttime bikers onto washboard side streets where invisible potholes would quickly encourage us to either buy a car or stay home.
Posted: 07/01/2012
Let the light shine! I am a single parent and an elementary school teacher with two children. Now we use our bike path two-three times a day. Whether we go to Trader Joe's to buy groceries,Vilas park, Zoo, downtown for an ice cream, university or many other destinations. Sometimes, I simply want to take a quiet walk after my long school day. My children and I do not want to walk or bike along our busy and noisy streets, we pay high property taxes in our area to enjoy peaceful and safe environment. We feel intimidated walking along some parts of the path that do not have any light.
Please install lights to provide safe and well-used path by many who not only live along the trail.
Let the light shine! I am a single parent and an elementary school teacher with two children. Now we use our bike path two-three times a day. Whether we go to Trader Joe's to buy groceries,Vilas park, Zoo, downtown for an ice cream, university or many other destinations. Sometimes, I simply want to take a quiet walk after my long school day. My children and I do not want to walk or bike along our busy and noisy streets, we pay high property taxes in our area to enjoy peaceful and safe environment. We feel intimidated walking along some parts of the path that do not have any light.
Please install lights to provide safe and well-used path by many who not only live along the trail.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I am not a neighbor of the SWBP, however, I am a user of it and other paths.
While it would undoubtedly nearly eliminate the chances of collisions if the path were lit, I think that is the wrong way to look at the situation. We can never eliminate all risk from our environment, and sometimes we must adjust our behavior rather than the environment. Humans and other animals NEED darkness. We cannot continue to simply artificially light up our nighttime world and expect not to suffer consequences. The problem with adding lighting is that once added, it becomes difficult to impossible to remove it.
The SWBP goes through a very heavily wooded and intensely natural area, given it's urban location. This is an incredibly precious resource for Madison and it's citizens.
Better to allow users to choose their own level of lighting by what they carry with them, and allow the precious nighttime darkness to remain. For those who cannot abide operating in darkess, there are an abundance of well lit city streets available.
If you don't like the dark, don't go into the dark. But please, please let there be some darkness that remains in our environment for those who love and need the darkness!
I am not a neighbor of the SWBP, however, I am a user of it and other paths.
While it would undoubtedly nearly eliminate the chances of collisions if the path were lit, I think that is the wrong way to look at the situation. We can never eliminate all risk from our environment, and sometimes we must adjust our behavior rather than the environment. Humans and other animals NEED darkness. We cannot continue to simply artificially light up our nighttime world and expect not to suffer consequences. The problem with adding lighting is that once added, it becomes difficult to impossible to remove it.
The SWBP goes through a very heavily wooded and intensely natural area, given it's urban location. This is an incredibly precious resource for Madison and it's citizens.
Better to allow users to choose their own level of lighting by what they carry with them, and allow the precious nighttime darkness to remain. For those who cannot abide operating in darkess, there are an abundance of well lit city streets available.
If you don't like the dark, don't go into the dark. But please, please let there be some darkness that remains in our environment for those who love and need the darkness!
Posted: 07/01/2012
Let the light shine! I am a single parent and an elementary school teacher with two children. Now we use our bike path two-three times a day. Whether we go to Trader Joe's to buy groceries,Vilas park, Zoo, downtown for an ice cream, university or many other destinations. Sometimes, I simply want to take a quiet walk after my long school day. My children and I do not want to walk or bike along our busy and noisy streets, we pay high property taxes in our area to enjoy peaceful and safe environment. We feel intimidated walking along some parts of the path that do not have any light.
Please install lights to provide safe and well-used path by many who not only live along the trail.
Let the light shine! I am a single parent and an elementary school teacher with two children. Now we use our bike path two-three times a day. Whether we go to Trader Joe's to buy groceries,Vilas park, Zoo, downtown for an ice cream, university or many other destinations. Sometimes, I simply want to take a quiet walk after my long school day. My children and I do not want to walk or bike along our busy and noisy streets, we pay high property taxes in our area to enjoy peaceful and safe environment. We feel intimidated walking along some parts of the path that do not have any light.
Please install lights to provide safe and well-used path by many who not only live along the trail.
Posted: 07/01/2012
I am in favor of the lighting. I believe the path is dangerous because many people ride and walk and jog without lights. I believe that improving the lighting will make the route more viable in the early-sun-setting months and increase trips via bike.
I am in favor of the lighting. I believe the path is dangerous because many people ride and walk and jog without lights. I believe that improving the lighting will make the route more viable in the early-sun-setting months and increase trips via bike.
Posted: 07/01/2012
Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars ‘fixing’ a non-existent problem by placing lights on Madison’s southwest bike corridor? How many accidents have occurred to warrant this extravagance? Research shows lighting increases crime, and this lighting would invite it. Because few bikers ride after dark, robbers would have a deserted alley where yards were lit and houses thrown in shadow. Bikers can use bike lights for night riding.
Why destroy what little night sky Madison still has? Why not leave a few dark places for wildlife and stargazers? We have the technology to pave and light every inch of our city, but do we want that?
When the multi-use path replaced the tracks, officials deceitfully pretended to respect opposition to lighting, while “quietly” installing conduits. Now some male officials even use women’s safety as a reason for the lights. To me this all feels and sounds disrespectful and patronizing.
Why the sudden push for this unnecessary expense to taxpayers? Use the $300,000. 00 dollars plus for something Madison truly needs, not unnecessary lights.
Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars ‘fixing’ a non-existent problem by placing lights on Madison’s southwest bike corridor? How many accidents have occurred to warrant this extravagance? Research shows lighting increases crime, and this lighting would invite it. Because few bikers ride after dark, robbers would have a deserted alley where yards were lit and houses thrown in shadow. Bikers can use bike lights for night riding.
Why destroy what little night sky Madison still has? Why not leave a few dark places for wildlife and stargazers? We have the technology to pave and light every inch of our city, but do we want that?
When the multi-use path replaced the tracks, officials deceitfully pretended to respect opposition to lighting, while “quietly” installing conduits. Now some male officials even use women’s safety as a reason for the lights. To me this all feels and sounds disrespectful and patronizing.
Why the sudden push for this unnecessary expense to taxpayers? Use the $300,000. 00 dollars plus for something Madison truly needs, not unnecessary lights.
Posted: 06/23/2012
Instead of spending $ on lights along the path:
How about resurfacing Gregory Street nicely? Then the bicyclists uncomfortable with the dark SW bike path have a passable and lit option.
Great that there is an average of 2000 users per day! Probably more than 2000 during summer days, when biking is pleasant and daylight lasts from 6AM-8PM. I bet there are many fewer bikers during the winter months, when biking can be cold and daylight hours are short. So an average of 2000/day is not a good argument for lighting the path.
Instead of spending $ on lights along the path:
How about resurfacing Gregory Street nicely? Then the bicyclists uncomfortable with the dark SW bike path have a passable and lit option.
Great that there is an average of 2000 users per day! Probably more than 2000 during summer days, when biking is pleasant and daylight lasts from 6AM-8PM. I bet there are many fewer bikers during the winter months, when biking can be cold and daylight hours are short. So an average of 2000/day is not a good argument for lighting the path.
Posted: 06/23/2012
My consulting organization, The Madison Group, has successfully worked many several communities to install Dark Sky Lighting. I am also a biker who uses the trail and enjoys the dark. I suggest that the City of Madison and those concerned contact the International Dark Sky Association at www.darksky.org and talk to them about the highly specialized kinds of lighting fixtures that are available and being used throughout the country. They are superior to even the proposed new fixtures recently posted on the web site. The ones you want are called "full cutoff" fixtures and will even confine the light directly onto the pavement without it going anywhere else not even onto neighboring properties that are below the grade of the bike trail. The trick is a cutoff shield design that extends well beyond the light source to highly focus the light beam combined with special spectrum bulbs. These kinds of fixtures are installed in nature conservancy areas, on beaches where breeding turtles could be affected by light, in areas with bats and bat caves and owls, and in areas near and around critical highly sensitive astronomical observatories. They work, you will still see all the stars in the sky, the light will not radiate into yards, we will still all be able to enjoy night biking in the dark under the stars and be safe from crime. I encourage you to contact the IDA: www.darksky.org. They can solve this problem for you. See contacts below.
Sincerely, Douglas King, for the Madison Group www.madisongroup.us
IDA International Headquarters
3223 N. First Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85719
USA
+1 520 293 3198
Fax: +1 520 293 3192
Email: ida@darksky.org
My consulting organization, The Madison Group, has successfully worked many several communities to install Dark Sky Lighting. I am also a biker who uses the trail and enjoys the dark. I suggest that the City of Madison and those concerned contact the International Dark Sky Association at www.darksky.org and talk to them about the highly specialized kinds of lighting fixtures that are available and being used throughout the country. They are superior to even the proposed new fixtures recently posted on the web site. The ones you want are called "full cutoff" fixtures and will even confine the light directly onto the pavement without it going anywhere else not even onto neighboring properties that are below the grade of the bike trail. The trick is a cutoff shield design that extends well beyond the light source to highly focus the light beam combined with special spectrum bulbs. These kinds of fixtures are installed in nature conservancy areas, on beaches where breeding turtles could be affected by light, in areas with bats and bat caves and owls, and in areas near and around critical highly sensitive astronomical observatories. They work, you will still see all the stars in the sky, the light will not radiate into yards, we will still all be able to enjoy night biking in the dark under the stars and be safe from crime. I encourage you to contact the IDA: www.darksky.org. They can solve this problem for you. See contacts below.
Sincerely, Douglas King, for the Madison Group www.madisongroup.us
IDA International Headquarters
3223 N. First Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85719
USA
+1 520 293 3198
Fax: +1 520 293 3192
Email: ida@darksky.org
Posted: 06/23/2012
I don't live along the path but commute year round from the Dunn's Marsh neighborhood to State Street. I vary my route but use the bike path often.
I find that a good headlamp, and a blinking red light, provide adequate light to see and be seen.
I generally feel that the city does a good job of illuminating our streets, without going overboard with respect light pollution and costs to property taxpayers.
While I understand the concerns of those who want the lighting on the Southwest path, I feel dollars to improve our bicycling infratructure could be better spent elsewhere - and I'd be happy to make suggestions on that as well.
I don't live along the path but commute year round from the Dunn's Marsh neighborhood to State Street. I vary my route but use the bike path often.
I find that a good headlamp, and a blinking red light, provide adequate light to see and be seen.
I generally feel that the city does a good job of illuminating our streets, without going overboard with respect light pollution and costs to property taxpayers.
While I understand the concerns of those who want the lighting on the Southwest path, I feel dollars to improve our bicycling infratructure could be better spent elsewhere - and I'd be happy to make suggestions on that as well.
Posted: 06/23/2012
I live on the south side of the bike path. on Fox Avenue. I am concerned that the lighting would cast significant light down the hill in to my yard after observing the test fixture that has been installed. Additionally I think that lighting will negatively impacts the dark space and the general enjoyment of walking in the evenings along the bike path. I too favor requiring bicyclists to have lights at night. After all, we require cars to have lights and we do not light the city streets in order for cars to drive on them without lights. I don't know if lights increase safety or not? The shadows are darker on the edge of the lights, our eyes are adjusted to the overhead lights instead of the dark.
I live on the south side of the bike path. on Fox Avenue. I am concerned that the lighting would cast significant light down the hill in to my yard after observing the test fixture that has been installed. Additionally I think that lighting will negatively impacts the dark space and the general enjoyment of walking in the evenings along the bike path. I too favor requiring bicyclists to have lights at night. After all, we require cars to have lights and we do not light the city streets in order for cars to drive on them without lights. I don't know if lights increase safety or not? The shadows are darker on the edge of the lights, our eyes are adjusted to the overhead lights instead of the dark.
Posted: 06/22/2012
Although I use good bike lights, I favor lighting the path if:
1. this is the best use of the dollars for enhancing the city's bicycling infrastructure.
2. it is done with low height fixtures that direct the light where it is needed and the illumination is relatively low light intensity (which likely means more fixtures and thus more expense)
Although I use good bike lights, I favor lighting the path if:
1. this is the best use of the dollars for enhancing the city's bicycling infrastructure.
2. it is done with low height fixtures that direct the light where it is needed and the illumination is relatively low light intensity (which likely means more fixtures and thus more expense)
Posted: 06/21/2012
I am not in favor of the lighting. I don't live on the path but I commute in the dark and find my light on my bike provides plenty of safety as does all the othe other lights of the commuters.
Maybe because I grew up in the country I like the natural ambience of the early morning darkness. In times of tight budgets i don't see how this project can justify the funds needed or the energy used. I feel bad for the people who love below the path where even down shining lights will hit their homes.
Thank you.
I am not in favor of the lighting. I don't live on the path but I commute in the dark and find my light on my bike provides plenty of safety as does all the othe other lights of the commuters.
Maybe because I grew up in the country I like the natural ambience of the early morning darkness. In times of tight budgets i don't see how this project can justify the funds needed or the energy used. I feel bad for the people who love below the path where even down shining lights will hit their homes.
Thank you.
Posted: 06/21/2012
I have 2 suggestions:
1. Make the light poles shorter, say 3 feet high. Shield the top to prevent light leaking upward. Light the path but not the trees. My son is a transportation planner specializing in bicycle planning and he says these are manufactured and available, and it has been successful elsewhere.
2. Require bikers to have lights! Ticket those with no lights. Isn't this obvious?
I have 2 suggestions:
1. Make the light poles shorter, say 3 feet high. Shield the top to prevent light leaking upward. Light the path but not the trees. My son is a transportation planner specializing in bicycle planning and he says these are manufactured and available, and it has been successful elsewhere.
2. Require bikers to have lights! Ticket those with no lights. Isn't this obvious?
Posted: 06/21/2012
Re: The new light installed between Va Terrace and Glenway how can the effects of this light truly be judged by the adjacent land-owners when the trees are in full leaf?
Re: The new light installed between Va Terrace and Glenway how can the effects of this light truly be judged by the adjacent land-owners when the trees are in full leaf?
Posted: 06/21/2012
I supported the creation of the bikepath and now happily live right on it, on Gregory Street. it is a great addition to our neighborhood and city. However, like the vast majority of people who have commented here, I am strongly opposed to lights on the path, a project which is of the classic "solution in search of a problem" sort. There is little evidence, apart from the the assertions by City Staff about this project, that there would be more useage of the path. There is very little evidence that bikers or path users are clamoring for lighting, apart from the assertions by City Staff. There is evidence that City Staff always thought there should be lights on the path (see the article in this week's Isthmus) and now are trying to realize their vision despite significant opposition and evidence that shows this project is wasteful, unnecessary and intrusive.
I supported the creation of the bikepath and now happily live right on it, on Gregory Street. it is a great addition to our neighborhood and city. However, like the vast majority of people who have commented here, I am strongly opposed to lights on the path, a project which is of the classic "solution in search of a problem" sort. There is little evidence, apart from the the assertions by City Staff about this project, that there would be more useage of the path. There is very little evidence that bikers or path users are clamoring for lighting, apart from the assertions by City Staff. There is evidence that City Staff always thought there should be lights on the path (see the article in this week's Isthmus) and now are trying to realize their vision despite significant opposition and evidence that shows this project is wasteful, unnecessary and intrusive.
Posted: 06/20/2012
"I'm getting tired of responding to say I support lighting the bike path in spite of appearing to be outnumbered by the NIMBYs (but this is Madison, after all)."
Sounds like the majority of the few comments supporting this wasteful project might come this one person.
Vote out your alder next election for their continued support of this project otherwise we will continue getting these wasteful, polluting projects rammed down our throats!
"I'm getting tired of responding to say I support lighting the bike path in spite of appearing to be outnumbered by the NIMBYs (but this is Madison, after all)."
Sounds like the majority of the few comments supporting this wasteful project might come this one person.
Vote out your alder next election for their continued support of this project otherwise we will continue getting these wasteful, polluting projects rammed down our throats!
Posted: 06/18/2012
How was the location for the new test site selected? Was it at all correlated to the location of the house of one of the few lighting advocates that lives along the path?
How was the location for the new test site selected? Was it at all correlated to the location of the house of one of the few lighting advocates that lives along the path?
Posted: 06/18/2012
I'm getting tired of responding to say I support lighting the bike path in spite of appearing to be outnumbered by the NIMBYs (but this is Madison, after all). I live on the bike path and absolutely believe it should be lighted. It is a public thoroughfare. When dark, it provides easy access and egress to miscreants, like those who have burgled our house more than once. If you applied the logic of the night sky lovers, our streets and sidewalks wouldn't be illuminated. I suppose drivers might be asked to turn their headlights off, too. There is light coming into my house right now from many sources, including nearby public and private buildings. Can I lobby to have all those lights turned off? Of course not. If you don't want lights on anywhere near your house, move to Ridgeway. Please light the path! I'm sure the Madison Police Department would agree.
I'm getting tired of responding to say I support lighting the bike path in spite of appearing to be outnumbered by the NIMBYs (but this is Madison, after all). I live on the bike path and absolutely believe it should be lighted. It is a public thoroughfare. When dark, it provides easy access and egress to miscreants, like those who have burgled our house more than once. If you applied the logic of the night sky lovers, our streets and sidewalks wouldn't be illuminated. I suppose drivers might be asked to turn their headlights off, too. There is light coming into my house right now from many sources, including nearby public and private buildings. Can I lobby to have all those lights turned off? Of course not. If you don't want lights on anywhere near your house, move to Ridgeway. Please light the path! I'm sure the Madison Police Department would agree.
Posted: 06/18/2012
We run/walk the dog twice a day on the southwest bike path between glenway and Virginia Terrace, for over four years now. Also frequent bike commuters to downtown. We've never spoken with a single person supporting lighting. The city's stated reason "to increase both safety and usability during hours of darkness" has no basis as is thoroughly documented in other comments herein. Our evening walks are safe and an extraordinary treat on clear nights. There is no safety issue. There is no upside to lighting. The rare commuter requiring lighting can ride on Monroe or myrid other already lit streets. Unless an Alder needs a plaque in his or her name somewhere, or the city is in a use-it-or-lose-it budget mode, there is simply no reason to destroy this unique resourse.
We run/walk the dog twice a day on the southwest bike path between glenway and Virginia Terrace, for over four years now. Also frequent bike commuters to downtown. We've never spoken with a single person supporting lighting. The city's stated reason "to increase both safety and usability during hours of darkness" has no basis as is thoroughly documented in other comments herein. Our evening walks are safe and an extraordinary treat on clear nights. There is no safety issue. There is no upside to lighting. The rare commuter requiring lighting can ride on Monroe or myrid other already lit streets. Unless an Alder needs a plaque in his or her name somewhere, or the city is in a use-it-or-lose-it budget mode, there is simply no reason to destroy this unique resourse.
Posted: 06/18/2012
As a neighbor close to the path I also respectfully disagree with the opposition to lighting. I am grateful that the city is pursuing options which will shield nearby houses from light and I appreciate the calls for "greener" lighting. However exercising on the path early in the morning during winter months is quite scary even when wearing reflective and flashing gear. I support lighting that is low level and focused.
As a neighbor close to the path I also respectfully disagree with the opposition to lighting. I am grateful that the city is pursuing options which will shield nearby houses from light and I appreciate the calls for "greener" lighting. However exercising on the path early in the morning during winter months is quite scary even when wearing reflective and flashing gear. I support lighting that is low level and focused.
Posted: 06/18/2012
Asserting that the complaints are mainly about spillage on to residential properties is inaccurate. It is very disappointing to see this type of spin coming from supposedly objective agencies and officials.
I am a year-round commuter and believe strongly that overhead lights are not only ugly and wasteful, but very counterproductive to my ability to comfortably see where I am going at night.
It is apparent from reading the below comments that many objections come from path users, not just people that live on the path (many of whom are also regular users and path upkeep volunteers of course)
Is there a test plan available to look at?
This is adjacent to a large forested area, has there been any investigation at all into potential environmental impact? Were any forest ecology experts consulted?
Is the DNR aware of this test plan?
Why can't this modified fixture be tested at the old location? (e.g. side by side?)
When is this test scheduled to conclude?
How much cable needs to be run in the conduit for this test?
Will the cable be removed after the test is concluded?
Asserting that the complaints are mainly about spillage on to residential properties is inaccurate. It is very disappointing to see this type of spin coming from supposedly objective agencies and officials.
I am a year-round commuter and believe strongly that overhead lights are not only ugly and wasteful, but very counterproductive to my ability to comfortably see where I am going at night.
It is apparent from reading the below comments that many objections come from path users, not just people that live on the path (many of whom are also regular users and path upkeep volunteers of course)
Is there a test plan available to look at?
This is adjacent to a large forested area, has there been any investigation at all into potential environmental impact? Were any forest ecology experts consulted?
Is the DNR aware of this test plan?
Why can't this modified fixture be tested at the old location? (e.g. side by side?)
When is this test scheduled to conclude?
How much cable needs to be run in the conduit for this test?
Will the cable be removed after the test is concluded?
Posted: 06/18/2012
The June 11, 2012 letter to residents is misleading as it says "Three of the most frequently heard concerns were:" and then lists issues about the specific type of lighting. I wasn't present at the meeting, but in the larger context including this forum and neighborhood discussions, it seems that the most frequent concerns are that *any type of lighting* would cause problems, with "the first round of test lights causes certain problems," and "any non-bollard lighting causes certain problems" both being less frequent categories of concerns. Will the relevant officials consider the question of whether lighting the path at all makes sense?
The June 11, 2012 letter to residents is misleading as it says "Three of the most frequently heard concerns were:" and then lists issues about the specific type of lighting. I wasn't present at the meeting, but in the larger context including this forum and neighborhood discussions, it seems that the most frequent concerns are that *any type of lighting* would cause problems, with "the first round of test lights causes certain problems," and "any non-bollard lighting causes certain problems" both being less frequent categories of concerns. Will the relevant officials consider the question of whether lighting the path at all makes sense?
Posted: 06/18/2012
Overhead lights of any kind are inappropriate for the Southwest path. An optimal lighting plan, in fact, would replace existing overhead lights with lower fixtures.
The Installation of this new overhead test fixture should not take place. There is no reason to ruin the night sky, user's night-time eyesight, and nocturnal habitat on another section of path.
The area of this particular section of path that you want to put streetlight on was sacred to the the mound builders of this region 1000 years ago because of the view of the South Eastern Horizon. In the Winter, many modern users have long appreciated the view of the far Eastern horizon from this section at night.
Overhead lights of any kind are inappropriate for the Southwest path. An optimal lighting plan, in fact, would replace existing overhead lights with lower fixtures.
The Installation of this new overhead test fixture should not take place. There is no reason to ruin the night sky, user's night-time eyesight, and nocturnal habitat on another section of path.
The area of this particular section of path that you want to put streetlight on was sacred to the the mound builders of this region 1000 years ago because of the view of the South Eastern Horizon. In the Winter, many modern users have long appreciated the view of the far Eastern horizon from this section at night.
Posted: 06/18/2012
I strongly oppose the proposed lighting on the bike path. Even with the current modifications, it amounts to nothing more than an eyesorewith countless costs and few benefits.
Losing the character and possibility of night sky watching in the middle of a city is very short sighted. Perhaps a lighted system among the trails in the aboretum would be proposed for evening runners/walkersbut no, the University has more sense than that.
Address the issues that have been asked for by those you represent:
education, alternatives to gangs, job creation, etc.
This is an issue where perhaps city leaders can show some sort of compromise. Perhaps there is a chance to show how government can work with an issue and listen to multiple sides.
I strongly oppose the proposed lighting on the bike path. Even with the current modifications, it amounts to nothing more than an eyesorewith countless costs and few benefits.
Losing the character and possibility of night sky watching in the middle of a city is very short sighted. Perhaps a lighted system among the trails in the aboretum would be proposed for evening runners/walkersbut no, the University has more sense than that.
Address the issues that have been asked for by those you represent:
education, alternatives to gangs, job creation, etc.
This is an issue where perhaps city leaders can show some sort of compromise. Perhaps there is a chance to show how government can work with an issue and listen to multiple sides.
Posted: 06/12/2012
It look more and more like this project is going to go forward no matter how many people are against it. The only way to get our Alders to listen to us is to vote them out next election.
It look more and more like this project is going to go forward no matter how many people are against it. The only way to get our Alders to listen to us is to vote them out next election.
Posted: 06/04/2012
Thank you for posting the summary of the southwest bike path lighting evolution and related discussion. I look forward to receiving information on the next public meeting.
re the summary: I respectfully disagree that most of the opposition to the path revolves around the effects of lighting on nearby homes. When I look over the comments I see more related to bicyclists and walkers appreciating the unique ecosystem on this part of the City's bike system, star-gazing (there are even information placards on the planets along this stretch!,) hearing owls (and yes, they
are still there), a desire for less light pollution in general, and a lot of disagreement that lighting will make the bike path safer from "criminals." The myth-breaking comments I found to be quite accurate and I hope others will read those comments.
Thank you for posting the summary of the southwest bike path lighting evolution and related discussion. I look forward to receiving information on the next public meeting.
re the summary: I respectfully disagree that most of the opposition to the path revolves around the effects of lighting on nearby homes. When I look over the comments I see more related to bicyclists and walkers appreciating the unique ecosystem on this part of the City's bike system, star-gazing (there are even information placards on the planets along this stretch!,) hearing owls (and yes, they
are still there), a desire for less light pollution in general, and a lot of disagreement that lighting will make the bike path safer from "criminals." The myth-breaking comments I found to be quite accurate and I hope others will read those comments.
Posted: 05/29/2012
Please consider solar path lighting which would provide at least two hours of illumination at ground level after sunset. In any case, limiting the hours of illumination should be considered given the need for neighborhood support of this important bike path.
Please consider solar path lighting which would provide at least two hours of illumination at ground level after sunset. In any case, limiting the hours of illumination should be considered given the need for neighborhood support of this important bike path.
Posted: 05/29/2012
I appreciate all the work the city does to improve bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure. However I oppose the proposed lighting scheme for the southwest commuter path. I live near the bike path and use it occasionally for bike commuting predawn and post-dusk, as well as for daytime recreation. I am in favor of preserving opportunities to view the night sky and to enjoy the dark while walking, etc. Bright lights always destroy night vision.
At the very most I would support dim, down lights on 3 foot posts that gently illuminate the path and easily prevent any collisions without destroying night vision. These could be spaced at 100-150 feet and would still make pedestrians visible to bikers due to enhanced contrast. Maintaining night vision is far better for public safety. Bright lights are blinding and only allow people to see what is lit, and make people blind to what is in the dark. Bright lights create hiding places in the shadows for criminals to jump unsuspecting passersby.
I appreciate all the work the city does to improve bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure. However I oppose the proposed lighting scheme for the southwest commuter path. I live near the bike path and use it occasionally for bike commuting predawn and post-dusk, as well as for daytime recreation. I am in favor of preserving opportunities to view the night sky and to enjoy the dark while walking, etc. Bright lights always destroy night vision.
At the very most I would support dim, down lights on 3 foot posts that gently illuminate the path and easily prevent any collisions without destroying night vision. These could be spaced at 100-150 feet and would still make pedestrians visible to bikers due to enhanced contrast. Maintaining night vision is far better for public safety. Bright lights are blinding and only allow people to see what is lit, and make people blind to what is in the dark. Bright lights create hiding places in the shadows for criminals to jump unsuspecting passersby.
Posted: 05/22/2012
As a local resident living very close to the Southwest bike path, I would like to voice my opposition to the project. The lights are very bright and I don't think the safety concern is very legitimate given the paucity of incidents on this particular path. We have enough light pollution without adding more.
As a local resident living very close to the Southwest bike path, I would like to voice my opposition to the project. The lights are very bright and I don't think the safety concern is very legitimate given the paucity of incidents on this particular path. We have enough light pollution without adding more.
Posted: 05/22/2012
Thank you for your consideration for lighting the SW bike path. I live adjacent to the bike path. I have heard and seen numerous collisions and near misses. The bike path needs to be lit. The last regular user passes our house at 12:30 am on his way home from work I presume. The bike path is a true transportation lane and lighting it would make it more user friendly. Most of the wildlife is long gone, due to the heavy traffic. Lighting that path makes sense. Traffic on the path has grown past projections and I suspect it will continue to grow in the future.
Thank you for your consideration for lighting the SW bike path. I live adjacent to the bike path. I have heard and seen numerous collisions and near misses. The bike path needs to be lit. The last regular user passes our house at 12:30 am on his way home from work I presume. The bike path is a true transportation lane and lighting it would make it more user friendly. Most of the wildlife is long gone, due to the heavy traffic. Lighting that path makes sense. Traffic on the path has grown past projections and I suspect it will continue to grow in the future.
Posted: 05/21/2012
Here's some food for thought about lighting choices on the SW path-
Thanks for this forum and for taking public input!
-Southwest Path Alliance.
MYTH: Lighting the Southwest path will reduce crime.
FACT: Crime (including very rare bike stealing attempts) on paths in Madison at night have essentially *only* occurred in other parts of town where there are already overhead lights. The only "crime" on this section of path is very occasional graffiti, and this always occurs within view of an existing overhead fixture!
MYTH: lights are needed to make it safe for people to walk alone after dark.
FACT: The SW path is currently one of the safest places to walk alone at night in Madison. This is largely because of the many neighbors out enjoying the night sky, walking their dogs etc. That being said, overhead lights are NOT guardians, but they make almost all crimes easier to commit at night including various types of robbery or assault. This is particularly true in a visually-isolated public space like the Southwest path. Overhead lights confine a user’s vision to a "light tunnel" and make them identifiable in terms of physical stature and gender. Overhead lighting on this path would also enable a potential assailant to hide in the shadows and easily verify whether witnesses are approaching. This is one reason why the UW does not light isolated paths. Finally, most people who state they would not walk alone on the SW path at night also say they would not even if it were lighted. Fortunately for them, there is a lighted, non-visually-isolated sidewalk two blocks away on Monroe for almost the path's entire length.
MYTH: It is common sense that security lights make people’s houses safer, so why not the path?
FACT: Security lighting has a deterrent effect for private residences, and businesses because a criminal might be seen where they don’t belong. In public spaces such as the SW path, everyone “belongs”; therefore this deterrent mechanism does not exist at all. “Deterrent” fixtures such as those proposed will only serve to make the path look like a high-crime area, and will likely *attract* criminal behavior.
MYTH: For navigational safety, overhead lights are required to allow bikes to see pedestrians wearing dark clothing.
FACT: There have been no known accidents at night between bikes and pedestrians in twelve years of operation. Bike lights are far more effective than overhead lights because they project light where it is needed and don’t destroy a biker’s visual acuity (night vision) like overhead lights do.
MYTH: The overhead lights that exist on the path now don’t cause any problems and more of them would help in preventing all the “near misses” with pedestrians we keep hearing about.
FACT: Most “near misses” occur in the regions adjacent to where there are currently overhead lights. This makes sense when you consider that these lights rob all cyclists of their night vision making their headlights *much* less effective for a short time after traversing the lighted area.
MYTH: Overhead lights are needed at entries (ramps, grade entries, street intersections) to the path for safety.
FACT: Collisions between a person entering the path and a person already on the path are no more likely (and probably less likely) than between two users already on the path. It is important however, for entry features to be visible to all users. Bollard (low height) lights at ramps and grade crossings would help users see the entry features better without wrecking everyone's night vision.
MYTH: Overhead lights are the only economical way to light a transportation corridor like the southwest path.
FACT: A vastly more economical and effective way to light the path is with the portable lights that cyclists are required to use by law anyways, along with selective placement of bollard fixtures. The use of overhead "streetlights" makes bike lights far less effective by reducing user’s night vision and eliminating visual cues from path marker reflectors. Overhead lights like those proposed also do a horrible job of evenly illuminating the path, and make it difficult or impossible to observe the night sky. A dependence on bike lights and quality low-height (bollard type) fixtures in selected locations is a far better approach in many ways.
MYTH: “A quality urban transportation corridor is lighted”
FACT: A quality transportation corridor of any type (even the yet-to-be-urbanized SW path) has quality lighting, not just the type of lighting (overhead) that is easiest, cheapest or most associated with traditional urban vehicular transportation corridors. More light does not mean better vision, in fact it often means the opposite. Because of the traveling speeds involved, this is especially true on a multi-use path if the light from the fixtures reaches the user’s eyes directly. The transfer of an antiquated post-war overhead lighting philosophy from city streets to this path would be a big mistake from a visual safety, personal security, aesthetic and ecological standpoint.
MYTH: The proposed overhead lights are “green” because they use LEDs
FACT: LEDs are now more electrically efficient for a given light output than older types of light sources. However, the proposed overhead street lights will still cause about 10 tons of completely unnecessary CO2 emission per year. Overhead fixtures were developed for high-temperature, point-source bulbs of years past. LEDs are more suited to low-intensity but spatially distributed lighting (e.g. low-intensity bollard fixtures), which would be far more effective on any transportation corridor. Putting LEDs in an overhead fixture is, in some ways, like outfitting a steam engine with an electronic speed control. The use of LEDs for fixed lighting of any type is still a maturing technology; the use of LEDs in bike lights and blinkers, however, is a very mature technology.
MYTH: Lights are needed because of commuters coming home in the dark in winter time.
FACT: Regular path users know that if there is any snow on the ground, or any overcast in the sky, you can see especially well in wintertime, even with your bike light "off". Cold and icy conditions are the reasons there is not more traffic during these months, not visibility.
Here are some links with more Info:
http://www.darksky.org/
https://www.facebook.com/OWLPATH
Here's some food for thought about lighting choices on the SW path-
Thanks for this forum and for taking public input!
-Southwest Path Alliance.
MYTH: Lighting the Southwest path will reduce crime.
FACT: Crime (including very rare bike stealing attempts) on paths in Madison at night have essentially *only* occurred in other parts of town where there are already overhead lights. The only "crime" on this section of path is very occasional graffiti, and this always occurs within view of an existing overhead fixture!
MYTH: lights are needed to make it safe for people to walk alone after dark.
FACT: The SW path is currently one of the safest places to walk alone at night in Madison. This is largely because of the many neighbors out enjoying the night sky, walking their dogs etc. That being said, overhead lights are NOT guardians, but they make almost all crimes easier to commit at night including various types of robbery or assault. This is particularly true in a visually-isolated public space like the Southwest path. Overhead lights confine a user’s vision to a "light tunnel" and make them identifiable in terms of physical stature and gender. Overhead lighting on this path would also enable a potential assailant to hide in the shadows and easily verify whether witnesses are approaching. This is one reason why the UW does not light isolated paths. Finally, most people who state they would not walk alone on the SW path at night also say they would not even if it were lighted. Fortunately for them, there is a lighted, non-visually-isolated sidewalk two blocks away on Monroe for almost the path's entire length.
MYTH: It is common sense that security lights make people’s houses safer, so why not the path?
FACT: Security lighting has a deterrent effect for private residences, and businesses because a criminal might be seen where they don’t belong. In public spaces such as the SW path, everyone “belongs”; therefore this deterrent mechanism does not exist at all. “Deterrent” fixtures such as those proposed will only serve to make the path look like a high-crime area, and will likely *attract* criminal behavior.
MYTH: For navigational safety, overhead lights are required to allow bikes to see pedestrians wearing dark clothing.
FACT: There have been no known accidents at night between bikes and pedestrians in twelve years of operation. Bike lights are far more effective than overhead lights because they project light where it is needed and don’t destroy a biker’s visual acuity (night vision) like overhead lights do.
MYTH: The overhead lights that exist on the path now don’t cause any problems and more of them would help in preventing all the “near misses” with pedestrians we keep hearing about.
FACT: Most “near misses” occur in the regions adjacent to where there are currently overhead lights. This makes sense when you consider that these lights rob all cyclists of their night vision making their headlights *much* less effective for a short time after traversing the lighted area.
MYTH: Overhead lights are needed at entries (ramps, grade entries, street intersections) to the path for safety.
FACT: Collisions between a person entering the path and a person already on the path are no more likely (and probably less likely) than between two users already on the path. It is important however, for entry features to be visible to all users. Bollard (low height) lights at ramps and grade crossings would help users see the entry features better without wrecking everyone's night vision.
MYTH: Overhead lights are the only economical way to light a transportation corridor like the southwest path.
FACT: A vastly more economical and effective way to light the path is with the portable lights that cyclists are required to use by law anyways, along with selective placement of bollard fixtures. The use of overhead "streetlights" makes bike lights far less effective by reducing user’s night vision and eliminating visual cues from path marker reflectors. Overhead lights like those proposed also do a horrible job of evenly illuminating the path, and make it difficult or impossible to observe the night sky. A dependence on bike lights and quality low-height (bollard type) fixtures in selected locations is a far better approach in many ways.
MYTH: “A quality urban transportation corridor is lighted”
FACT: A quality transportation corridor of any type (even the yet-to-be-urbanized SW path) has quality lighting, not just the type of lighting (overhead) that is easiest, cheapest or most associated with traditional urban vehicular transportation corridors. More light does not mean better vision, in fact it often means the opposite. Because of the traveling speeds involved, this is especially true on a multi-use path if the light from the fixtures reaches the user’s eyes directly. The transfer of an antiquated post-war overhead lighting philosophy from city streets to this path would be a big mistake from a visual safety, personal security, aesthetic and ecological standpoint.
MYTH: The proposed overhead lights are “green” because they use LEDs
FACT: LEDs are now more electrically efficient for a given light output than older types of light sources. However, the proposed overhead street lights will still cause about 10 tons of completely unnecessary CO2 emission per year. Overhead fixtures were developed for high-temperature, point-source bulbs of years past. LEDs are more suited to low-intensity but spatially distributed lighting (e.g. low-intensity bollard fixtures), which would be far more effective on any transportation corridor. Putting LEDs in an overhead fixture is, in some ways, like outfitting a steam engine with an electronic speed control. The use of LEDs for fixed lighting of any type is still a maturing technology; the use of LEDs in bike lights and blinkers, however, is a very mature technology.
MYTH: Lights are needed because of commuters coming home in the dark in winter time.
FACT: Regular path users know that if there is any snow on the ground, or any overcast in the sky, you can see especially well in wintertime, even with your bike light "off". Cold and icy conditions are the reasons there is not more traffic during these months, not visibility.
Here are some links with more Info:
http://www.darksky.org/
https://www.facebook.com/OWLPATH
Posted: 05/21/2012
I oppose this proposal. I am a student at UW-Madison who bikes regularly and is also a fan of amateur astronomy. The Lakeshore path is another area in which lights are basically absent. Part of the magic of the Lakeshore path and the Southwest Bike path is that, at night, you can feel especially close to nature, even while in the heart of Madison. Imagine if the Lakeshore preserve was illuminated by sodium lamps or, even worse, those blue-tinged LED lamps. It would obliterate that feeling and replace it with the feeling of being in a parking lot.
Although all public lighting is an affront to the night sky, particularly lighting that directs light upward, the worst is the addition of light to areas where there was none. Like pockets of wilderness surrounded on all sides by development, the darkness of the night has been steadily erased by public lighting. Are we so selfish that we are willing to destroy what is left of our land's original state for the sake of convenience? Buy a bike light instead.
I oppose this proposal. I am a student at UW-Madison who bikes regularly and is also a fan of amateur astronomy. The Lakeshore path is another area in which lights are basically absent. Part of the magic of the Lakeshore path and the Southwest Bike path is that, at night, you can feel especially close to nature, even while in the heart of Madison. Imagine if the Lakeshore preserve was illuminated by sodium lamps or, even worse, those blue-tinged LED lamps. It would obliterate that feeling and replace it with the feeling of being in a parking lot.
Although all public lighting is an affront to the night sky, particularly lighting that directs light upward, the worst is the addition of light to areas where there was none. Like pockets of wilderness surrounded on all sides by development, the darkness of the night has been steadily erased by public lighting. Are we so selfish that we are willing to destroy what is left of our land's original state for the sake of convenience? Buy a bike light instead.
Posted: 05/16/2012
I was just sitting in my back room, looking out the window enjoying the magnificent evening sky. Breathtaking to behold. Then I remembered that the city of Madison is pursuing putting a light directly behind my house, which happens to sit on the Southwest path.
When I bought this house, the trail had just been completed. Before purchasing, my biggest concern was lighting on the path-I did not want it and was informed there was not going to be lighting. If lit, I would not have bought.
I had been living in the bay area of CA for years. When I moved to Madison, I wanted to get back to more of a grounded, small community feeling. This whole "lighting of the path," reeks of blatant urbanization, self entitlement and perhaps a wayward vision of leaving a legacy behind for someone or something. The Southwest Path is an amazing corridor of nature and life that traverses through our great city. It should be revered and treated with deference. It should not be treated like an urban super highway.
I emphatically do not want lights on the path. Take a small portion of these funds and educate path users on appropriate lighting, protocol, etc.. Put the rest of the money back in the coffers and use it toward the real and urgent needs that the city of Madison is faced with.
I was just sitting in my back room, looking out the window enjoying the magnificent evening sky. Breathtaking to behold. Then I remembered that the city of Madison is pursuing putting a light directly behind my house, which happens to sit on the Southwest path.
When I bought this house, the trail had just been completed. Before purchasing, my biggest concern was lighting on the path-I did not want it and was informed there was not going to be lighting. If lit, I would not have bought.
I had been living in the bay area of CA for years. When I moved to Madison, I wanted to get back to more of a grounded, small community feeling. This whole "lighting of the path," reeks of blatant urbanization, self entitlement and perhaps a wayward vision of leaving a legacy behind for someone or something. The Southwest Path is an amazing corridor of nature and life that traverses through our great city. It should be revered and treated with deference. It should not be treated like an urban super highway.
I emphatically do not want lights on the path. Take a small portion of these funds and educate path users on appropriate lighting, protocol, etc.. Put the rest of the money back in the coffers and use it toward the real and urgent needs that the city of Madison is faced with.
Posted: 05/11/2012
I prefer to not have any lighting. Leave the path as is. Here are some of the reasons for leaving it alone:
Impair vision and ruin night sky for no reason-despite high-use, segment has basically zero crime & accidents at night!
Blight, devalue and needlessly urbanize-the path itself, as well as adjacent woods, parks, yard and homes.
Waste local property tax funds-At least $300,000 to install, plus perpetual power and maintenance.
Damage ecosystem of year round owl nesting area-Would also drive away flying squirrels, tree frogs and people!
Save this UNIQUE MADISON TREASURE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
I prefer to not have any lighting. Leave the path as is. Here are some of the reasons for leaving it alone:
Impair vision and ruin night sky for no reason-despite high-use, segment has basically zero crime & accidents at night!
Blight, devalue and needlessly urbanize-the path itself, as well as adjacent woods, parks, yard and homes.
Waste local property tax funds-At least $300,000 to install, plus perpetual power and maintenance.
Damage ecosystem of year round owl nesting area-Would also drive away flying squirrels, tree frogs and people!
Save this UNIQUE MADISON TREASURE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Posted: 05/11/2012
The current signs at the intersections along this section of path from Breese Terrace to the Beltline are currently incorrect. The signs read “Bike Path” instead of the now standard “Southwest Path”. This misleading signage (and the same “bike path” shorthand on this website) is actually detrimental to the safe and harmonious shared use of this path. It has even been observed that some race-training riders (perhaps from out of town) believe that non-bikers are interlopers here.
City Engineering acknowledges that switching the signs to “Southwest Path” is long overdue, but was delayed because of an initial difficulty assigning a “link” name (as in “Greenbush Link” in the adjacent segment of path).
We are suggesting that this section from Breeze Terrace to the Beltline be assigned the link name “Owl Path”. This would serve as a subtle, yet effective reminder to all users that it gets dark here at night, and would be useful in promoting this unique and beautiful path as a wildlife refuge, year-round owl nesting area, and night sky corridor.
Other Advisory Signage:
Please consider installing some tasteful advisory signs at the 4-5 major entrances and grade crossings of the “owl path”
Here is a starter suggestion for wording of these signs:
-
-Owl Path Bird Sanctuary Corridor-
-This is a Shared Use Commuter & Pedestrian Path-
CYCLISTS:
-Please moderate your speed in this area; 15 MPH or less is recommended.
-Ride single-file at night and during peak hours of use.
-Never “thread the needle”; wait behind slower users for a chance to pass.
-A front light and rear blinker is required after dark.
WALKERS AND RUNNERS:
-Always look behind you when crossing the path.
-Use Right-hand side of path
-Step off the path when stopping, picture taking, etc.
-Use a rear-visible reflector and/or blinker after dark.
DOGS:
-Keep to the right of your owner. Don't use extension leashes.
Please also consider the following suggestions:
1. Paint white reflective stripes along each edge of the path
2. work with Neighborhoods to install small stands at path entry points with inexpensive reflectors/blinkers for pedestrians that get caught after dark.
3. Replace path marker posts when damaged.
4. Avoid the introduction of industrial fixtures and obstacles unless absolutely necessary.
5. Investigate the merits of adding reflective path marker posts to west side of path.
6. Repair pavement where it is being undercut by erosion.
7. Invest in sandblasting equipment to remove occasional graffiti from rough surfaces.
8. Replace the current overhead lights near ramps with bollard-style fixtures to help preserve user's night vision.
9. Install lighting (preferably bollard style) at grade crossings with streets
Thanks for this comment space and consideration of public input!
- Southwest Path Alliance
The current signs at the intersections along this section of path from Breese Terrace to the Beltline are currently incorrect. The signs read “Bike Path” instead of the now standard “Southwest Path”. This misleading signage (and the same “bike path” shorthand on this website) is actually detrimental to the safe and harmonious shared use of this path. It has even been observed that some race-training riders (perhaps from out of town) believe that non-bikers are interlopers here.
City Engineering acknowledges that switching the signs to “Southwest Path” is long overdue, but was delayed because of an initial difficulty assigning a “link” name (as in “Greenbush Link” in the adjacent segment of path).
We are suggesting that this section from Breeze Terrace to the Beltline be assigned the link name “Owl Path”. This would serve as a subtle, yet effective reminder to all users that it gets dark here at night, and would be useful in promoting this unique and beautiful path as a wildlife refuge, year-round owl nesting area, and night sky corridor.
Other Advisory Signage:
Please consider installing some tasteful advisory signs at the 4-5 major entrances and grade crossings of the “owl path”
Here is a starter suggestion for wording of these signs:
-
-Owl Path Bird Sanctuary Corridor-
-This is a Shared Use Commuter & Pedestrian Path-
CYCLISTS:
-Please moderate your speed in this area; 15 MPH or less is recommended.
-Ride single-file at night and during peak hours of use.
-Never “thread the needle”; wait behind slower users for a chance to pass.
-A front light and rear blinker is required after dark.
WALKERS AND RUNNERS:
-Always look behind you when crossing the path.
-Use Right-hand side of path
-Step off the path when stopping, picture taking, etc.
-Use a rear-visible reflector and/or blinker after dark.
DOGS:
-Keep to the right of your owner. Don't use extension leashes.
Please also consider the following suggestions:
1. Paint white reflective stripes along each edge of the path
2. work with Neighborhoods to install small stands at path entry points with inexpensive reflectors/blinkers for pedestrians that get caught after dark.
3. Replace path marker posts when damaged.
4. Avoid the introduction of industrial fixtures and obstacles unless absolutely necessary.
5. Investigate the merits of adding reflective path marker posts to west side of path.
6. Repair pavement where it is being undercut by erosion.
7. Invest in sandblasting equipment to remove occasional graffiti from rough surfaces.
8. Replace the current overhead lights near ramps with bollard-style fixtures to help preserve user's night vision.
9. Install lighting (preferably bollard style) at grade crossings with streets
Thanks for this comment space and consideration of public input!
- Southwest Path Alliance
Posted: 05/09/2012
I've been a Westmorland resident for a long time now and I'm aware
of most of the issues and discussions affecting the Path. In
responding to a recent post, Engineering (city and/or traffic)
mentioned that an alder was responsible for getting the lighting
project in the City's 2012 capital budget.
Here is what bothers me: 1) The project description at the top of this page,
states that the impetus for the lighting project came from path users and
residents with the assistance of staff and elected officials. And, 2) The
Westmorland Implementation Plan for our Joint Neighborhood Plan,
provides action steps for a lighting project that includes engaging property
owners along the path to determine support/opposition to lighting, and
petitioning property owners to determine the level of support. An additional
action step, and I presume it to be a logical final step, is to contact the
district alder to request inclusion in the City's capital budget.
In the same post that I mentioned earlier, Engineering referenced the SW
Bike Path Advisory Committee's recommendation that the City at
least consult the adjacent property owners before going forward
with lighting the Path. But residents along the Path did not learn or
hear of the lighting project until the December 2011 meeting at
Edgewood College. To me, it now appears that at least one of our
alders may have gone ahead with the lighting project and requested
Engineering to include it in its 2012 capital budget requests without
first discussing it with those most affected. Now, Engineering appears
to be in an awkward position the 2012 capital budget has been approved,
most residents along the Path are upset, and the lighting options to date don't really suffice in a number of respects.
I've been a Westmorland resident for a long time now and I'm aware
of most of the issues and discussions affecting the Path. In
responding to a recent post, Engineering (city and/or traffic)
mentioned that an alder was responsible for getting the lighting
project in the City's 2012 capital budget.
Here is what bothers me: 1) The project description at the top of this page,
states that the impetus for the lighting project came from path users and
residents with the assistance of staff and elected officials. And, 2) The
Westmorland Implementation Plan for our Joint Neighborhood Plan,
provides action steps for a lighting project that includes engaging property
owners along the path to determine support/opposition to lighting, and
petitioning property owners to determine the level of support. An additional
action step, and I presume it to be a logical final step, is to contact the
district alder to request inclusion in the City's capital budget.
In the same post that I mentioned earlier, Engineering referenced the SW
Bike Path Advisory Committee's recommendation that the City at
least consult the adjacent property owners before going forward
with lighting the Path. But residents along the Path did not learn or
hear of the lighting project until the December 2011 meeting at
Edgewood College. To me, it now appears that at least one of our
alders may have gone ahead with the lighting project and requested
Engineering to include it in its 2012 capital budget requests without
first discussing it with those most affected. Now, Engineering appears
to be in an awkward position the 2012 capital budget has been approved,
most residents along the Path are upset, and the lighting options to date don't really suffice in a number of respects.
Posted: 05/08/2012
It is a common misconception that "more light= more safety".
Here are some negative unintended impacts that overhead lighting would likely have on navigational safety on the Southwest shared-use path:
1. Reduce the night vision, attentiveness and comfort (squinting) of all users
2. Reduce use of reflectors and portable lights by both cyclists and pedestrians
3. Reduce effectiveness of reflectors and portable lights (currently visible at great distances)
4. Remove or reduce an automatic visual cue that a bike is approaching from behind (reflectors along the path currently reflect a bike's light back to pedestrians walking in front of the bike)
5. Introduce a new periodic obstacle (light poles) next to the heavily-used footpath. This is not good for runners, runners with dogs, or cyclists passing them.
6. Introduce widely varying illumination, thereby putting user’s eyes in a constant state of fast adjustment, with a drastically reduced visual acuity baseline.
7. Allows cyclists to increase their speed at night by “out-riding” their lights.
This last point is particularly troubling, since the speed differential between different types of user is the primary safety concern on shared-use transportation corridors, day or night. Momentum, and the potential for harm in the case of a collision, increases by the square of speed, while this lighting project’s overall impact on other preventative safety factors is not even neutral, but likely negative.
The addition of “cardio riders” to the mix of users at night is likely to reduce overall safety. This was supposed to be a commuter/pedestrian path, not a late-night racetrack.
It is a common misconception that "more light= more safety".
Here are some negative unintended impacts that overhead lighting would likely have on navigational safety on the Southwest shared-use path:
1. Reduce the night vision, attentiveness and comfort (squinting) of all users
2. Reduce use of reflectors and portable lights by both cyclists and pedestrians
3. Reduce effectiveness of reflectors and portable lights (currently visible at great distances)
4. Remove or reduce an automatic visual cue that a bike is approaching from behind (reflectors along the path currently reflect a bike's light back to pedestrians walking in front of the bike)
5. Introduce a new periodic obstacle (light poles) next to the heavily-used footpath. This is not good for runners, runners with dogs, or cyclists passing them.
6. Introduce widely varying illumination, thereby putting user’s eyes in a constant state of fast adjustment, with a drastically reduced visual acuity baseline.
7. Allows cyclists to increase their speed at night by “out-riding” their lights.
This last point is particularly troubling, since the speed differential between different types of user is the primary safety concern on shared-use transportation corridors, day or night. Momentum, and the potential for harm in the case of a collision, increases by the square of speed, while this lighting project’s overall impact on other preventative safety factors is not even neutral, but likely negative.
The addition of “cardio riders” to the mix of users at night is likely to reduce overall safety. This was supposed to be a commuter/pedestrian path, not a late-night racetrack.
Posted: 05/08/2012
Is there any estimate how many trees would have to be cut down if the streetlight-style lights went in?
City Staff Response:
No trees are expected to be removed.
Is there any estimate how many trees would have to be cut down if the streetlight-style lights went in?
City Staff Response:
No trees are expected to be removed.
Posted: 05/08/2012
I oppose the proposed lighting project. Spend money on more pressing items such as the poor and homeless.
I oppose the proposed lighting project. Spend money on more pressing items such as the poor and homeless.
Posted: 05/08/2012
Who is the District Alder of this neighborhood who expressed interest in pursuing this project?
Who is the District Alder of this neighborhood who expressed interest in pursuing this project?
Posted: 05/08/2012
I have a couple comments about lighting the Southwest Path:
I have been running the SW Path for ten years, about four times per week. During those 10 years, I have never had any problems of any type on the path. I run at 6am or 6pm (or later) in the winter when it's dark out. I love running in the dark, that's the main reason I run during those times. When summer rolls around, I dread running in the daylight. I have a small LED light (but very bright) on my Saucony glove, and I wear a flashing armband. My small LED light actually impairs my vision, so I end up turning it off when no one is around. As we all know, our eyes adjust to the dark and we can see pretty darn well if we keep lights away.
I'm also concerned about the wildlife and what will happen to their privacy (e.g., owls, flying squirrels, etc.) if we force more lighting into their world.
I am unaware of any crimes on the path (please enlighten me if any). And if there have been one or two unfortunate crimes or anomalies during the life of the Path, those circumstances do not necessarily warrant changing the condition of the path. If crimes were happening daily or weekly, then we would have a problem and a solution would have to be worked out. But I continually remind myself that the world is a dangerous place, and it can't be sanitized all the time so we humans can have a false sense of safety.
As Helen Keller so profoundly put it:
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature . . . Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
I have a couple comments about lighting the Southwest Path:
I have been running the SW Path for ten years, about four times per week. During those 10 years, I have never had any problems of any type on the path. I run at 6am or 6pm (or later) in the winter when it's dark out. I love running in the dark, that's the main reason I run during those times. When summer rolls around, I dread running in the daylight. I have a small LED light (but very bright) on my Saucony glove, and I wear a flashing armband. My small LED light actually impairs my vision, so I end up turning it off when no one is around. As we all know, our eyes adjust to the dark and we can see pretty darn well if we keep lights away.
I'm also concerned about the wildlife and what will happen to their privacy (e.g., owls, flying squirrels, etc.) if we force more lighting into their world.
I am unaware of any crimes on the path (please enlighten me if any). And if there have been one or two unfortunate crimes or anomalies during the life of the Path, those circumstances do not necessarily warrant changing the condition of the path. If crimes were happening daily or weekly, then we would have a problem and a solution would have to be worked out. But I continually remind myself that the world is a dangerous place, and it can't be sanitized all the time so we humans can have a false sense of safety.
As Helen Keller so profoundly put it:
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature . . . Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
Posted: 05/08/2012
I support lighting on the SW bike path. It will make safer and increase use for me and others throughout the neighborhood. I previously lived with yard adjacent to the east side path and thought that the lights made the path safer for the users and neighbors and didn't affect me in my home. please continue efforts to select alternative which can minimize impacts on neighboring homes while also providing a safe lit environment on the corridor.
I support lighting on the SW bike path. It will make safer and increase use for me and others throughout the neighborhood. I previously lived with yard adjacent to the east side path and thought that the lights made the path safer for the users and neighbors and didn't affect me in my home. please continue efforts to select alternative which can minimize impacts on neighboring homes while also providing a safe lit environment on the corridor.
Posted: 05/08/2012
Once again, your latest communication indicates a lack of attention to the problem that light will be flooding into the yards and houses of people on the north side of the path. Twice you discuss the light being blocked from the area BEHIND the lights. If louvers would make the light go down only, perhaps you are addressing the problem without saying specifically where the light would go, but it's very important for the light to go down only, not off to the north or south side of the path. Please address this concern. Those of us on the north side of the path would really appreciate it. I notice that no attempt has been made to look for lower lights. Why not? The extremely tall lights are invasive in many ways. Even with louvers, I believe that they will light up the path too much for people and animals. And by the way, the last couple of months of amazing night sky sights have been promoted everywhere. Why would we purposely make such sights harder to see?
Once again, your latest communication indicates a lack of attention to the problem that light will be flooding into the yards and houses of people on the north side of the path. Twice you discuss the light being blocked from the area BEHIND the lights. If louvers would make the light go down only, perhaps you are addressing the problem without saying specifically where the light would go, but it's very important for the light to go down only, not off to the north or south side of the path. Please address this concern. Those of us on the north side of the path would really appreciate it. I notice that no attempt has been made to look for lower lights. Why not? The extremely tall lights are invasive in many ways. Even with louvers, I believe that they will light up the path too much for people and animals. And by the way, the last couple of months of amazing night sky sights have been promoted everywhere. Why would we purposely make such sights harder to see?
Posted: 05/08/2012
I'm posting this comment primarily because lighting opponents appear to be using the counts of these posts as evidence of lack of public support and those opposed are more motivated to comment than supporters. I support the lighting proposal.
I also support rational, respectful and non-inflammatory discourse. I'd feel better if opponents were proposing a broader look at stray light including residential and street lighting. Also, much of the Dec. 12 meeting was monopolized by a few opponents who spoke 3 or 4 times while others waited to speak just once. For the next meeting, please limit individuals to one comment until all have had a chance to speak once, then allow additional comments from those who already have spoken once.
I live a block from the bike path in a two adult household; we use the path almost daily, primarily for biking. I would like to see it lit more than it is now at night, but it doesn't need to be bright enough to read by. There will always be safety concerns due to the variety of path users, but more lighting would make night travel safer. More bikers are using lights now; my concern is for the walkers who may be hit. Can we expect every person taking a stroll or biking to carry a light? I don't think so. Even if you own lights, they don't always function because batteries discharge, lights are left at home, etc.
Of course, consideration needs to be given so that adjacent homes aren't illuminated by searchlights. Let's trust that City Engineering will look at a range of feasible options that will be evaluated and discussed by all. (There already are lights at the Prospect Ave and Harrison entries that don't seem to cause problems.)
No one has mentioned the vegetation that screen people's homes from the path during summer months when the path is most heavily used either. The wildlife doesn't seem to be repelled by street lights and residential lights; why should a few more lights be a problem? And while we are at it, how about considering removal of some street lights to save money and reduce light pollution? Cars already have headlights and sidewalks are illuminated by stray light from homes. If people feel that lighting isn't needed for security purposes, it should not be a problem to reduce the number of street lights.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment.
I'm posting this comment primarily because lighting opponents appear to be using the counts of these posts as evidence of lack of public support and those opposed are more motivated to comment than supporters. I support the lighting proposal.
I also support rational, respectful and non-inflammatory discourse. I'd feel better if opponents were proposing a broader look at stray light including residential and street lighting. Also, much of the Dec. 12 meeting was monopolized by a few opponents who spoke 3 or 4 times while others waited to speak just once. For the next meeting, please limit individuals to one comment until all have had a chance to speak once, then allow additional comments from those who already have spoken once.
I live a block from the bike path in a two adult household; we use the path almost daily, primarily for biking. I would like to see it lit more than it is now at night, but it doesn't need to be bright enough to read by. There will always be safety concerns due to the variety of path users, but more lighting would make night travel safer. More bikers are using lights now; my concern is for the walkers who may be hit. Can we expect every person taking a stroll or biking to carry a light? I don't think so. Even if you own lights, they don't always function because batteries discharge, lights are left at home, etc.
Of course, consideration needs to be given so that adjacent homes aren't illuminated by searchlights. Let's trust that City Engineering will look at a range of feasible options that will be evaluated and discussed by all. (There already are lights at the Prospect Ave and Harrison entries that don't seem to cause problems.)
No one has mentioned the vegetation that screen people's homes from the path during summer months when the path is most heavily used either. The wildlife doesn't seem to be repelled by street lights and residential lights; why should a few more lights be a problem? And while we are at it, how about considering removal of some street lights to save money and reduce light pollution? Cars already have headlights and sidewalks are illuminated by stray light from homes. If people feel that lighting isn't needed for security purposes, it should not be a problem to reduce the number of street lights.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment.
Posted: 05/07/2012
Thank you so much for your attention to this matter!
Thank you so much for your attention to this matter!
Posted: 05/07/2012
The city could immediately improve real safety on the pedestrian/bike, dog walk, stroller, gardener etc. path by putting reflectors and inexpensive LED lights on a stand at the intersections. Anyone could borrow them. It would be inexpensive and far more effective than the proposed lights.
The LED lighting being installed in traffic signals and on streets need to have two settings. One for day and one for night. They are too bright at night. Blinding even. The street lights need shrouds so that the source of the light can't be seen.
The city could immediately improve real safety on the pedestrian/bike, dog walk, stroller, gardener etc. path by putting reflectors and inexpensive LED lights on a stand at the intersections. Anyone could borrow them. It would be inexpensive and far more effective than the proposed lights.
The LED lighting being installed in traffic signals and on streets need to have two settings. One for day and one for night. They are too bright at night. Blinding even. The street lights need shrouds so that the source of the light can't be seen.
Posted: 05/07/2012
The bike path lighting is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. It will only increase light pollution and energy consumption. It does not matter how well the light is directed, all the light produced by this contributes to overall light pollution.
Any opposition seems to be in vain though since the response to the opposition is just to find "better lighting" solutions.
The bike path lighting is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. It will only increase light pollution and energy consumption. It does not matter how well the light is directed, all the light produced by this contributes to overall light pollution.
Any opposition seems to be in vain though since the response to the opposition is just to find "better lighting" solutions.
Posted: 04/24/2012
Thanks for this comment space!
As someone with a lot of experience in safety engineering, lighting design and using the SW path (nearly every day, often at night and year-round), I have a lot of comments and questions.
I numbered them for ease of reading/answering:
1) Is Traffic Engineering the same department that installed the box for a bike counter next to the Glenway intersection?
2) If so, can you estimate when or if this will be removed?
3) Was this bike counter installed as part of this lighting project? The reason I ask is that the path pavement is cracking because of a sloppy installation and incomplete sealing of the sensing coils there .
A pretty big pile of excess cement was also dumped in the grass near the base of the fixture. This over-sized enclosure, aside from being an eyesore and a great example of pointless urban blight next to a prairie restoration, is an unnecessary, introduced obstacle next to a transportation corridor.
4) Roughly how much was spent for this instrumentation system that gives woefully incomplete data about commuter path use (bikes only)?
5) What individual(s) initiated this lighting project? How did Traffic Engineering become involved in this project and at who's request?
When the path was built, city representatives told area homeowners that no lighting would ever be installed without the request of a majority of property owners along the path on a block-by-block basis with the only exception being where it is needed for safety. See:
http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml
City staff has stated in this forum that this project is "not intended as a safety project..." and as others have realized and noted, this project is even likely to *reduce* safety.
It is almost comically ironic that the test lights for this project are adjacent to a sign that explains that the word “Nakoma” means “I do as I promise” .
6) Has this earlier "promise" or "statement" about not lighting the path been withdrawn? Did city officials just say that to shut everybody up since lighting was the main concern of area homeowners and potential path users? Were somebody's fingers crossed at the time? If so, who's fingers were crossed? (Ok, maybe some of those questions are rhetorical, but if you have any answers, many of us would love to know).
Many people I talk with are starting to wonder who would really benefit from this project. Most local residents, experienced commuters, and other regular users of the SW path know that the users, the environment, and one of the coolest paths in the whole state will be irrevocably harmed.
This ill-conceived project will forever couple fossil fuel consumption to the otherwise emission-free acts of biking and walking on this path.
This appears to many of us like an example of: one or more alders, a few of their vocal supporters, and at least one city department getting together to "manufacture consent" for a fear-based "signature" project. It also represents a significant initial and perpetual expense. Many path users (let alone adjacent homeowners) are still completely unaware of this project. They are invariably firmly against it once informed.
7) A formal survey hasn't taken place let alone a "request from a majority of residents on a block-by-block basis" yet this project has been mysteriously put into the capital budget. Who decided to do that?
8) If this lighting scheme is still a "potential project", can someone explain why this public works bid is already on the web?:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/business/pw/contracts/details.cfm?ContractNumber=6807
-
CONTRACT NUMBER: 6807
CONTRACT: Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting
Percentage of Contract Completed: Not Available
Associated Projects:
Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting (53W1245)
PROJECT: Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting
Project Number: 53W1245
Bid Due Date: 06/08/12
Bid Open Date: 06/15/2012
Estimated Start Date: 07/30/2012
Estimated Completion Date: Not Available
Percent of Project Completed: Not Available
Contract Amount: Not Available
Project Contractor:
Construction Year: 2012
Construction Type: Bike Path
District: 05, 10, 11, 13,
PROJECT CONTACT:
Design Engineer: Tony Fernandez
Phone: 608-266-9219
Email: tfernandez@cityofmadison.com
City Construction Engineer: John Fahrney
Email: jfahrney@cityofmadison.com
Phone: (608) 266 9091
Inspector: Not Available
Phone: Not Available
-
Lastly, I agree with an earlier writer that anonymity makes this "vote" pretty unofficial. Some of us have noticed that it does seem like at least one person with a very distinctive writing style has written in more than once "for" the lighting project. If a fair vote were taken, I believe it would be an even greater ratio against the lighting instead of the current ratio of just over 80 percent.
Thanks for reading (and hopefully responding to) my comments.
This is my second post on this forum, by the way.
City Staff Response:
1) Is Traffic Engineering the same department that installed the box for a bike counter next to the Glenway intersection?
ANSWER--YES
2) If so, can you estimate when or if this will be removed?
ANSWER--There are no plans to remove it. It is a permanent count station.
3) Was this bike counter installed as part of this lighting project? The reason I ask is that the path pavement is cracking because of a sloppy installation and incomplete sealing of the sensing coils there .
ANSWER---No, it was outside the lighting project
A pretty big pile of excess cement was also dumped in the grass near the base of the fixture. This over-sized enclosure, aside from being an eyesore and a great example of pointless urban blight next to a prairie restoration, is an unnecessary, introduced obstacle next to a transportation corridor.
ANSWER---WIll be picked up if not already
4) Roughly how much was spent for this instrumentation system that gives woefully incomplete data about commuter path use (bikes only)?
ANSWER---It was noted from the start that the counter will not detect pedestrians. Regardless some data is better than none.
5) What individual(s) initiated this lighting project? How did Traffic Engineering become involved in this project and at who's request?
ANSWER---The District Alder expressed interest in pursuing a project.
When the path was built, city representatives told area homeowners that no lighting would ever be installed without the request of a majority of property owners along the path on a block-by-block basis with the only exception being where it is needed for safety. See:
http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml
City staff has stated in this forum that this project is "not intended as a safety project..." and as others have realized and noted, this project is even likely to *reduce* safety.
It is almost comically ironic that the test lights for this project are adjacent to a sign that explains that the word "Nakoma" means "I do as I promise" .
6) Has this earlier "promise" or "statement" about not lighting the path been withdrawn? Did city officials just say that to shut everybody up since lighting was the main concern of area homeowners and potential path users? Were somebody's fingers crossed at the time? If so, who's fingers were crossed? (Ok, maybe some of those questions are rhetorical, but if you have any answers, many of us would love to know).
Many people I talk with are starting to wonder who would really benefit from this project. Most local residents, experienced commuters, and other regular users of the SW path know that the users, the environment, and one of the coolest paths in the whole state will be irrevocably harmed.
This ill-conceived project will forever couple fossil fuel consumption to the otherwise emission-free acts of biking and walking on this path.
This appears to many of us like an example of: one or more alders, a few of their vocal supporters, and at least one city department getting together to "manufacture consent" for a fear-based "signature" project. It also represents a significant initial and perpetual expense. Many path users (let alone adjacent homeowners) are still completely unaware of this project. They are invariably firmly against it once informed.
7) A formal survey hasn't taken place let alone a "request from a majority of residents on a block-by-block basis" yet this project has been mysteriously put into the capital budget. Who decided to do that?
8) If this lighting scheme is still a "potential project", can someone explain why this public works bid is already on the web?:
ANSWER--- All future PW projects get put up the website under "Future Projects" once a project number and contract number are assigned.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/business/pw/contracts/details.cfm?ContractNumber=6807
-
CONTRACT NUMBER: 6807
CONTRACT: Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting
Percentage of Contract Completed: Not Available
Associated Projects:
Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting (53W1245)
Thanks for this comment space!
As someone with a lot of experience in safety engineering, lighting design and using the SW path (nearly every day, often at night and year-round), I have a lot of comments and questions.
I numbered them for ease of reading/answering:
1) Is Traffic Engineering the same department that installed the box for a bike counter next to the Glenway intersection?
2) If so, can you estimate when or if this will be removed?
3) Was this bike counter installed as part of this lighting project? The reason I ask is that the path pavement is cracking because of a sloppy installation and incomplete sealing of the sensing coils there .
A pretty big pile of excess cement was also dumped in the grass near the base of the fixture. This over-sized enclosure, aside from being an eyesore and a great example of pointless urban blight next to a prairie restoration, is an unnecessary, introduced obstacle next to a transportation corridor.
4) Roughly how much was spent for this instrumentation system that gives woefully incomplete data about commuter path use (bikes only)?
5) What individual(s) initiated this lighting project? How did Traffic Engineering become involved in this project and at who's request?
When the path was built, city representatives told area homeowners that no lighting would ever be installed without the request of a majority of property owners along the path on a block-by-block basis with the only exception being where it is needed for safety. See:
http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml
City staff has stated in this forum that this project is "not intended as a safety project..." and as others have realized and noted, this project is even likely to *reduce* safety.
It is almost comically ironic that the test lights for this project are adjacent to a sign that explains that the word “Nakoma” means “I do as I promise” .
6) Has this earlier "promise" or "statement" about not lighting the path been withdrawn? Did city officials just say that to shut everybody up since lighting was the main concern of area homeowners and potential path users? Were somebody's fingers crossed at the time? If so, who's fingers were crossed? (Ok, maybe some of those questions are rhetorical, but if you have any answers, many of us would love to know).
Many people I talk with are starting to wonder who would really benefit from this project. Most local residents, experienced commuters, and other regular users of the SW path know that the users, the environment, and one of the coolest paths in the whole state will be irrevocably harmed.
This ill-conceived project will forever couple fossil fuel consumption to the otherwise emission-free acts of biking and walking on this path.
This appears to many of us like an example of: one or more alders, a few of their vocal supporters, and at least one city department getting together to "manufacture consent" for a fear-based "signature" project. It also represents a significant initial and perpetual expense. Many path users (let alone adjacent homeowners) are still completely unaware of this project. They are invariably firmly against it once informed.
7) A formal survey hasn't taken place let alone a "request from a majority of residents on a block-by-block basis" yet this project has been mysteriously put into the capital budget. Who decided to do that?
8) If this lighting scheme is still a "potential project", can someone explain why this public works bid is already on the web?:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/business/pw/contracts/details.cfm?ContractNumber=6807
-
CONTRACT NUMBER: 6807
CONTRACT: Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting
Percentage of Contract Completed: Not Available
Associated Projects:
Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting (53W1245)
PROJECT: Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting
Project Number: 53W1245
Bid Due Date: 06/08/12
Bid Open Date: 06/15/2012
Estimated Start Date: 07/30/2012
Estimated Completion Date: Not Available
Percent of Project Completed: Not Available
Contract Amount: Not Available
Project Contractor:
Construction Year: 2012
Construction Type: Bike Path
District: 05, 10, 11, 13,
PROJECT CONTACT:
Design Engineer: Tony Fernandez
Phone: 608-266-9219
Email: tfernandez@cityofmadison.com
City Construction Engineer: John Fahrney
Email: jfahrney@cityofmadison.com
Phone: (608) 266 9091
Inspector: Not Available
Phone: Not Available
-
Lastly, I agree with an earlier writer that anonymity makes this "vote" pretty unofficial. Some of us have noticed that it does seem like at least one person with a very distinctive writing style has written in more than once "for" the lighting project. If a fair vote were taken, I believe it would be an even greater ratio against the lighting instead of the current ratio of just over 80 percent.
Thanks for reading (and hopefully responding to) my comments.
This is my second post on this forum, by the way.
City Staff Response:
1) Is Traffic Engineering the same department that installed the box for a bike counter next to the Glenway intersection?
ANSWER--YES
2) If so, can you estimate when or if this will be removed?
ANSWER--There are no plans to remove it. It is a permanent count station.
3) Was this bike counter installed as part of this lighting project? The reason I ask is that the path pavement is cracking because of a sloppy installation and incomplete sealing of the sensing coils there .
ANSWER---No, it was outside the lighting project
A pretty big pile of excess cement was also dumped in the grass near the base of the fixture. This over-sized enclosure, aside from being an eyesore and a great example of pointless urban blight next to a prairie restoration, is an unnecessary, introduced obstacle next to a transportation corridor.
ANSWER---WIll be picked up if not already
4) Roughly how much was spent for this instrumentation system that gives woefully incomplete data about commuter path use (bikes only)?
ANSWER---It was noted from the start that the counter will not detect pedestrians. Regardless some data is better than none.
5) What individual(s) initiated this lighting project? How did Traffic Engineering become involved in this project and at who's request?
ANSWER---The District Alder expressed interest in pursuing a project.
When the path was built, city representatives told area homeowners that no lighting would ever be installed without the request of a majority of property owners along the path on a block-by-block basis with the only exception being where it is needed for safety. See:
http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml
ANSWER---The statment about no lighting was a recommendation by the Southwest Bike advisory committee.
City staff has stated in this forum that this project is "not intended as a safety project..." and as others have realized and noted, this project is even likely to *reduce* safety.
It is almost comically ironic that the test lights for this project are adjacent to a sign that explains that the word "Nakoma" means "I do as I promise" .
6) Has this earlier "promise" or "statement" about not lighting the path been withdrawn? Did city officials just say that to shut everybody up since lighting was the main concern of area homeowners and potential path users? Were somebody's fingers crossed at the time? If so, who's fingers were crossed? (Ok, maybe some of those questions are rhetorical, but if you have any answers, many of us would love to know).
Many people I talk with are starting to wonder who would really benefit from this project. Most local residents, experienced commuters, and other regular users of the SW path know that the users, the environment, and one of the coolest paths in the whole state will be irrevocably harmed.
This ill-conceived project will forever couple fossil fuel consumption to the otherwise emission-free acts of biking and walking on this path.
This appears to many of us like an example of: one or more alders, a few of their vocal supporters, and at least one city department getting together to "manufacture consent" for a fear-based "signature" project. It also represents a significant initial and perpetual expense. Many path users (let alone adjacent homeowners) are still completely unaware of this project. They are invariably firmly against it once informed.
7) A formal survey hasn't taken place let alone a "request from a majority of residents on a block-by-block basis" yet this project has been mysteriously put into the capital budget. Who decided to do that?
8) If this lighting scheme is still a "potential project", can someone explain why this public works bid is already on the web?:
ANSWER--- All future PW projects get put up the website under "Future Projects" once a project number and contract number are assigned.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/business/pw/contracts/details.cfm?ContractNumber=6807
-
CONTRACT NUMBER: 6807
CONTRACT: Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting
Percentage of Contract Completed: Not Available
Associated Projects:
Southwest Ped/Bike Path Lighting (53W1245)
Posted: 04/23/2012
As a neighbor (Monroe St), and daily user of the path year round (bike, run, walk), I would be disappointed to see lights go up along the path. I have never felt unsafe along the path at night, and greatly enjoy the "out of the city" feel the relative darkness provides.
But, I understand there are a lot of different users of this awesome resource. In particular, I hope the households directly along the path are given opportunity to voice their concerns. I hope a good compromise can be found, or that it at least doesn't move forward too quickly for everyone to feel they had input. As for my household, our vote is "no, thank you".
Good luck!
As a neighbor (Monroe St), and daily user of the path year round (bike, run, walk), I would be disappointed to see lights go up along the path. I have never felt unsafe along the path at night, and greatly enjoy the "out of the city" feel the relative darkness provides.
But, I understand there are a lot of different users of this awesome resource. In particular, I hope the households directly along the path are given opportunity to voice their concerns. I hope a good compromise can be found, or that it at least doesn't move forward too quickly for everyone to feel they had input. As for my household, our vote is "no, thank you".
Good luck!
Posted: 04/23/2012
Can someone please explain why a bid description for this project is on the web?
http://www.cityofmadison.com/business/pw/contracts/details.cfm?ContractNumber=6807
Doesn't this put the city in a precarious legal position when we hopefully come to our senses and abandon this overhead lighting project?
Unless this is some kind of mistake, where is the continued push for this project coming from?
This project is BAD for sustainable commuting and recreational biking.
Thanks for this forum.
City Staff Response:
All budgeted Public Works projects are assigned a project number, contract number and probable bid date, and are listed on our web site under future projects as information to the public. Every project still has to go through the normal approval process at Board of Public works and Common Council before it is advertised for bids. (It would then be moved from future projects to projects open for bid.) This project has not been scheduled for review by Board of Public works because it is controversial and we are still taking public comments. This project will not move forward without additional public meetings or other information provided to the neighborhoods. For now it will continue to be listed under future projects, but we will revise the dates.
Can someone please explain why a bid description for this project is on the web?
http://www.cityofmadison.com/business/pw/contracts/details.cfm?ContractNumber=6807
Doesn't this put the city in a precarious legal position when we hopefully come to our senses and abandon this overhead lighting project?
Unless this is some kind of mistake, where is the continued push for this project coming from?
This project is BAD for sustainable commuting and recreational biking.
Thanks for this forum.
City Staff Response:
All budgeted Public Works projects are assigned a project number, contract number and probable bid date, and are listed on our web site under future projects as information to the public. Every project still has to go through the normal approval process at Board of Public works and Common Council before it is advertised for bids. (It would then be moved from future projects to projects open for bid.) This project has not been scheduled for review by Board of Public works because it is controversial and we are still taking public comments. This project will not move forward without additional public meetings or other information provided to the neighborhoods. For now it will continue to be listed under future projects, but we will revise the dates.
Posted: 04/19/2012
As a regular year 'round user of the Southwest Bike Path for commuting and walking, I oppose lighting.
As a landscape architect, I suggest that adding fixed lighting will actually make the path less safe. Fixed lighting reduces night vision and increases contrast, making dark areas seem darker. These dark areas reduce perceived safety by providing cover potential predators. Furthermore, fixed lighting literally encourages "tunnel vision" for path users, making them less aware of their context and potential conflicts.
Lighting of the Southwest Bike Path is an unnecessary expenditure that will reduce the safety of the path for all users. Impacts from light pollution, infrastructure development, and maintenance do not outweigh the purported benefits of lighting the corridor.
As a regular year 'round user of the Southwest Bike Path for commuting and walking, I oppose lighting.
As a landscape architect, I suggest that adding fixed lighting will actually make the path less safe. Fixed lighting reduces night vision and increases contrast, making dark areas seem darker. These dark areas reduce perceived safety by providing cover potential predators. Furthermore, fixed lighting literally encourages "tunnel vision" for path users, making them less aware of their context and potential conflicts.
Lighting of the Southwest Bike Path is an unnecessary expenditure that will reduce the safety of the path for all users. Impacts from light pollution, infrastructure development, and maintenance do not outweigh the purported benefits of lighting the corridor.
Posted: 04/18/2012
I grew up next to this bike path and enjoy it greatly as a cyclist and runner. It provides a small amount of natural beauty in a town dominated by new construction. Light poles will break up this space during the day and create a sanitized, artificial feel while adding little or nothing in terms of safety. It saddens me to see Madison sliding backwards with one I'll-advised, large scale project after another. Please keep the path as it is. Thank you.
I grew up next to this bike path and enjoy it greatly as a cyclist and runner. It provides a small amount of natural beauty in a town dominated by new construction. Light poles will break up this space during the day and create a sanitized, artificial feel while adding little or nothing in terms of safety. It saddens me to see Madison sliding backwards with one I'll-advised, large scale project after another. Please keep the path as it is. Thank you.
Posted: 04/16/2012
It appears that a few people on this forum are tallying up the "counts" for and against the project based on the posts to this forum.
I presume that the City is aware that it is impossible to know how many people are actually for or against this project based on the responses in this forum, given that a person may post anonymously and repeatedly.
It would be nice if the City would comment on whether or not they consider the responses to this anonymous and unregulated forum to be an actual head count of those individuals that are for or against the project. Thanks.
City Staff Response:
Correct we do not consider comments to the website to be a "vote" for or against a potential project...
It appears that a few people on this forum are tallying up the "counts" for and against the project based on the posts to this forum.
I presume that the City is aware that it is impossible to know how many people are actually for or against this project based on the responses in this forum, given that a person may post anonymously and repeatedly.
It would be nice if the City would comment on whether or not they consider the responses to this anonymous and unregulated forum to be an actual head count of those individuals that are for or against the project. Thanks.
City Staff Response:
Correct we do not consider comments to the website to be a "vote" for or against a potential project...
Posted: 04/16/2012
I just came across this site, and let me weigh in with the majority of the comments, and express my opposition to the project.
No need to light the bikepath. Leave it natural.
I just came across this site, and let me weigh in with the majority of the comments, and express my opposition to the project.
No need to light the bikepath. Leave it natural.
Posted: 04/14/2012
International Dark Sky Week 14 - 20 April, 2012
Increasing public awareness goes a long way towards eliminating light pollution.
Thank You for this forum.
International Dark Sky Week 14 - 20 April, 2012
Increasing public awareness goes a long way towards eliminating light pollution.
Thank You for this forum.
Posted: 04/13/2012
As a radiologist I understand the physiology of dark adaptation and night vision. Lighting actually decreases night visual acuity and would make the paths less safe. Furthermore light pollution is a major urban problem that is just beginning to be recognized. There are many good uses for our tax dollars and this is not one of them. my wife and I are strongly opposed to the lighting project.
As a radiologist I understand the physiology of dark adaptation and night vision. Lighting actually decreases night visual acuity and would make the paths less safe. Furthermore light pollution is a major urban problem that is just beginning to be recognized. There are many good uses for our tax dollars and this is not one of them. my wife and I are strongly opposed to the lighting project.
Posted: 04/10/2012
As a frequent user of the path for running and cycling, I oppose the proposed lighting project. I echo many of the opposition comments previously made (energy use, ongoing maintenance cost, habitat, etc).
I wonder what specific safety reasons are being refered to by the city. I suspect the safety concerns are those of near misses between cyclist and pedestrians. Usually from the lack of lights/reflective gear of both parties.
A tremendous education program could be developed for the cost of the proposed lighting. Let's try educating the path users prior to installing a large capital expese with associated ongoing maintenance costs.
In response to one commen,t that only a small fraction of path users have responded, I suspect becuase the majority of path users are unaware of this proposed project. I was notified via word of mouth. I suspect the city only notified those that live adjacent the path.
We do not need to spending $ on this project. Use the $ to educate users and change behavior.
As a frequent user of the path for running and cycling, I oppose the proposed lighting project. I echo many of the opposition comments previously made (energy use, ongoing maintenance cost, habitat, etc).
I wonder what specific safety reasons are being refered to by the city. I suspect the safety concerns are those of near misses between cyclist and pedestrians. Usually from the lack of lights/reflective gear of both parties.
A tremendous education program could be developed for the cost of the proposed lighting. Let's try educating the path users prior to installing a large capital expese with associated ongoing maintenance costs.
In response to one commen,t that only a small fraction of path users have responded, I suspect becuase the majority of path users are unaware of this proposed project. I was notified via word of mouth. I suspect the city only notified those that live adjacent the path.
We do not need to spending $ on this project. Use the $ to educate users and change behavior.
Posted: 04/10/2012
As of April 4 there have been only 20 positive comments for lights verses 76 comments against the lights. Is anyone listening? What is the status of the project? Has it been postponed?
City Staff Response:
LED manufacturers are providing the City modified LED fixtures for review. These have not yet been shipped.
As of April 4 there have been only 20 positive comments for lights verses 76 comments against the lights. Is anyone listening? What is the status of the project? Has it been postponed?
City Staff Response:
LED manufacturers are providing the City modified LED fixtures for review. These have not yet been shipped.
Posted: 04/10/2012
As a regular user of the SW trail by both bike and foot and with nearly half of those trips occurring after dark I can see both sides to this issue but am generally against lighting the path.
First off, I live on Hammersley and regularly commute downtown so have ample experience at all times of day and different times of the year for the entire stretch of trail in question. When concerning safety along the trail I can understand where the lights could be advantageous. I ride frequently in the pitch black of night and I use a REALLY good bike light. However, MANY people DO NOT. And this applies to bikers, runners, and walkers. Bikers ride with no or inadequate lights, and runners and walkers use the trail in dark clothing with iPods on, and no reflective clothing or lights. (For those people out biking, running, and walking with lights and flashlights, THANK YOU.) Frequently, despite my very good bike light and cutting my speed, I am still surprised by people who I could not see. This becomes increasingly hazardous in the winter when darkness falls before rush hour traffic, especially on the stretch closest to the UW between Commonwealth and Breese Terrace.
However, the test lights are BRIGHT. Really bright. Unnecessarily bright and close together. Regular street lights aren't as closely spaced as the lights you currently have installed are. It's just not necessary in my opinion, even from a safety standpoint. Have you ever ridden the trail after dusk in July when the sky is still a little purple and the air smells of grass and earth and flowers and the fireflies glitter in the brush along the edge of the trail? Or at a full moon when you don't even NEED a bike light to see where you're going? These are fantastic and unique commuting experiences to have in a city that occur along the SW trail that would be lost if the trail was lit with lights like those you are testing currently. Seriously, get some dimmer, less offensive lights and put them further apart if they're really that necessary.
As a regular user of the SW trail by both bike and foot and with nearly half of those trips occurring after dark I can see both sides to this issue but am generally against lighting the path.
First off, I live on Hammersley and regularly commute downtown so have ample experience at all times of day and different times of the year for the entire stretch of trail in question. When concerning safety along the trail I can understand where the lights could be advantageous. I ride frequently in the pitch black of night and I use a REALLY good bike light. However, MANY people DO NOT. And this applies to bikers, runners, and walkers. Bikers ride with no or inadequate lights, and runners and walkers use the trail in dark clothing with iPods on, and no reflective clothing or lights. (For those people out biking, running, and walking with lights and flashlights, THANK YOU.) Frequently, despite my very good bike light and cutting my speed, I am still surprised by people who I could not see. This becomes increasingly hazardous in the winter when darkness falls before rush hour traffic, especially on the stretch closest to the UW between Commonwealth and Breese Terrace.
However, the test lights are BRIGHT. Really bright. Unnecessarily bright and close together. Regular street lights aren't as closely spaced as the lights you currently have installed are. It's just not necessary in my opinion, even from a safety standpoint. Have you ever ridden the trail after dusk in July when the sky is still a little purple and the air smells of grass and earth and flowers and the fireflies glitter in the brush along the edge of the trail? Or at a full moon when you don't even NEED a bike light to see where you're going? These are fantastic and unique commuting experiences to have in a city that occur along the SW trail that would be lost if the trail was lit with lights like those you are testing currently. Seriously, get some dimmer, less offensive lights and put them further apart if they're really that necessary.
Posted: 04/10/2012
I am a biker and runner and DO NOT LIKE the idea of lighting the SW Bike Path. Kids should not be on the path at night without a light and there is a curfew. Penalize the parents who let their kids run wild by having the kids and parents clean our parks of trash, put them both in yellow jumpsuits and send them out.
I am a biker and runner and DO NOT LIKE the idea of lighting the SW Bike Path. Kids should not be on the path at night without a light and there is a curfew. Penalize the parents who let their kids run wild by having the kids and parents clean our parks of trash, put them both in yellow jumpsuits and send them out.
Posted: 04/02/2012
I am a night time walker on the path. I am safe and enjoy the relief from the city lights. Wildlife stewarding is important to me as well. I don't think more light is necessary but if others do there are some great knee high lights being used in NY that allow for the best of both worlds. I have a copy of the film "The City Dark" that features them. I would like to give a copy to city staff that is making these plans. Please contact me and I will bring you the film. I am sure budget issues can be resolved for the good of all. We have a great opportunity to make innovations in our city that will will be beneficial for generations. If lighting is going in and digging is being done, it is a great time to think about an un-plowed dirt foot path space that can be used by peds. during peak times in summer and X-country skiers in the winter. Thanks.
I am a night time walker on the path. I am safe and enjoy the relief from the city lights. Wildlife stewarding is important to me as well. I don't think more light is necessary but if others do there are some great knee high lights being used in NY that allow for the best of both worlds. I have a copy of the film "The City Dark" that features them. I would like to give a copy to city staff that is making these plans. Please contact me and I will bring you the film. I am sure budget issues can be resolved for the good of all. We have a great opportunity to make innovations in our city that will will be beneficial for generations. If lighting is going in and digging is being done, it is a great time to think about an un-plowed dirt foot path space that can be used by peds. during peak times in summer and X-country skiers in the winter. Thanks.
Posted: 03/30/2012
I am dissappointed that the City of Madison is considering lighting the southwest trail - I bike it at night and also walk it with my grandchildren to stargaze and hear the occasional owl. If there are safety issues with areas of the path, it is would be cheaper to add police patrol in that area - I'm sure there are numerous officers who would welcome an evening shift on their bikes - cheaper, more citizen friendly and much smaller environmental footprint.
I am dissappointed that the City of Madison is considering lighting the southwest trail - I bike it at night and also walk it with my grandchildren to stargaze and hear the occasional owl. If there are safety issues with areas of the path, it is would be cheaper to add police patrol in that area - I'm sure there are numerous officers who would welcome an evening shift on their bikes - cheaper, more citizen friendly and much smaller environmental footprint.
Posted: 03/26/2012
I'm a highschooler living on the bike path and I do NOT support the lights. They are uneccesary and will hurt the wildlife of the path.
I'm a highschooler living on the bike path and I do NOT support the lights. They are uneccesary and will hurt the wildlife of the path.
Posted: 03/26/2012
My family and I are on the bike path nearly every day, year round. We also live on the bike path. We DO NOT support the lighting plan as proposed. There are many ways that bikers and pedestrians can make themselves more visible if worried about collisions. With respect to crime, this hasn't been an issue. If bike path users are concerned about their safety at night I'd recommend they use the streets. The biggest safety risks on the path are speeding bikers (how about a speed limit?)' people chatting on the path rather than stepping of to the side to chat, the erosion along side of the path, and dog walkers with extended leashes. Let's instead invest in user education, bike cop patrol, and erosion control. Don't interfere with our star gazing and bird watching.
My family and I are on the bike path nearly every day, year round. We also live on the bike path. We DO NOT support the lighting plan as proposed. There are many ways that bikers and pedestrians can make themselves more visible if worried about collisions. With respect to crime, this hasn't been an issue. If bike path users are concerned about their safety at night I'd recommend they use the streets. The biggest safety risks on the path are speeding bikers (how about a speed limit?)' people chatting on the path rather than stepping of to the side to chat, the erosion along side of the path, and dog walkers with extended leashes. Let's instead invest in user education, bike cop patrol, and erosion control. Don't interfere with our star gazing and bird watching.
Posted: 03/26/2012
As a daily commuter and recreational user, I feel these lights are not at all necessary and would harm the rural feel of this section of bike path. When it gets dark early. I can almost always see very well even with my bike light off because the snow on the ground brightens everything up.
As a daily commuter and recreational user, I feel these lights are not at all necessary and would harm the rural feel of this section of bike path. When it gets dark early. I can almost always see very well even with my bike light off because the snow on the ground brightens everything up.
Posted: 03/23/2012
This is a commuter path with over 2,000 daily users that is having unobtrusive lighting added for safety purposes. No matter what claims are made, the lighting will have minimal impact on the nature/wildlife alongside the path. The test lights show that the directional lighting on shortened poles will not adversely impact the housing that backs up to the path. The city should be aplauded for finding the reasonable compromise between the safety of the users and the impact on the neighborhood.
fewer then 100 of the daily users have spoken out against this & it will be a welcome improvement to the both commuters & recreational users.
This is a commuter path with over 2,000 daily users that is having unobtrusive lighting added for safety purposes. No matter what claims are made, the lighting will have minimal impact on the nature/wildlife alongside the path. The test lights show that the directional lighting on shortened poles will not adversely impact the housing that backs up to the path. The city should be aplauded for finding the reasonable compromise between the safety of the users and the impact on the neighborhood.
fewer then 100 of the daily users have spoken out against this & it will be a welcome improvement to the both commuters & recreational users.
Posted: 03/23/2012
Over 78% of the respondents on this sight are against the proposed lighting.What is the status of the project?
Over 78% of the respondents on this sight are against the proposed lighting.What is the status of the project?
Posted: 03/23/2012
Over 78% of the respondents on this sight are against the proposed lighting.What is the status of the project?
Over 78% of the respondents on this sight are against the proposed lighting.What is the status of the project?
Posted: 03/22/2012
I am generally opposed to adding lighting to the SW bike path unless it is VERY selective in location, low level, and low foot candle illumination. The path is better without the glare of street lighting.
I am generally opposed to adding lighting to the SW bike path unless it is VERY selective in location, low level, and low foot candle illumination. The path is better without the glare of street lighting.
Posted: 03/19/2012
I fully support the lighting of the bike path. I live on the path and always feel very unsafe after dark on the path despite being a regular bike commuter year-round; frequently after dark. My wife and children do not feel safe on the path after dark and babysitters who ride bikes on the path in the early evening will either use sidewalks to return home or must be driven by car.
If the bike path is truly meant to be a commuter path, and the City is really for promoting its use and de-emphasizing automobile use, there should be no question lighting the path is in the best interests of the public despite the private nuisance created in the backyard of me and some of my neighbors. There is a real difference between this commuter path and a nature path in the Arboretum which I agree should not be lit.
Lastly, I can only assume any opponent of the lighting of this commuter path also opposes lighting car-centric streets for all the same reasons. The lights are no less intrusive in my front yard and the safety issues are lessened because of the much larger and brighter headlights on the front of automobiles.
I fully support the lighting of the bike path. I live on the path and always feel very unsafe after dark on the path despite being a regular bike commuter year-round; frequently after dark. My wife and children do not feel safe on the path after dark and babysitters who ride bikes on the path in the early evening will either use sidewalks to return home or must be driven by car.
If the bike path is truly meant to be a commuter path, and the City is really for promoting its use and de-emphasizing automobile use, there should be no question lighting the path is in the best interests of the public despite the private nuisance created in the backyard of me and some of my neighbors. There is a real difference between this commuter path and a nature path in the Arboretum which I agree should not be lit.
Lastly, I can only assume any opponent of the lighting of this commuter path also opposes lighting car-centric streets for all the same reasons. The lights are no less intrusive in my front yard and the safety issues are lessened because of the much larger and brighter headlights on the front of automobiles.
Posted: 03/19/2012
We are regular bikers, walkers, even cross country skiers of the bike trail.
Our home backs up to the bike trail. We have never experienced any accident or other concern related to non-lighting of the trail.
It is with grave concern that I write this message. The proposed lighting project is indeed way overkill for a problem that does not exist. If anything, we feel that users of the trail are in the best position to continue to make it a safe, beautiful and unique asset to our community.
PLEASE reconsider. The community deserves to have its voice heard.
thank you,
Westmorland resident
We are regular bikers, walkers, even cross country skiers of the bike trail.
Our home backs up to the bike trail. We have never experienced any accident or other concern related to non-lighting of the trail.
It is with grave concern that I write this message. The proposed lighting project is indeed way overkill for a problem that does not exist. If anything, we feel that users of the trail are in the best position to continue to make it a safe, beautiful and unique asset to our community.
PLEASE reconsider. The community deserves to have its voice heard.
thank you,
Westmorland resident
Posted: 03/19/2012
I support lighting the bike path. I utilize the bike path 4-5 days per week commuting to work. Often, I bike home well after dark. While I understand the opposition of those who live on the path, I find it interesting that a number of residents on the path have lights in their backyards that are on after midnight.
This is an excellent opportunity for compromise, something we really haven't seen in Wisconsin politics over the past year. Let's come up with a viable compromise that a majority can agree on. Dimmer lights? Lower light poles? Lights that can be turned on for users at cross streets? Any other ideas?
I think all of us enjoy the path, and realize what an asset it is. Can we put our heads together and come up with something innovative and agreeable? I think so!
I support lighting the bike path. I utilize the bike path 4-5 days per week commuting to work. Often, I bike home well after dark. While I understand the opposition of those who live on the path, I find it interesting that a number of residents on the path have lights in their backyards that are on after midnight.
This is an excellent opportunity for compromise, something we really haven't seen in Wisconsin politics over the past year. Let's come up with a viable compromise that a majority can agree on. Dimmer lights? Lower light poles? Lights that can be turned on for users at cross streets? Any other ideas?
I think all of us enjoy the path, and realize what an asset it is. Can we put our heads together and come up with something innovative and agreeable? I think so!
Posted: 03/16/2012
It is time to shelve the light project for this year. This will give those who originally proposed it (without their neighborhood's knowledge) time to convince the opposition the urgent need for it. Without public support it would be very foolish to proceed.
It is time to shelve the light project for this year. This will give those who originally proposed it (without their neighborhood's knowledge) time to convince the opposition the urgent need for it. Without public support it would be very foolish to proceed.
Posted: 03/16/2012
I am a year-round user of the SW Bike Path. I commute on the path, enjoy strolls on the path and run on the path both in daylight and darkness. I also own a home on the SW bike path that allows me to enjoy the quiet movement of folks going about their business at all hours of the day and night. I am watching the path as I write this letter.
I have had many opportunities to evaluate the test lights installed at Council Crest. I oppose this proposal of lighting the path. I find this lighting system to be overkill. The 20 foot lights would be useful at street intersections but not necessary for lighting along the path. It is a bike path, not a city street.
The greatest risk to folks using the path is one another. I agree with many comments that the path users need to be much more responsible in regard to appropriate speed as well as making themselves visable. Lighting the path will not solve these problems. Appropriate behavior of users is a solution to this problem.
As a SW Bike Path user and neighbor, I oppose this lighting project.
I am a year-round user of the SW Bike Path. I commute on the path, enjoy strolls on the path and run on the path both in daylight and darkness. I also own a home on the SW bike path that allows me to enjoy the quiet movement of folks going about their business at all hours of the day and night. I am watching the path as I write this letter.
I have had many opportunities to evaluate the test lights installed at Council Crest. I oppose this proposal of lighting the path. I find this lighting system to be overkill. The 20 foot lights would be useful at street intersections but not necessary for lighting along the path. It is a bike path, not a city street.
The greatest risk to folks using the path is one another. I agree with many comments that the path users need to be much more responsible in regard to appropriate speed as well as making themselves visable. Lighting the path will not solve these problems. Appropriate behavior of users is a solution to this problem.
As a SW Bike Path user and neighbor, I oppose this lighting project.
Posted: 03/14/2012
I am opposed to the new lighting project. It would detract from the aesthetic quality of the path, contribute to light "pollution" in the area, and probably negatively effect the many birds and other creatures who live along the path. It would also use tax dollars that are in short supply these days.
In the last few years Turkey Vultures have become an exciting part of spring and fall on the southwest path. During migration they roost overnight in a grove of conifer trees on the Parman Terrace side of the path at Council Crest, 30 - 40 birds or more. These days many users of the path stop to watch the vultures swooping and sailing over their roost site. Are these creatures going to tolerate an endless day?
We don't need any more lightsn on the path. Folks who want to use the path at night need only to turn on their bike lights.
I am opposed to the new lighting project. It would detract from the aesthetic quality of the path, contribute to light "pollution" in the area, and probably negatively effect the many birds and other creatures who live along the path. It would also use tax dollars that are in short supply these days.
In the last few years Turkey Vultures have become an exciting part of spring and fall on the southwest path. During migration they roost overnight in a grove of conifer trees on the Parman Terrace side of the path at Council Crest, 30 - 40 birds or more. These days many users of the path stop to watch the vultures swooping and sailing over their roost site. Are these creatures going to tolerate an endless day?
We don't need any more lightsn on the path. Folks who want to use the path at night need only to turn on their bike lights.
Posted: 03/12/2012
I am opposed to the proposal to light the path as it is currently proposed. The light poles are too high and too light intrusive for both people like myself who live on the bike path (north side) and to the nocturnal animals that live there as well. There are many owls, tree frogs and even a coyote or two that keep the rodent population down. I am not totally opposed to all lighting but believe it could be done much better than the current plan. If it absolutely has to go in, the lights should go off at 8 or 9 pm, not 11 pm as currently proposed and the light poles should be much shorter, not the 20' poles currently on display at Council Crest.
I use the bike path for bicycling and walking my dog and have never had a problem navigating the path at night. The few times issues have arisen were due to unlit bicycles going far too fast and not announcing themselves.
Let's try to keep a few dark spots in our city. Does it all have to be awash in bright lights? I remember the original bike path plan said lighting was not installed then because nothing could be found that wasn't too intrusive. It appears from the choices made for the light poles that this is still true. Can't we wait until a better solution can be found? I thought we were in the middle of a financial meltdown. Why would the city invest a quarter million dollars on a project that few people want?
I am opposed to the proposal to light the path as it is currently proposed. The light poles are too high and too light intrusive for both people like myself who live on the bike path (north side) and to the nocturnal animals that live there as well. There are many owls, tree frogs and even a coyote or two that keep the rodent population down. I am not totally opposed to all lighting but believe it could be done much better than the current plan. If it absolutely has to go in, the lights should go off at 8 or 9 pm, not 11 pm as currently proposed and the light poles should be much shorter, not the 20' poles currently on display at Council Crest.
I use the bike path for bicycling and walking my dog and have never had a problem navigating the path at night. The few times issues have arisen were due to unlit bicycles going far too fast and not announcing themselves.
Let's try to keep a few dark spots in our city. Does it all have to be awash in bright lights? I remember the original bike path plan said lighting was not installed then because nothing could be found that wasn't too intrusive. It appears from the choices made for the light poles that this is still true. Can't we wait until a better solution can be found? I thought we were in the middle of a financial meltdown. Why would the city invest a quarter million dollars on a project that few people want?
Posted: 03/12/2012
In response to posting that says, "The lights are not streetlights or floodlights & comments about how the lights will shine into bedrooms are just not true. There is little factual reasoning behind those who oppose the lighting, only opinions & assumptions."
Perhaps this person has not checked out the actual lights on Council Crest? They are, indeed, streetlights on 20 foot poles! While they have a rectangular orientation that parallels the bike path, there is also bleeding of the light beyond the path into yards. And for people whose homes are situated below the path (as many are), they are still going to be impacted by bright white light shining in their yards and windows. The "test" lights on Council Crest show what two of these streetlights can do. When there is a whole path of them strung together at that spacing, the impact will be significant and the "halo" effect will be as well.
Conversely, in the time I was reviewing the test lights, I saw two student-age girls rollerblade by with absolutely NO reflective or light-colored gear on to make themselves visible to a cyclist, pairs of people walking by in also the same condition...so I DO understand the potential impact of cyclist vs walkers in this situation. But once again, people need to use their brains and be accountable to make themselves visible when using the path at night. Otherwise, we have a nice network of well-lit residential sidewalks that can serve their purpose without risk of encountering cyclists. Can't we all just take responsibility for ourselves and our actions? Instead of being forcibly "parented" by government into lights we don't want? And FYI, I'm getting one of these suckers in my back yard if this plan goes through. So I'm really unhappy.
In response to posting that says, "The lights are not streetlights or floodlights & comments about how the lights will shine into bedrooms are just not true. There is little factual reasoning behind those who oppose the lighting, only opinions & assumptions."
Perhaps this person has not checked out the actual lights on Council Crest? They are, indeed, streetlights on 20 foot poles! While they have a rectangular orientation that parallels the bike path, there is also bleeding of the light beyond the path into yards. And for people whose homes are situated below the path (as many are), they are still going to be impacted by bright white light shining in their yards and windows. The "test" lights on Council Crest show what two of these streetlights can do. When there is a whole path of them strung together at that spacing, the impact will be significant and the "halo" effect will be as well.
Conversely, in the time I was reviewing the test lights, I saw two student-age girls rollerblade by with absolutely NO reflective or light-colored gear on to make themselves visible to a cyclist, pairs of people walking by in also the same condition...so I DO understand the potential impact of cyclist vs walkers in this situation. But once again, people need to use their brains and be accountable to make themselves visible when using the path at night. Otherwise, we have a nice network of well-lit residential sidewalks that can serve their purpose without risk of encountering cyclists. Can't we all just take responsibility for ourselves and our actions? Instead of being forcibly "parented" by government into lights we don't want? And FYI, I'm getting one of these suckers in my back yard if this plan goes through. So I'm really unhappy.
Posted: 03/12/2012
For many years I lived in Des Moines, Iowa which is similar in size to Madison. One of the worst aspects of living there and conversely one of the best things about Madison is the night sky. Des Moines was so bright you could read a newspaper in your front yard at midnight. When I had occasion to pilot a small aircraft at night the first thing you could see when climbing out west was the glow of Omaha. Madison has a great advantage in having the "dark" lakes in its metro area making star gazing a beautiful thing. Please do not allow more light pollution.
For many years I lived in Des Moines, Iowa which is similar in size to Madison. One of the worst aspects of living there and conversely one of the best things about Madison is the night sky. Des Moines was so bright you could read a newspaper in your front yard at midnight. When I had occasion to pilot a small aircraft at night the first thing you could see when climbing out west was the glow of Omaha. Madison has a great advantage in having the "dark" lakes in its metro area making star gazing a beautiful thing. Please do not allow more light pollution.
Posted: 03/12/2012
Would it be possible to lay down reflective strips on both sides of the path the entire way in white and a yellow dashed strip down the middle? Seems to me that the money/resources spent and the proposed benefits don't pan out.
Would it be possible to lay down reflective strips on both sides of the path the entire way in white and a yellow dashed strip down the middle? Seems to me that the money/resources spent and the proposed benefits don't pan out.
Posted: 03/12/2012
I wish to express my vigorous opposition to this project as currently envisioned. Although there is an attempt to limit the side distribution of light through use of a rectangular-shaped shade, the light thrown from the demonstration pole still penetrates much too far into backyards of homes along the path. It seems clear that the design criteria are focused far too much on a cost-saving method of adequately lighting the bike path rather than on creating a system that protects the quality of the neighborhood. I do not object to providing a lighting system but it should be much lower to the ground with shorter spacing, one that throws a modest amount of light just onto the path and not into back yards. The current design creats a system that functionally resembles street lights not path lighting. Madison has expended a great deal of funds on its bicycle path system and for most part has chosen to do it right. It's marvelous contributor to creating and maintaining the high quality of life in Madison. This designs detracts not enhances that quality of life. I strongly urge rejecting this current design and take the time and expense to create a lower-height, more frequent spacing design that protects the quality of life for people living along the Southwest Communter path.
I wish to express my vigorous opposition to this project as currently envisioned. Although there is an attempt to limit the side distribution of light through use of a rectangular-shaped shade, the light thrown from the demonstration pole still penetrates much too far into backyards of homes along the path. It seems clear that the design criteria are focused far too much on a cost-saving method of adequately lighting the bike path rather than on creating a system that protects the quality of the neighborhood. I do not object to providing a lighting system but it should be much lower to the ground with shorter spacing, one that throws a modest amount of light just onto the path and not into back yards. The current design creats a system that functionally resembles street lights not path lighting. Madison has expended a great deal of funds on its bicycle path system and for most part has chosen to do it right. It's marvelous contributor to creating and maintaining the high quality of life in Madison. This designs detracts not enhances that quality of life. I strongly urge rejecting this current design and take the time and expense to create a lower-height, more frequent spacing design that protects the quality of life for people living along the Southwest Communter path.
Posted: 03/12/2012
I would like to add something to what I stated back in December 2011. In addition to my point that bikers were being seen as the major users of the path when walkers and runners are as evident on it as bikers and deserve as much consideration as bikers, the proposed lighting will adversely affect many of the houses on the north side of the path. The people who will look up into bright lighting from below were vocal at the first meeting at Edgewood. At that time those of us on the north side of the path did not know that the lights are proposed to be placed on the south side of the path, meaning that they will light up the north side even more brightly than street lights currently do. Any sort of protection on the backside of the lights for those behind them will be unavailable to those on the north side of the path. The only unlighted side of my house would now face those bright lights, giving me bright lighting on every side of my house.
I guess if I thought that the path were a dangerous place, I would support them anyway. I have never heard of any serious danger on our section of the path. I see the bike lights at night from my bedroom window; this proves to me that bikers are successfully navigating the path with their own lights. Quite a few of them seem happy with the situation.
Keep light pollution to a minimum. Encourage everyone to wear lights if they are on the path at night, and let's see if we must spent this large amount of money. And yes, it was promised to us that this would not happen without our agreement.
I would like to add something to what I stated back in December 2011. In addition to my point that bikers were being seen as the major users of the path when walkers and runners are as evident on it as bikers and deserve as much consideration as bikers, the proposed lighting will adversely affect many of the houses on the north side of the path. The people who will look up into bright lighting from below were vocal at the first meeting at Edgewood. At that time those of us on the north side of the path did not know that the lights are proposed to be placed on the south side of the path, meaning that they will light up the north side even more brightly than street lights currently do. Any sort of protection on the backside of the lights for those behind them will be unavailable to those on the north side of the path. The only unlighted side of my house would now face those bright lights, giving me bright lighting on every side of my house.
I guess if I thought that the path were a dangerous place, I would support them anyway. I have never heard of any serious danger on our section of the path. I see the bike lights at night from my bedroom window; this proves to me that bikers are successfully navigating the path with their own lights. Quite a few of them seem happy with the situation.
Keep light pollution to a minimum. Encourage everyone to wear lights if they are on the path at night, and let's see if we must spent this large amount of money. And yes, it was promised to us that this would not happen without our agreement.
Posted: 03/12/2012
I am in my mid-30's, a professional in the biotechnology industry, and a tax-paying home-owner in Madison. In other words, exactly the kind of person that the city of Madison wants to attract. I use the bike path for walking and biking year-round, and it was one of the major factors in me moving to and buying property here in Madison. And, I am aghast at the idea of polluting the bike-path with unnecessary street lights.
I use headlamps and bikelights when I am on the path, and see no reason to sink a quarter-million into this project. Madison prides itself as being "green", but this project is an unnecessary expenditure for lighting fixtures, their perpetual maintenance, and the fossil-fuel-based electricity to keep the light going.
If the problem is bikers that don't use lights, put a few cops on the trail to pull over the offenders and write them a ticket. Simple as that, it will fix the problem for a fraction of the initial cost and upkeep of this boondoggle. Why can't that be explored before unwanted lights get installed?
I am in my mid-30's, a professional in the biotechnology industry, and a tax-paying home-owner in Madison. In other words, exactly the kind of person that the city of Madison wants to attract. I use the bike path for walking and biking year-round, and it was one of the major factors in me moving to and buying property here in Madison. And, I am aghast at the idea of polluting the bike-path with unnecessary street lights.
I use headlamps and bikelights when I am on the path, and see no reason to sink a quarter-million into this project. Madison prides itself as being "green", but this project is an unnecessary expenditure for lighting fixtures, their perpetual maintenance, and the fossil-fuel-based electricity to keep the light going.
If the problem is bikers that don't use lights, put a few cops on the trail to pull over the offenders and write them a ticket. Simple as that, it will fix the problem for a fraction of the initial cost and upkeep of this boondoggle. Why can't that be explored before unwanted lights get installed?
Posted: 03/10/2012
I commute by bike on the path year round, often after dark. A small light on my helmet and rear make me visible to others and provide adequate illumination for myself. Please keep artificial lighting OUT of the bike path. Let those who use it, including the owls, provide the illumination necessary to keep us all safe!
I commute by bike on the path year round, often after dark. A small light on my helmet and rear make me visible to others and provide adequate illumination for myself. Please keep artificial lighting OUT of the bike path. Let those who use it, including the owls, provide the illumination necessary to keep us all safe!
Posted: 03/09/2012
If you are using the sw bike path during hours of darkness wear a light. Its that simple. Saves Madison money and saves the environment.
If you are using the sw bike path during hours of darkness wear a light. Its that simple. Saves Madison money and saves the environment.
Posted: 03/09/2012
We have lived on the bike path on Fox Ave (our property runs up to it) for 15 years and are avid bikers, dog-walkers, rollerbladers, hikers, etc. We are opposed to lighting the path because the darkness at night protects the beauty of the area AND we've never experienced a problem with safety. In the summertime walking the path at night, you can hear the owls hoot-hooting, the peeping of tree frogs, and the rustle of the many animals that make the path their home. This is a rare thing in the midst of an urban setting, and one of the many charms of Madison's near west side, and will be destroyed or at least much changed by high overhead lights. IF we have already committed $ in the city's budget for lighting, and IF there is a problem we're seeking to solve, why not install 3-4 foot high LED lights? Why the need for 20 foot lights? Based on the majority negative comments posted, I deeply hope the city will reconsider how to spend our tax $.
We have lived on the bike path on Fox Ave (our property runs up to it) for 15 years and are avid bikers, dog-walkers, rollerbladers, hikers, etc. We are opposed to lighting the path because the darkness at night protects the beauty of the area AND we've never experienced a problem with safety. In the summertime walking the path at night, you can hear the owls hoot-hooting, the peeping of tree frogs, and the rustle of the many animals that make the path their home. This is a rare thing in the midst of an urban setting, and one of the many charms of Madison's near west side, and will be destroyed or at least much changed by high overhead lights. IF we have already committed $ in the city's budget for lighting, and IF there is a problem we're seeking to solve, why not install 3-4 foot high LED lights? Why the need for 20 foot lights? Based on the majority negative comments posted, I deeply hope the city will reconsider how to spend our tax $.
Posted: 03/09/2012
I commute by bike on path year round, often after dark. A small light on my helmet and rear make me visible to others and provide adequate illumination for myself. I feel the proposed lighting is unnecessary, and the negative impacts on the natural and human habitats outweigh the perceived benefits. Furthermore, in my experience the "cones" of light actually impair visibility in the light-dark transition zones, reducing rather than improving safety.
I commute by bike on path year round, often after dark. A small light on my helmet and rear make me visible to others and provide adequate illumination for myself. I feel the proposed lighting is unnecessary, and the negative impacts on the natural and human habitats outweigh the perceived benefits. Furthermore, in my experience the "cones" of light actually impair visibility in the light-dark transition zones, reducing rather than improving safety.
Posted: 03/09/2012
I commute by bike on path year round, often after dark. A small light on my helmet and rear make me visible to others and provide adequate illumination for myself. I feel the proposed lighting is unnecessary, and the negative impacts on the natural and human habitats outweigh the perceived benefits. Furthermore, in my experience the "cones" of light actually impair visibility in the light-dark transition zones, reducing rather than improving safety.
I commute by bike on path year round, often after dark. A small light on my helmet and rear make me visible to others and provide adequate illumination for myself. I feel the proposed lighting is unnecessary, and the negative impacts on the natural and human habitats outweigh the perceived benefits. Furthermore, in my experience the "cones" of light actually impair visibility in the light-dark transition zones, reducing rather than improving safety.
Posted: 03/08/2012
As a frequent year-round user of this path, mostly running or walking with my wife, I am glad to see the city go forward with this much needed improvement. Over the last few years I have seen, or been a part, of too many close calls on the path. While some of them have been during the day when the volume of traffic on the path was very high, the majority of them have been at dusk of in the dark hours. We almost always have flashlights or headlamps during this time, but they are not enough.
Between bikes traveling at high speeds that their lights can’t keep up with, blindingly bright lights on some bikes that cause disorientation in the darkness, users that don’t have lights/reflection, and users that are paying more attention to the sky then to others using the path … there are many issues that the extreme darkness of the path (especially between Glenway & Commonwealth) becomes dangerous. In addition, animals (including unleashed dogs), icy patches, & fallen branches all add to the hazardous nature of the path.
The proposal is well-planned & is as unobtrusive as is practical, while providing the greatest good to its users with minimal impact on the adjacent homeowners & park space. The reason why the comments against this improvement outnumber the supporters is because few others know that this is even an issue. Other users of this path that I have spoken to are supportive of the improvement & can’t wait for it to be completed. The lights are not streetlights or floodlights & comments about how the lights will shine into bedrooms are just not true. There is little factual reasoning behind those who oppose the lighting, only opinions & assumptions.
I am happy to see the lighting project go forward for the good of the community as a whole, making this a safer and more usable commuter/recreational path for all!
As a frequent year-round user of this path, mostly running or walking with my wife, I am glad to see the city go forward with this much needed improvement. Over the last few years I have seen, or been a part, of too many close calls on the path. While some of them have been during the day when the volume of traffic on the path was very high, the majority of them have been at dusk of in the dark hours. We almost always have flashlights or headlamps during this time, but they are not enough.
Between bikes traveling at high speeds that their lights can’t keep up with, blindingly bright lights on some bikes that cause disorientation in the darkness, users that don’t have lights/reflection, and users that are paying more attention to the sky then to others using the path … there are many issues that the extreme darkness of the path (especially between Glenway & Commonwealth) becomes dangerous. In addition, animals (including unleashed dogs), icy patches, & fallen branches all add to the hazardous nature of the path.
The proposal is well-planned & is as unobtrusive as is practical, while providing the greatest good to its users with minimal impact on the adjacent homeowners & park space. The reason why the comments against this improvement outnumber the supporters is because few others know that this is even an issue. Other users of this path that I have spoken to are supportive of the improvement & can’t wait for it to be completed. The lights are not streetlights or floodlights & comments about how the lights will shine into bedrooms are just not true. There is little factual reasoning behind those who oppose the lighting, only opinions & assumptions.
I am happy to see the lighting project go forward for the good of the community as a whole, making this a safer and more usable commuter/recreational path for all!
Posted: 03/07/2012
I am a cyclist. I commute on the SW path year round, during light and dark. And even on the coldest snowiest days. I've never needed more illumination than my bike light provides and have never had an issue with pedestrian safety. Nor have I ever felt my safety was at risk.
I am a citizen of Madison. Spending 250k on something like bike path lights without sufficient need (e.g., crime, accidents, etc.) in these budget-restricted times is wholly irresponsible. I don't mind our high property taxes and cost of living if the funds are spent wisely. I'd rather you fixed my busted road, improve public health, or bolster programs for the less fortunate.
I live directly on the bike path. I'm not a NIMBY person. I supported the controversial proposal to put in a bike-in restaurant that would have gone directly behind my house. But putting safety lights up on the path is like adding extra padding to the concrete so users don't hurt themselves when they fall. It's simply not an issue and takes the responsibility for safe biking out of the hands of the users of the path, who have performed this duty well.
I'm a professional ecologist. I've deeply enjoyed the sounds of nature behind my house at night. Observing bats fly into the dusk sky and occasionally catching a view of an owl. I would be tremendously sad to see this degraded by lights that do not serve the greater good of our community or our place in the ecosystem.
I strongly urge you to use these funds for something that will elevate our wonderful city in more important ways.
I am a cyclist. I commute on the SW path year round, during light and dark. And even on the coldest snowiest days. I've never needed more illumination than my bike light provides and have never had an issue with pedestrian safety. Nor have I ever felt my safety was at risk.
I am a citizen of Madison. Spending 250k on something like bike path lights without sufficient need (e.g., crime, accidents, etc.) in these budget-restricted times is wholly irresponsible. I don't mind our high property taxes and cost of living if the funds are spent wisely. I'd rather you fixed my busted road, improve public health, or bolster programs for the less fortunate.
I live directly on the bike path. I'm not a NIMBY person. I supported the controversial proposal to put in a bike-in restaurant that would have gone directly behind my house. But putting safety lights up on the path is like adding extra padding to the concrete so users don't hurt themselves when they fall. It's simply not an issue and takes the responsibility for safe biking out of the hands of the users of the path, who have performed this duty well.
I'm a professional ecologist. I've deeply enjoyed the sounds of nature behind my house at night. Observing bats fly into the dusk sky and occasionally catching a view of an owl. I would be tremendously sad to see this degraded by lights that do not serve the greater good of our community or our place in the ecosystem.
I strongly urge you to use these funds for something that will elevate our wonderful city in more important ways.
Posted: 03/07/2012
I have lived on this path for the last 10 years and have never witnessed an accident because of lighting. If a biker wants to see at night then they should get a bike light. It is the law right? Why should my backyard be in full light all night long so that the occasional bike passing through can see? I currently have a couple of screach owls living in my yard, I guess I can say goodby to them so that a biker can see. If you don't feel safe using the path at night then don't use it. The destruction of this natural dark space is irreplaceable and should be left alone
I have lived on this path for the last 10 years and have never witnessed an accident because of lighting. If a biker wants to see at night then they should get a bike light. It is the law right? Why should my backyard be in full light all night long so that the occasional bike passing through can see? I currently have a couple of screach owls living in my yard, I guess I can say goodby to them so that a biker can see. If you don't feel safe using the path at night then don't use it. The destruction of this natural dark space is irreplaceable and should be left alone
Posted: 03/06/2012
Whose voices should be heard in this question? The bikers who fly through our neighborhood? Or those that live in it, walk in it, look at it? Would the Verona bikers pay for it? Or would the path's Madison neighbors? Listen to the voices of the people who would be most impacted over those coming from "somewhere else."
There are streetlights after all, and a biker needing more light can make that choice. What choice could a walker seeking a dark space out her door make once the expensive lights are installed?
I also read that promises were made NOT to light the path when the conduit went in. Must we continue the tradition of breaking all our promises, traditions, treaties?
What about low lights? By low, I mean 3 feet high. Real path lights, not street lights.
Whose voices should be heard in this question? The bikers who fly through our neighborhood? Or those that live in it, walk in it, look at it? Would the Verona bikers pay for it? Or would the path's Madison neighbors? Listen to the voices of the people who would be most impacted over those coming from "somewhere else."
There are streetlights after all, and a biker needing more light can make that choice. What choice could a walker seeking a dark space out her door make once the expensive lights are installed?
I also read that promises were made NOT to light the path when the conduit went in. Must we continue the tradition of breaking all our promises, traditions, treaties?
What about low lights? By low, I mean 3 feet high. Real path lights, not street lights.
Posted: 03/06/2012
My wife and I purchased a home along the stretch of path in question last spring and - as both a homeowner and path user - I oppose the plan to install lighting along it's length.
We regularly run and bike on the path and I can see the benefit of being able to do those things after sunset without grabbing a light. However, even without my own lights I already do those things after dark by making use of other roadways in the neighborhood that have streetlights. It might not be the most perfect or convenient solution but it allows us to preserve a unique area within the city.
One reason we bought our house is because of the serenity and out-of-the-way feel of the neighborhood. In my opinion the path as it exists strikes a perfect balance. With bike/running lights and common sense it is perfectly usable for recreation or transportation - even at night - and the lack of more formal lighting allows it to be a sanctuary for both people and animals that value the peace and quiet that darkness brings.
My wife and I purchased a home along the stretch of path in question last spring and - as both a homeowner and path user - I oppose the plan to install lighting along it's length.
We regularly run and bike on the path and I can see the benefit of being able to do those things after sunset without grabbing a light. However, even without my own lights I already do those things after dark by making use of other roadways in the neighborhood that have streetlights. It might not be the most perfect or convenient solution but it allows us to preserve a unique area within the city.
One reason we bought our house is because of the serenity and out-of-the-way feel of the neighborhood. In my opinion the path as it exists strikes a perfect balance. With bike/running lights and common sense it is perfectly usable for recreation or transportation - even at night - and the lack of more formal lighting allows it to be a sanctuary for both people and animals that value the peace and quiet that darkness brings.
Posted: 03/06/2012
Thanks for this forum. I live right on the SW Commuter path & strongly urge those considering the lighting options to go for DARK SKIES...human health is affected poorly from bright lights (need to produce that melatonin, seratonin and get deep sleep, avoid stress, depression and the like) wildlife is also adversely affected...we love our city-park bike path have no need for more 'security' via lights at night. Some of the adjacent n'hood streets are still quite dark, which is fine ( witness Fox Ave, near West Lawn & T. Joes, at night).
I live right here and feel safe as is. If individuals feel the need for more light, please have them light their own homes/driveways. This whole bike path area used to be just brush and woods and we all survivied, just fine.
Thanks for this forum. I live right on the SW Commuter path & strongly urge those considering the lighting options to go for DARK SKIES...human health is affected poorly from bright lights (need to produce that melatonin, seratonin and get deep sleep, avoid stress, depression and the like) wildlife is also adversely affected...we love our city-park bike path have no need for more 'security' via lights at night. Some of the adjacent n'hood streets are still quite dark, which is fine ( witness Fox Ave, near West Lawn & T. Joes, at night).
I live right here and feel safe as is. If individuals feel the need for more light, please have them light their own homes/driveways. This whole bike path area used to be just brush and woods and we all survivied, just fine.
Posted: 03/06/2012
First, and foremost, I learned a long time ago not to mess with owls.
Second, and more seriously, I believe this project lacks necessity, which is the primary prerequisite I consider when judging how my tax dollars are spent. Using at least $250K of city funds on a project that nearby citizens are clearly divided upon seems like a frivolous use of our taxes.
Perhaps if citizens living adjacent to the bike path (like myself), or even frequent night-time path users (and really, how many of those are we really talking?), can't be unanimous in seeing a need for these lights, then the government should step back and shelve this project until consistent, widespread support actually exists.
Really.
Sometimes it seems like city planners are just bored, trying to find increasingly silly ways to spend my money. I still get mad when I see people carrying flags across Monroe St. What ever happened to 'look both ways before crossing'?
Finally, to reiterate, let's do ourselves a favor not get on the bad side of owls.
First, and foremost, I learned a long time ago not to mess with owls.
Second, and more seriously, I believe this project lacks necessity, which is the primary prerequisite I consider when judging how my tax dollars are spent. Using at least $250K of city funds on a project that nearby citizens are clearly divided upon seems like a frivolous use of our taxes.
Perhaps if citizens living adjacent to the bike path (like myself), or even frequent night-time path users (and really, how many of those are we really talking?), can't be unanimous in seeing a need for these lights, then the government should step back and shelve this project until consistent, widespread support actually exists.
Really.
Sometimes it seems like city planners are just bored, trying to find increasingly silly ways to spend my money. I still get mad when I see people carrying flags across Monroe St. What ever happened to 'look both ways before crossing'?
Finally, to reiterate, let's do ourselves a favor not get on the bad side of owls.
Posted: 03/06/2012
It's clear from the posted comments that the majority of people impacted oppose this action. It's also evident that many cyclists understand and favor supporting the residents of the areas to be impacted. As mentioned, I'm guessing the people requesting this travesty are NOT the residents (as I am) who will be affected by the lighting! The core safety issue seems to be that pedestrians need to make themselves more visible to cyclists, something that could be accomplished without 250K worth of light pollution! Just because there is money earmarked for a project shouldn't mean it HAS to be spent! People need to take accountability for their safety and actions on the MULTI-USE path (please stop calling this the southwest "bike path"). Government needs to take accountability for its own previous promises and the opinions of its taxpaying residents. No matter how you present it, white LEDs on 20 foot poles are not unobtrusive! Goodbye, night sky! Take a hike, wildlife! Apparently, you're not as important as transient human beings who refuse to be considerate path users. How very depressing on many accounts.
It's clear from the posted comments that the majority of people impacted oppose this action. It's also evident that many cyclists understand and favor supporting the residents of the areas to be impacted. As mentioned, I'm guessing the people requesting this travesty are NOT the residents (as I am) who will be affected by the lighting! The core safety issue seems to be that pedestrians need to make themselves more visible to cyclists, something that could be accomplished without 250K worth of light pollution! Just because there is money earmarked for a project shouldn't mean it HAS to be spent! People need to take accountability for their safety and actions on the MULTI-USE path (please stop calling this the southwest "bike path"). Government needs to take accountability for its own previous promises and the opinions of its taxpaying residents. No matter how you present it, white LEDs on 20 foot poles are not unobtrusive! Goodbye, night sky! Take a hike, wildlife! Apparently, you're not as important as transient human beings who refuse to be considerate path users. How very depressing on many accounts.
Posted: 03/06/2012
We live on the bike path and I strongly support the installation of lighting on the bike path. I rode on the inaugural bike path run with then Mayor Bauman and city staff and I asked about lighting the path at that time. I was told the necessary conduit had already been installed and it was a matter of time before the path would be lighted. Well, better sooner than later. The main reason I support lighting is the safety of users and of those who dwell adjacent to the path. Lighting is effective as a crime deterrent. We have been broken into often enough to know that an unlighted bike path provides a ready approach and escape lane. Bring on the lights. I see no danger of devaluation or blight, whatever they might mean in this context.
We live on the bike path and I strongly support the installation of lighting on the bike path. I rode on the inaugural bike path run with then Mayor Bauman and city staff and I asked about lighting the path at that time. I was told the necessary conduit had already been installed and it was a matter of time before the path would be lighted. Well, better sooner than later. The main reason I support lighting is the safety of users and of those who dwell adjacent to the path. Lighting is effective as a crime deterrent. We have been broken into often enough to know that an unlighted bike path provides a ready approach and escape lane. Bring on the lights. I see no danger of devaluation or blight, whatever they might mean in this context.
Posted: 03/06/2012
I strongly SUPPORT lighting the SW bike path along this heavily traveled stretch. I am a frequent user of the path, and LIVE adjacent to it. I understand the concerns of neighbors opposed but believe more will benefit from the path being lit than be harmed by it remaining as is. Let's think of the greater good
I strongly SUPPORT lighting the SW bike path along this heavily traveled stretch. I am a frequent user of the path, and LIVE adjacent to it. I understand the concerns of neighbors opposed but believe more will benefit from the path being lit than be harmed by it remaining as is. Let's think of the greater good
Posted: 03/06/2012
I live near the Southwest Bike Path. My property backs up on it and I use it most days of the year, to commute to work 8 months a year, for errands and for the fun of taking off on the longer paths in the region. I am over 60 and have never felt unsafe on the bike pat, even at night. I was also on one of the Dudgeon Monroe Neighborhood Bike Path committee back when the city was developing the path. I remember clearly that we were promised that the conduits for electricity would not be used unless a serious need developed. That has not happened. Please leave well enough alone and don't disrupt our wildlife or our lives with expensive lighting systems that we don't need and don't want. Thank you.
I live near the Southwest Bike Path. My property backs up on it and I use it most days of the year, to commute to work 8 months a year, for errands and for the fun of taking off on the longer paths in the region. I am over 60 and have never felt unsafe on the bike pat, even at night. I was also on one of the Dudgeon Monroe Neighborhood Bike Path committee back when the city was developing the path. I remember clearly that we were promised that the conduits for electricity would not be used unless a serious need developed. That has not happened. Please leave well enough alone and don't disrupt our wildlife or our lives with expensive lighting systems that we don't need and don't want. Thank you.
Posted: 03/06/2012
I am a 10-11 month/year bicycle commuter on the Path since it opened. I am impressed by the many perceptive comments on this website. A rough estimate is that the comments are 4 to 1 against installation of lights.
I hope city staff and the alders pay attention to this data. It is much more quantifiable documentation than the "data" Ald. Solomon and the Bike Federation rep. used at the Edgewood meeting to justify this lighting proposal: they said they each had received "numerous calls" from potential and current path users who were asking for lights, saying the callers claimed they would winter bicycle commute if lights were installed.
If that were true, where have they been this February? Too COLD! Since Feb. 1 it has been light until 5:30, and on March 1 it was light until 6:15 pm. Yet the numbers of bicycle commuters have not noticeably increased. Why? Because even in this mild winter it's still often been a 10-20 degree windchill on my morning commute, even though it's 40 degrees at 4 or 5 p.m. Too cold for most people on the morning commute - that's boots, big mittens, face mask and goggles weather, a big hassle.
The slide show the city staff have on this website document that the highest path bicycle usage in August 2011 occured from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., the prime commuting hours. Additional more detailed data I received from Dave Dryer, Chief City Engineer, detailed the same pattern in Feb., 2010 and 2011; and in Dec. 2011 there were three times more riders than in Dec. 2010.
Why the large December difference? There was a huge storm on 12/7/2010, and a much colder and snowier winter - I resumed biking on Feb. 14, 2011. This past December it was mild, and I rode all winter except for a week in late January.
I also agree with a recent comment on this website that if bicyclists slow down after dark there is minimal risk of an accident with a pedestrian, even those who are unlighted. I have had close calls in summer and broad daylight, with someone riding way too fast for the crowded conditions. I have cringed at the close calls, especially with small children, who have as much right to be there as those of us who like to ride 20+ miles into the countryside.
We don't need more bikers on the crowded SW Path (summer) - a stated goal of Ald. Solomon at the Edgewood meeting. We need bikers to respect the multi-use nature of the path, and increase their speed only when they are in the countryside. We need to spend the $ not on lights, but on excellent signage to educate all about Path decorum, and on a bike cop or two.
I am a 10-11 month/year bicycle commuter on the Path since it opened. I am impressed by the many perceptive comments on this website. A rough estimate is that the comments are 4 to 1 against installation of lights.
I hope city staff and the alders pay attention to this data. It is much more quantifiable documentation than the "data" Ald. Solomon and the Bike Federation rep. used at the Edgewood meeting to justify this lighting proposal: they said they each had received "numerous calls" from potential and current path users who were asking for lights, saying the callers claimed they would winter bicycle commute if lights were installed.
If that were true, where have they been this February? Too COLD! Since Feb. 1 it has been light until 5:30, and on March 1 it was light until 6:15 pm. Yet the numbers of bicycle commuters have not noticeably increased. Why? Because even in this mild winter it's still often been a 10-20 degree windchill on my morning commute, even though it's 40 degrees at 4 or 5 p.m. Too cold for most people on the morning commute - that's boots, big mittens, face mask and goggles weather, a big hassle.
The slide show the city staff have on this website document that the highest path bicycle usage in August 2011 occured from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., the prime commuting hours. Additional more detailed data I received from Dave Dryer, Chief City Engineer, detailed the same pattern in Feb., 2010 and 2011; and in Dec. 2011 there were three times more riders than in Dec. 2010.
Why the large December difference? There was a huge storm on 12/7/2010, and a much colder and snowier winter - I resumed biking on Feb. 14, 2011. This past December it was mild, and I rode all winter except for a week in late January.
I also agree with a recent comment on this website that if bicyclists slow down after dark there is minimal risk of an accident with a pedestrian, even those who are unlighted. I have had close calls in summer and broad daylight, with someone riding way too fast for the crowded conditions. I have cringed at the close calls, especially with small children, who have as much right to be there as those of us who like to ride 20+ miles into the countryside.
We don't need more bikers on the crowded SW Path (summer) - a stated goal of Ald. Solomon at the Edgewood meeting. We need bikers to respect the multi-use nature of the path, and increase their speed only when they are in the countryside. We need to spend the $ not on lights, but on excellent signage to educate all about Path decorum, and on a bike cop or two.
Posted: 03/06/2012
I am a 10-11 month/year bicycle commuter on the Path since it opened. I am impressed by the many perceptive comments on this website. A rough estimate is that the comments are 4 to 1 against installation of lights.
I hope city staff and the alders pay attention to this data. It is much more quantifiable documentation than the "data" Ald. Solomon and the Bike Federation rep. used at the Edgewood meeting to justify this lighting proposal: they said they each had received "numerous calls" from potential and current path users who were asking for lights, saying the callers claimed they would winter bicycle commute if lights were installed.
If that were true, where have they been this February? Too COLD! Since Feb. 1 it has been light until 5:30, and on March 1 it was light until 6:15 pm. Yet the numbers of bicycle commuters have not noticeably increased. Why? Because even in this mild winter it's still often been a 10-20 degree windchill on my morning commute, even though it's 40 degrees at 4 or 5 p.m. Too cold for most people on the morning commute - that's boots, big mittens, face mask and goggles weather, a big hassle.
The slide show the city staff have on this website document that the highest path bicycle usage in August 2011 occured from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., the prime commuting hours. Additional more detailed data I received from Dave Dryer, Chief City Engineer, detailed the same pattern in Feb., 2010 and 2011; and in Dec. 2011 there were three times more riders than in Dec. 2010.
Why the large December difference? There was a huge storm on 12/7/2010, and a much colder and snowier winter - I resumed biking on Feb. 14, 2011. This past December it was mild, and I rode all winter except for a week in late January.
I also agree with a recent comment on this website that if bicyclists slow down after dark there is minimal risk of an accident with a pedestrian, even those who are unlighted. I have had close calls in summer and broad daylight, with someone riding way too fast for the crowded conditions. I have cringed at the close calls, especially with small children, who have as much right to be there as those of us who like to ride 20+ miles into the countryside.
We don't need more bikers on the crowded SW Path (summer) - a stated goal of Ald. Solomon at the Edgewood meeting. We need bikers to respect the multi-use nature of the path, and increase their speed only when they are in the countryside. We need to spend the $ not on lights, but on excellent signage to educate all about Path decorum, and on a bike cop or two.
I am a 10-11 month/year bicycle commuter on the Path since it opened. I am impressed by the many perceptive comments on this website. A rough estimate is that the comments are 4 to 1 against installation of lights.
I hope city staff and the alders pay attention to this data. It is much more quantifiable documentation than the "data" Ald. Solomon and the Bike Federation rep. used at the Edgewood meeting to justify this lighting proposal: they said they each had received "numerous calls" from potential and current path users who were asking for lights, saying the callers claimed they would winter bicycle commute if lights were installed.
If that were true, where have they been this February? Too COLD! Since Feb. 1 it has been light until 5:30, and on March 1 it was light until 6:15 pm. Yet the numbers of bicycle commuters have not noticeably increased. Why? Because even in this mild winter it's still often been a 10-20 degree windchill on my morning commute, even though it's 40 degrees at 4 or 5 p.m. Too cold for most people on the morning commute - that's boots, big mittens, face mask and goggles weather, a big hassle.
The slide show the city staff have on this website document that the highest path bicycle usage in August 2011 occured from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., the prime commuting hours. Additional more detailed data I received from Dave Dryer, Chief City Engineer, detailed the same pattern in Feb., 2010 and 2011; and in Dec. 2011 there were three times more riders than in Dec. 2010.
Why the large December difference? There was a huge storm on 12/7/2010, and a much colder and snowier winter - I resumed biking on Feb. 14, 2011. This past December it was mild, and I rode all winter except for a week in late January.
I also agree with a recent comment on this website that if bicyclists slow down after dark there is minimal risk of an accident with a pedestrian, even those who are unlighted. I have had close calls in summer and broad daylight, with someone riding way too fast for the crowded conditions. I have cringed at the close calls, especially with small children, who have as much right to be there as those of us who like to ride 20+ miles into the countryside.
We don't need more bikers on the crowded SW Path (summer) - a stated goal of Ald. Solomon at the Edgewood meeting. We need bikers to respect the multi-use nature of the path, and increase their speed only when they are in the countryside. We need to spend the $ not on lights, but on excellent signage to educate all about Path decorum, and on a bike cop or two.
Posted: 03/06/2012
Coming from a frequent user of this bike path who uses it during various periods of the day, I don't think this is an improvement ; but rather a step backwards. This path is one of the only routes people use for transportation that still retains a naturalistic quality. It is true that these lights would improve that safety of night time users. However, In my opinion this improvement is miniscule and the money that would be used to perform this project could be put to better use. If people want a brightly illuminated environment to travel through at night, they need not look farther than the city of madison, where nearly every road can be used as safe transportation. If these lights are installed, I believe they will end up daunting more users than they protect.
Coming from a frequent user of this bike path who uses it during various periods of the day, I don't think this is an improvement ; but rather a step backwards. This path is one of the only routes people use for transportation that still retains a naturalistic quality. It is true that these lights would improve that safety of night time users. However, In my opinion this improvement is miniscule and the money that would be used to perform this project could be put to better use. If people want a brightly illuminated environment to travel through at night, they need not look farther than the city of madison, where nearly every road can be used as safe transportation. If these lights are installed, I believe they will end up daunting more users than they protect.
Posted: 03/06/2012
Everyone I have talked to that regularly uses this section of path thinks this is a bad idea. People who have actually bothered to see the test lights (at night) generally think its worse than a bad idea.
This is one of the nicest paths in Madison, if not the state. Why on earth do people feel the need to junk it up? Do they think the bike path isn't an official piece of infrastructure unless it consumes fossil fuels? Are they trying to fulfill a narrow political agenda? Do they think they are being purveyers of "progress?"
I just don't get it, and I have been commuting and running on this path daily since it was built. I have often marveled at how nice it is to be here because I can always see great in the twilight (and usually even after dark for great distances) and don't have to continuously squint because of artificial lighting.
I always have a light on my bike and and a blinker if I am running, of course.
Arguments about Bikes vs pedestrian are specious at best and can be handled easily in different ways (how about a painted stripe down each side and some signage about it being a dark-sky preserve or something, for starters).
This is also basically a zero-crime area (at least in the UNLIT sections). I have only heard first-hand accounts of DAYTIME bike vs pedestrian mishaps or close calls. As it is now, people are generally pretty careful at night. Reflectors are now visible from great distances with even a modest bike light. These important visual cues would virtually disappear if there was lighting installed
I for one, would not feel as safe using the path after dark if my vision were curtailed by overhead lighting. I am a daily user that would get basically kicked off this path in the evening hours if this hare-brained scheme went through.
I am guessing that many or most of the proponents of this lighting scheme are not regular (e.g. commuter) users of this section of path. I am, and I think lighting it would basically trash one of the coolest things in Madison.
BTW, I agree with earlier writer who pointed out that the city is being a little sloppy by calling this a "Bike" path- it is a "multi-use" path in the truest sense of the term in this section.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Everyone I have talked to that regularly uses this section of path thinks this is a bad idea. People who have actually bothered to see the test lights (at night) generally think its worse than a bad idea.
This is one of the nicest paths in Madison, if not the state. Why on earth do people feel the need to junk it up? Do they think the bike path isn't an official piece of infrastructure unless it consumes fossil fuels? Are they trying to fulfill a narrow political agenda? Do they think they are being purveyers of "progress?"
I just don't get it, and I have been commuting and running on this path daily since it was built. I have often marveled at how nice it is to be here because I can always see great in the twilight (and usually even after dark for great distances) and don't have to continuously squint because of artificial lighting.
I always have a light on my bike and and a blinker if I am running, of course.
Arguments about Bikes vs pedestrian are specious at best and can be handled easily in different ways (how about a painted stripe down each side and some signage about it being a dark-sky preserve or something, for starters).
This is also basically a zero-crime area (at least in the UNLIT sections). I have only heard first-hand accounts of DAYTIME bike vs pedestrian mishaps or close calls. As it is now, people are generally pretty careful at night. Reflectors are now visible from great distances with even a modest bike light. These important visual cues would virtually disappear if there was lighting installed
I for one, would not feel as safe using the path after dark if my vision were curtailed by overhead lighting. I am a daily user that would get basically kicked off this path in the evening hours if this hare-brained scheme went through.
I am guessing that many or most of the proponents of this lighting scheme are not regular (e.g. commuter) users of this section of path. I am, and I think lighting it would basically trash one of the coolest things in Madison.
BTW, I agree with earlier writer who pointed out that the city is being a little sloppy by calling this a "Bike" path- it is a "multi-use" path in the truest sense of the term in this section.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Posted: 03/06/2012
I write in opposition to this proposal.
Where's the money coming from? $250,000 is a lot of money. What won't get funded because these lights are installed?
What provisions have you made for protecting the wildlife that will be disrupted? My house backs up against the cemetery and golf course. Tucked in there is a bit of undeveloped woodland where local dog owners walk their dogs and kids ride their mountain bikes. Additionally, songbirds, owls, and hawks call this area home. Nighttime needs to be dark for these animals to thrive.
I live along the path and have always enjoyed the comings and goings of bicyclists, dog walkers, runners, and other folks over the years. I've also been grateful that the path has not intruded on my life too much. Installing overhead lights threatens this peaceful relationship between my household and the path. Please do not install lights on the Southwest Path
Susan Jane Watson
I write in opposition to this proposal.
Where's the money coming from? $250,000 is a lot of money. What won't get funded because these lights are installed?
What provisions have you made for protecting the wildlife that will be disrupted? My house backs up against the cemetery and golf course. Tucked in there is a bit of undeveloped woodland where local dog owners walk their dogs and kids ride their mountain bikes. Additionally, songbirds, owls, and hawks call this area home. Nighttime needs to be dark for these animals to thrive.
I live along the path and have always enjoyed the comings and goings of bicyclists, dog walkers, runners, and other folks over the years. I've also been grateful that the path has not intruded on my life too much. Installing overhead lights threatens this peaceful relationship between my household and the path. Please do not install lights on the Southwest Path
Susan Jane Watson
Posted: 02/27/2012
These photos show that the lights do not provide significant improvement for photographing the path. They don't demonstrate how the lights will limit visibility. Light pollution, especially glare lighting is a safety and a security risk. Glare lighting causes two problems with our eyes. First because it is typically a strong contrast to the night, any night vision we have built up ends. Our rod cells become saturated and overwhelmed as the cell's needed rhodopsin (which is the reason we eat high vitamin A foods, like carrrots) is broken down in the light. Rod cells are what we use to see in the dark and this light shuts down our night vision capabilities. The rod cells' sensitivity is a thousand times stronger than our color sensing cone cells, but it takes over forty minutes for our them to produce enough rhodopsin to achieve this capability, even longer for older eyes.
I was hit by a bicyclist in broad daylight on the path. The issue is not whether the cyclist can see. The Southwest Owl Path, as it is called by those who live nearby, is straight and there is plenty of natural light. One could navigate it with eyes closed. The problem is with cyclists that don't pay attention and move too fast. People need to wear reflectors and lights. I commute on the path everyday, year round. A better solution would be to put a bucket of lights and reflectors at the intersections. This could be done for a fraction of the cost of the proposed project and would preserve the night sky of a natural area.
These photos show that the lights do not provide significant improvement for photographing the path. They don't demonstrate how the lights will limit visibility. Light pollution, especially glare lighting is a safety and a security risk. Glare lighting causes two problems with our eyes. First because it is typically a strong contrast to the night, any night vision we have built up ends. Our rod cells become saturated and overwhelmed as the cell's needed rhodopsin (which is the reason we eat high vitamin A foods, like carrrots) is broken down in the light. Rod cells are what we use to see in the dark and this light shuts down our night vision capabilities. The rod cells' sensitivity is a thousand times stronger than our color sensing cone cells, but it takes over forty minutes for our them to produce enough rhodopsin to achieve this capability, even longer for older eyes.
I was hit by a bicyclist in broad daylight on the path. The issue is not whether the cyclist can see. The Southwest Owl Path, as it is called by those who live nearby, is straight and there is plenty of natural light. One could navigate it with eyes closed. The problem is with cyclists that don't pay attention and move too fast. People need to wear reflectors and lights. I commute on the path everyday, year round. A better solution would be to put a bucket of lights and reflectors at the intersections. This could be done for a fraction of the cost of the proposed project and would preserve the night sky of a natural area.
Posted: 02/21/2012
The lighting proposal is ill-conceived and flawed on many levels, but here is some food for thought on a related issue:
This is a "multi-use" path. Why does the city now refer to it as a "Bike Path" on this web site and on the new intersection signs in the segment where lighting is proposed?.
These inaccurate signs and references should be changed.
The city should be more careful in wording signs and websites so as not to foster any sense of entitlement to a small subset of the users of this wonderful and unique segment of multi-use path.
In the adjacent section near campus, for example, the intersection signs say: "Southwest Path" then in smaller print: "Greenbush Link"
Also, does anyone else find it ironic that the (very flawed) test lights are near the sign that explains how "Nakoma" means "I do as I promise"
The current lighting proposal is the *OPPOSITE* of what was promised when the path was constructed:
"8. There should not be lighting unless most of the adjacent landowners request it. Requests should be considered on a block-by-block basis."
The above is from the "1998 Report of the Mayor's Committee for the Study of the Southwest Commuter Bicycle and Pedestrian Path"
The lighting proposal is ill-conceived and flawed on many levels, but here is some food for thought on a related issue:
This is a "multi-use" path. Why does the city now refer to it as a "Bike Path" on this web site and on the new intersection signs in the segment where lighting is proposed?.
These inaccurate signs and references should be changed.
The city should be more careful in wording signs and websites so as not to foster any sense of entitlement to a small subset of the users of this wonderful and unique segment of multi-use path.
In the adjacent section near campus, for example, the intersection signs say: "Southwest Path" then in smaller print: "Greenbush Link"
Also, does anyone else find it ironic that the (very flawed) test lights are near the sign that explains how "Nakoma" means "I do as I promise"
The current lighting proposal is the *OPPOSITE* of what was promised when the path was constructed:
"8. There should not be lighting unless most of the adjacent landowners request it. Requests should be considered on a block-by-block basis."
The above is from the "1998 Report of the Mayor's Committee for the Study of the Southwest Commuter Bicycle and Pedestrian Path"
Posted: 02/20/2012
A weekend bike path user, both in the day and evening hours, I don't believe in the installation of lights. I use a front and tail light on my bike and enjoy the peace of riding in the evening. It is also a wonderful place to star gaze in the city of Madison. I further worry about additional light pollution in the city and extend sympathies to neighbors of the bike path who will be affected by the excessive lighting.
A weekend bike path user, both in the day and evening hours, I don't believe in the installation of lights. I use a front and tail light on my bike and enjoy the peace of riding in the evening. It is also a wonderful place to star gaze in the city of Madison. I further worry about additional light pollution in the city and extend sympathies to neighbors of the bike path who will be affected by the excessive lighting.
Posted: 02/13/2012
Hi. I oppose this project in its current state. I am a frequent user (bicycle commuter) of the bikepath and live in the westmorland neighborhood. However, I do not live immediately adjacent the bikepath, so the increase in lights will not directly affect my property.
Aside from functionality, I value the darkness of this corridor. I love Madison for how it interweaves city with nature. In my opinion, lighting the path is an attempt to urbanize an area that does not need it.
I understand that this money is probably already budgeted, so whether it proceeds or not probably has little bearing on my taxes. Yet, as a matter of principal, I am not crazy about spending money on something that many people do not want, that will increase the city’s energy consumption, and that has negligible effect on safety.
Based on the proposed spacing, it appears as though full coverage is not the objective (which I am thankful for). Has the city explored the use of light bollards to achieve the desired coverage? LED bollards could focus the light down on the path with much less spill-over into the neighborhood and natural areas. Many fixtures can also hide the source below eye-level to avoid unwanted glare.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Hi. I oppose this project in its current state. I am a frequent user (bicycle commuter) of the bikepath and live in the westmorland neighborhood. However, I do not live immediately adjacent the bikepath, so the increase in lights will not directly affect my property.
Aside from functionality, I value the darkness of this corridor. I love Madison for how it interweaves city with nature. In my opinion, lighting the path is an attempt to urbanize an area that does not need it.
I understand that this money is probably already budgeted, so whether it proceeds or not probably has little bearing on my taxes. Yet, as a matter of principal, I am not crazy about spending money on something that many people do not want, that will increase the city’s energy consumption, and that has negligible effect on safety.
Based on the proposed spacing, it appears as though full coverage is not the objective (which I am thankful for). Has the city explored the use of light bollards to achieve the desired coverage? LED bollards could focus the light down on the path with much less spill-over into the neighborhood and natural areas. Many fixtures can also hide the source below eye-level to avoid unwanted glare.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Posted: 01/26/2012
I support lighting the trail as a bicyclist and walker because on balance it serves a useful purpose to increase safety and more widespread use. Of the objections, the City should pay most attention to a proposal to shut the lights off in the middle of the night by use of a timer. The complaints about the type of lighting are mostly obstructionist; no affordable system will ever provide the type of lighting that will satisfy all concerns. Let's get it done and not make this another twenty-year Madison planning project.
I support lighting the trail as a bicyclist and walker because on balance it serves a useful purpose to increase safety and more widespread use. Of the objections, the City should pay most attention to a proposal to shut the lights off in the middle of the night by use of a timer. The complaints about the type of lighting are mostly obstructionist; no affordable system will ever provide the type of lighting that will satisfy all concerns. Let's get it done and not make this another twenty-year Madison planning project.
Posted: 01/23/2012
I strongly support the installation of lights along the SW Commuter Path. I bike commute from my home in the Westmoreland Neighborhood the the east side of the isthmus. While I always use a bike light, I often encounter pedestrians walking along the path at night that are nearly impossible to see, even with the light I use. Some pedestrians use lights or reflective clothing, but the majority do not. I can not count the number of instances where I have had to maneuver out of the way of a pedestrian at the last minute because they were basically invisible. These last minute swerves are quite dangerous, especially during winter months when there is often some amount of snow or ice on the path.
Lighting the path would directly alleviate this problem, and would create a far safer commute for me and walk for the pedestrians.
I strongly support the installation of lights along the SW Commuter Path. I bike commute from my home in the Westmoreland Neighborhood the the east side of the isthmus. While I always use a bike light, I often encounter pedestrians walking along the path at night that are nearly impossible to see, even with the light I use. Some pedestrians use lights or reflective clothing, but the majority do not. I can not count the number of instances where I have had to maneuver out of the way of a pedestrian at the last minute because they were basically invisible. These last minute swerves are quite dangerous, especially during winter months when there is often some amount of snow or ice on the path.
Lighting the path would directly alleviate this problem, and would create a far safer commute for me and walk for the pedestrians.
Posted: 01/17/2012
Hello. I live at 555 Glen Drive and my property is adjacent to the bike path. On the other side of the path from me is the small park that used to be a quarry. I value very highly the darkness and ability to see the moon and stars at night. When I use the path, it is mostly to walk. I think that the city would be much better served either by providing education about and enforcement of the existing law, or providing white headlights and rear reflectors for people to use (like the flags provided to cross Monroe St.). If lights are absolutely necessary, why couldn't they be low hanging lights that shine on the path, not in the air?
I am very concerned about what these lights will do to my the value of my property and also concerned about unnecessary light pollution that will effect my quality of life. There is no criminal safety issue on the part of the path you want to put the lights on.
To summarize, I think that these lights are a very bad idea and oppose them. There are better solutions to this problem, and I think you should think it through and provide one.
Thank you for your time.
Jack Solock
Hello. I live at 555 Glen Drive and my property is adjacent to the bike path. On the other side of the path from me is the small park that used to be a quarry. I value very highly the darkness and ability to see the moon and stars at night. When I use the path, it is mostly to walk. I think that the city would be much better served either by providing education about and enforcement of the existing law, or providing white headlights and rear reflectors for people to use (like the flags provided to cross Monroe St.). If lights are absolutely necessary, why couldn't they be low hanging lights that shine on the path, not in the air?
I am very concerned about what these lights will do to my the value of my property and also concerned about unnecessary light pollution that will effect my quality of life. There is no criminal safety issue on the part of the path you want to put the lights on.
To summarize, I think that these lights are a very bad idea and oppose them. There are better solutions to this problem, and I think you should think it through and provide one.
Thank you for your time.
Jack Solock
Posted: 01/13/2012
My wife and I are responding to the recently introduced proposal for further lighting the Southwest Bike Path. We live at 583 Glen Drive where our lot backs up to the bike path. We have lived at this location for the past 24 years. At this time we are against further lighting of the bike path for the following reasons.
1) We do not believe safety is an issue that needs to be addressed with lighting. From a recent meeting held at Edgewood College, we learned that the primary reason for further lighting of the bike path was to increase safety. Until recently I biked to and from work eight months of the year using the bike path as one of my main routes. Until this meeting we were unaware of any safety concerns that would require lighting. When riding at night we have always used bike lights and believed them to be adequate. We are also unaware of any data that indicates safety is an issue that can be successfully mitigated with lighting. However, we do have concerns based on our observations of what takes place on the bike path. Observations include cars stopping for bicyclists at bike path intersections when there are no stop signs indicating they need to stop, bicyclists entering intersections and challenging drivers to stop, bicyclists moving way too fast given the width of the bike path and the number of users on the bike path, and pedestrians walking their dogs unleashed. This last activity is way too dangerous for all concerned.
2) We do not believe the current plans for lighting are well thought out. From the meeting at Edgewood College we learned that lighting would consist of LED fixtures resting atop 20 foot poles. We do not recall the distance between poles but our understanding is that lighting would not be continuous. Instead there would be gaps of darkness between areas of light. City staff believed that lighting just above the path would be more effective but that it would be more prone to vandalism. We have concerns with the current city plans. Meeting attendees raised doubts about the effectiveness of lighting where bicyclists must travel between bands of light and darkness. Some believed it to be debilitating. Because city staff were unable to address this concern at the meeting, we believe it needs to be addressed before the city goes forward. One audience member with an apparent background in lighting issues believes that if lighting is provided that it be lighting placed on a greater number of poles but just a few feet above the grade of the path. This appears to be a more expensive option but one that will actually work more effectively. This person's concern was that the City would go with a less functional option simply because it is cheaper. We are also concerned with lighting that would intrude on our privacy. During the meeting we learned that the City planned to keep the lights on well past periods of path peak usage. We do not understand this. Why would you keep the lights on way beyond hours of peak usage? Also, what will it cost to keep the bike path lit.
3) We believe that lighting will further erode the natural ambience of the corridor. We are fortunate to have this green space within our midst. We also need to remember we are not the only users of this corridor. There is wildlife that uses it as well. How will lighting affect these users? The issue of Invasive weeds is a major issue along the whole length of the corridor. Will the construction and maintenance associated with new lighting further disturb this area and make invasive weeds even more of a problem?
In conclusion, we are against lighting the bike path especially with lights atop 20 ft poles.
My wife and I are responding to the recently introduced proposal for further lighting the Southwest Bike Path. We live at 583 Glen Drive where our lot backs up to the bike path. We have lived at this location for the past 24 years. At this time we are against further lighting of the bike path for the following reasons.
1) We do not believe safety is an issue that needs to be addressed with lighting. From a recent meeting held at Edgewood College, we learned that the primary reason for further lighting of the bike path was to increase safety. Until recently I biked to and from work eight months of the year using the bike path as one of my main routes. Until this meeting we were unaware of any safety concerns that would require lighting. When riding at night we have always used bike lights and believed them to be adequate. We are also unaware of any data that indicates safety is an issue that can be successfully mitigated with lighting. However, we do have concerns based on our observations of what takes place on the bike path. Observations include cars stopping for bicyclists at bike path intersections when there are no stop signs indicating they need to stop, bicyclists entering intersections and challenging drivers to stop, bicyclists moving way too fast given the width of the bike path and the number of users on the bike path, and pedestrians walking their dogs unleashed. This last activity is way too dangerous for all concerned.
2) We do not believe the current plans for lighting are well thought out. From the meeting at Edgewood College we learned that lighting would consist of LED fixtures resting atop 20 foot poles. We do not recall the distance between poles but our understanding is that lighting would not be continuous. Instead there would be gaps of darkness between areas of light. City staff believed that lighting just above the path would be more effective but that it would be more prone to vandalism. We have concerns with the current city plans. Meeting attendees raised doubts about the effectiveness of lighting where bicyclists must travel between bands of light and darkness. Some believed it to be debilitating. Because city staff were unable to address this concern at the meeting, we believe it needs to be addressed before the city goes forward. One audience member with an apparent background in lighting issues believes that if lighting is provided that it be lighting placed on a greater number of poles but just a few feet above the grade of the path. This appears to be a more expensive option but one that will actually work more effectively. This person's concern was that the City would go with a less functional option simply because it is cheaper. We are also concerned with lighting that would intrude on our privacy. During the meeting we learned that the City planned to keep the lights on well past periods of path peak usage. We do not understand this. Why would you keep the lights on way beyond hours of peak usage? Also, what will it cost to keep the bike path lit.
3) We believe that lighting will further erode the natural ambience of the corridor. We are fortunate to have this green space within our midst. We also need to remember we are not the only users of this corridor. There is wildlife that uses it as well. How will lighting affect these users? The issue of Invasive weeds is a major issue along the whole length of the corridor. Will the construction and maintenance associated with new lighting further disturb this area and make invasive weeds even more of a problem?
In conclusion, we are against lighting the bike path especially with lights atop 20 ft poles.
Posted: 01/09/2012
I live right in the middle of the steep section of the SW Path between Glenway and Commonwealth. After attending the Dec 12th public meeting, talking to my neighbors and others along and across the path farther west, and reading comments on the city site and on neighborhood blogs, my strong impression is this plan isn’t really ready for prime time. It needs more than a tweak.
Basically, the case for continuous path lighting is not yet convincing as the answer to visibility problems that some users raise.
Have been any efforts to educate or change behavior in terms of user etiquette and caution? Has there been occasional patrolling by bike monitors? If, currently, path users aren’t required to have lights/vests that allow them to see farther down the path or to see each other, perhaps a trial city program pushing more responsible use of paths at night is one answer. This could be paired with neighborhood association meetings to reinforce safety and monitor these actions' success or failure.
If that doesn’t work, the trial period can stlll be used to research better lighting options for sections of the path where users and residents appreciate both the challenges of commuting/walking in the dark and the advantages of refraining from over-lighting residents’ back yards/windows, not to mention—and this is really just as important in some neighborhoods-stretches of natural areas/woods/quiet. The path ISN’T like most city streets for many reasons, and I'm encouraged that city staff will pay attention to its unique quality, as well as variety of uses. I'm also hoping the idea of lighting
doesn't mean every section has to be lighted, or lighted in one fell swoop, or even
lighted with the same type/intensity of lights.
More time, more options, more discussion, please. For more than one segment of this path, rows of lights on poles will have a negative impact on our personal and/or natural environment. And many homeowners and users are already coping with the path’s limitations after dark just fine by being cautious and pro-active.
Thanks for providing another forum for responding to this idea, as well as giving users time to check out test lights in a couple of areas. One thing that already works, though: lights at intersections of the path with city streets or entrance/exit ramps. I’d suggest spending some of the money set aside for this project on better lighting in places like Glenway/SW path, so drivers can see pedestrians and cyclists about to cross, and users can see stop signs. I also noted more than a few folks commented on the possibility of lights (could be imbedded and soft) under bridges as well.
I live right in the middle of the steep section of the SW Path between Glenway and Commonwealth. After attending the Dec 12th public meeting, talking to my neighbors and others along and across the path farther west, and reading comments on the city site and on neighborhood blogs, my strong impression is this plan isn’t really ready for prime time. It needs more than a tweak.
Basically, the case for continuous path lighting is not yet convincing as the answer to visibility problems that some users raise.
Have been any efforts to educate or change behavior in terms of user etiquette and caution? Has there been occasional patrolling by bike monitors? If, currently, path users aren’t required to have lights/vests that allow them to see farther down the path or to see each other, perhaps a trial city program pushing more responsible use of paths at night is one answer. This could be paired with neighborhood association meetings to reinforce safety and monitor these actions' success or failure.
If that doesn’t work, the trial period can stlll be used to research better lighting options for sections of the path where users and residents appreciate both the challenges of commuting/walking in the dark and the advantages of refraining from over-lighting residents’ back yards/windows, not to mention—and this is really just as important in some neighborhoods-stretches of natural areas/woods/quiet. The path ISN’T like most city streets for many reasons, and I'm encouraged that city staff will pay attention to its unique quality, as well as variety of uses. I'm also hoping the idea of lighting
doesn't mean every section has to be lighted, or lighted in one fell swoop, or even
lighted with the same type/intensity of lights.
More time, more options, more discussion, please. For more than one segment of this path, rows of lights on poles will have a negative impact on our personal and/or natural environment. And many homeowners and users are already coping with the path’s limitations after dark just fine by being cautious and pro-active.
Thanks for providing another forum for responding to this idea, as well as giving users time to check out test lights in a couple of areas. One thing that already works, though: lights at intersections of the path with city streets or entrance/exit ramps. I’d suggest spending some of the money set aside for this project on better lighting in places like Glenway/SW path, so drivers can see pedestrians and cyclists about to cross, and users can see stop signs. I also noted more than a few folks commented on the possibility of lights (could be imbedded and soft) under bridges as well.
Posted: 01/09/2012
I bike the SW path frequently after dark, and there are two very serious problems due to the lack of lighting.
First, most non-bike users have no lighting or reflective clothing that is visible to cyclists with moderately bright lights. While I ride at a very modest pace, I have had several near collisions with darkly clothed pedestrians and joggers whom I could not see.
Second, more cyclists are riding with very intensely bright lights, and these blind oncoming cyclists and make it impossible to see our placement on the path, and to see pedestrians we might otherwise see in the absence of these lights in our eyes.
Modest path lighting would resolve both these problems.
I believe the concerns expressed by adjacent homeowners are overblown. The impact of low-intensity, downcast lighting would be far less than that from many of the porch lights that are commonly left on at homes all over our neighborhoods. Proposed path lighting would also be far, far less annoying than existing street lighting, as well.
I bike the SW path frequently after dark, and there are two very serious problems due to the lack of lighting.
First, most non-bike users have no lighting or reflective clothing that is visible to cyclists with moderately bright lights. While I ride at a very modest pace, I have had several near collisions with darkly clothed pedestrians and joggers whom I could not see.
Second, more cyclists are riding with very intensely bright lights, and these blind oncoming cyclists and make it impossible to see our placement on the path, and to see pedestrians we might otherwise see in the absence of these lights in our eyes.
Modest path lighting would resolve both these problems.
I believe the concerns expressed by adjacent homeowners are overblown. The impact of low-intensity, downcast lighting would be far less than that from many of the porch lights that are commonly left on at homes all over our neighborhoods. Proposed path lighting would also be far, far less annoying than existing street lighting, as well.
Posted: 01/09/2012
I have been a resident in the 3300 block of Gregory St. since 1994. I bought my house because of my love of trains, so of course I have never been a true supporter of the SW Bike Path. I truly miss trains coming through. I have tried to be accepting of it, because I know it is very popular and heavily traveled by walkers, runners and bikers. I won't share all the problems I have experienced with the path since my property is ground-level and an easy "short-cut" to/from Gregory and Copeland - I tried that recently with all of our alderpersons and not one responded back to me. What I will say is that our entire block was opposed to lights on the path back when the path was first proposed, and we still feel that way today. Our bedrooms face the path. We do not want extra lighting at night for the few bikers who use the path after dark. If I understand my alderperson's comments that 100's of people have requested lighting, what are the chances a large majority of those "hundreds" don't live on the path? If someone is reading and tallying the comments on this page, a LARGE majority of the comments are AGAINST lights. There certainly aren't 100's of comments in support of lights. Please listen to the residents on the path that will have to endure excessive lighting. Let's spend the money on law enforcement instead so that everyone is safe on the path and everyone follows the very simple rules of stopping at stop signs, going at a safe speed, staying on the right side of traffic flow, etc. etc. etc. Thank you very much.
I have been a resident in the 3300 block of Gregory St. since 1994. I bought my house because of my love of trains, so of course I have never been a true supporter of the SW Bike Path. I truly miss trains coming through. I have tried to be accepting of it, because I know it is very popular and heavily traveled by walkers, runners and bikers. I won't share all the problems I have experienced with the path since my property is ground-level and an easy "short-cut" to/from Gregory and Copeland - I tried that recently with all of our alderpersons and not one responded back to me. What I will say is that our entire block was opposed to lights on the path back when the path was first proposed, and we still feel that way today. Our bedrooms face the path. We do not want extra lighting at night for the few bikers who use the path after dark. If I understand my alderperson's comments that 100's of people have requested lighting, what are the chances a large majority of those "hundreds" don't live on the path? If someone is reading and tallying the comments on this page, a LARGE majority of the comments are AGAINST lights. There certainly aren't 100's of comments in support of lights. Please listen to the residents on the path that will have to endure excessive lighting. Let's spend the money on law enforcement instead so that everyone is safe on the path and everyone follows the very simple rules of stopping at stop signs, going at a safe speed, staying on the right side of traffic flow, etc. etc. etc. Thank you very much.
Posted: 01/09/2012
Although I live above grade on the bike path I oppose lighting on the basis of cost, and unproven need. The $205 to $300 Thousand mentioned, plus annual upkeep, might instead be used to lower the taxes of those of us living on limited incomes, who have lived along the train/bike corridor forever and have no wish to move from our homes, yet wonder how much longer we can hold on as taxes inexorably rise year to year. Haven't we the same "rights" as those who choose to use the corridor after dark?
Although I live above grade on the bike path I oppose lighting on the basis of cost, and unproven need. The $205 to $300 Thousand mentioned, plus annual upkeep, might instead be used to lower the taxes of those of us living on limited incomes, who have lived along the train/bike corridor forever and have no wish to move from our homes, yet wonder how much longer we can hold on as taxes inexorably rise year to year. Haven't we the same "rights" as those who choose to use the corridor after dark?
Posted: 01/09/2012
Although I live above grade on the bike path I oppose lighting on the basis of cost, and unproven need. The $205 to $300 Thousand mentioned, plus annual upkeep, might instead be used to lower the taxes of those of us living on limited incomes, who have lived along the train/bike corridor forever and have no wish to move from our homes, yet wonder how much longer we can hold on as taxes inexorably rise year to year. Haven't we the same "rights" as those who choose to use the corridor after dark?
Although I live above grade on the bike path I oppose lighting on the basis of cost, and unproven need. The $205 to $300 Thousand mentioned, plus annual upkeep, might instead be used to lower the taxes of those of us living on limited incomes, who have lived along the train/bike corridor forever and have no wish to move from our homes, yet wonder how much longer we can hold on as taxes inexorably rise year to year. Haven't we the same "rights" as those who choose to use the corridor after dark?
Posted: 01/09/2012
Many in the Madison area commute by bike and do so for many reasons, the most admirable of which is, perhaps, the desire to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution and keep our air cleaner for all. Lighting the path sounds like a good idea to those who believe it would increase ridership. I too am a bike rider and understand this belief. There are, however, many types of pollution, and light pollution is one that those of us living near the path would also like to reduce. Many of us living between Commonwealth and Glenway understand the social as well as ecological benefits of maintaining darkness in the wooded areas that border the bike path near our homes. The area is home to much wildlife and for those who venture outside on a dark winter night, owls can be heard in the woods by the cemetery. My wife and I have often walked with our children up to the cemetery at night - in every season - simply to gaze at the moon or learn the constellations or listen to the haunting call of a barred owl on the hunt. Unfortunately, there are those who do not understand that darkness too is a resource and one that has been too easily squandered in most places by those who do not stop to learn its real value and uses. I strongly oppose this idea of lighting the path and squandering the opportunity for families in our neighborhood to teach their children what it is to know the night sky and the creatures that live in it. I understand that this lighting proposal has been developed on the basis of several calls from several bike riders. To throw away the darkness because a few oppose it is not right.
Many in the Madison area commute by bike and do so for many reasons, the most admirable of which is, perhaps, the desire to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution and keep our air cleaner for all. Lighting the path sounds like a good idea to those who believe it would increase ridership. I too am a bike rider and understand this belief. There are, however, many types of pollution, and light pollution is one that those of us living near the path would also like to reduce. Many of us living between Commonwealth and Glenway understand the social as well as ecological benefits of maintaining darkness in the wooded areas that border the bike path near our homes. The area is home to much wildlife and for those who venture outside on a dark winter night, owls can be heard in the woods by the cemetery. My wife and I have often walked with our children up to the cemetery at night - in every season - simply to gaze at the moon or learn the constellations or listen to the haunting call of a barred owl on the hunt. Unfortunately, there are those who do not understand that darkness too is a resource and one that has been too easily squandered in most places by those who do not stop to learn its real value and uses. I strongly oppose this idea of lighting the path and squandering the opportunity for families in our neighborhood to teach their children what it is to know the night sky and the creatures that live in it. I understand that this lighting proposal has been developed on the basis of several calls from several bike riders. To throw away the darkness because a few oppose it is not right.
Posted: 01/09/2012
I have used the path daily to commute downtown for a previous job, and hope to be able to do so again in the near future. I believe the lights proposed are overkill both too tall, too bright and too widely spaced to achieve their stated goals. I am aware of research that indicates more lighting often makes areas like this more attractive to crime. While I don't live along the bike path, I support the concerns of neighbors who would like to protect nighttime darkness surrounding their homes. I often wish something could be done about the bright and very tall light that shines in front of my own home, as well as the spotlight-style lights in the backyards of my immediate neighbors. I would support lower bollard-style lighting, if it were solar-powered.
I have used the path daily to commute downtown for a previous job, and hope to be able to do so again in the near future. I believe the lights proposed are overkill both too tall, too bright and too widely spaced to achieve their stated goals. I am aware of research that indicates more lighting often makes areas like this more attractive to crime. While I don't live along the bike path, I support the concerns of neighbors who would like to protect nighttime darkness surrounding their homes. I often wish something could be done about the bright and very tall light that shines in front of my own home, as well as the spotlight-style lights in the backyards of my immediate neighbors. I would support lower bollard-style lighting, if it were solar-powered.
Posted: 01/06/2012
The path is a multi use path. It is enjoyed by many seekers of dark spaces and star gazing and is right in the middle of our environs. It is valuable as such. Lights on the path will not only brighten the path, but also our bedroom windows. I know. I have one of these light poles in my back yard. I would favor lights that are four feet high, lighting the path only, or nothing at all. I do not see the need to light up every corner of Madison. Bike commuters travelling after dark can use many well lit and well maintained roads, which we already light. Why give up something to get more of what we already have? Not to mention the cost. If we want to spend money, I would favor having the city take out invasives, and plant wildflowers and low maintenance prairie.
The path is a multi use path. It is enjoyed by many seekers of dark spaces and star gazing and is right in the middle of our environs. It is valuable as such. Lights on the path will not only brighten the path, but also our bedroom windows. I know. I have one of these light poles in my back yard. I would favor lights that are four feet high, lighting the path only, or nothing at all. I do not see the need to light up every corner of Madison. Bike commuters travelling after dark can use many well lit and well maintained roads, which we already light. Why give up something to get more of what we already have? Not to mention the cost. If we want to spend money, I would favor having the city take out invasives, and plant wildflowers and low maintenance prairie.
Posted: 01/06/2012
I am opposed to lighting the bike path as it is proposed. I walk the bike path daily and at different times of day. I believe lighting the bike path as it is proposed is not the solution to the poorly defined problem. If safety is the issue, I would rather see the city spend money on education and law enforcement first. Where is any evidence that lighting the bike path in the manner proposed will improve safety? If users of the path use common sense and make themselves visible, ride at safe speeds and obey stop signs, be courteous to others, i.e. don't walk or ride 4 abreast when others on on the path, and use the path as intended, I wonder if there would be the near misses that have been reported. I've witness bikers riding too fast and not give warning when coming up behind, walkers and joggers engaged in conversation completely unaware of what is going on around them, small children left to play on the path while their parents visit, and unsupervised young children on skate boards who don't have the skills to navigate others or the maturity to make safe decisions.
I am opposed to lighting the bike path as it is proposed. I walk the bike path daily and at different times of day. I believe lighting the bike path as it is proposed is not the solution to the poorly defined problem. If safety is the issue, I would rather see the city spend money on education and law enforcement first. Where is any evidence that lighting the bike path in the manner proposed will improve safety? If users of the path use common sense and make themselves visible, ride at safe speeds and obey stop signs, be courteous to others, i.e. don't walk or ride 4 abreast when others on on the path, and use the path as intended, I wonder if there would be the near misses that have been reported. I've witness bikers riding too fast and not give warning when coming up behind, walkers and joggers engaged in conversation completely unaware of what is going on around them, small children left to play on the path while their parents visit, and unsupervised young children on skate boards who don't have the skills to navigate others or the maturity to make safe decisions.
Posted: 01/06/2012
I oppose lighting the bike path. Many of the people that live along the path oppose the lighting and since its in their backyard, I think their opinions should carry extra weight. Also, the $250K cost is a significant expenditure that could positively impact more people than the number of path users who support the lights. Since its an individual decision to use the path after dark, it should be an individual responsibility to figure out a lighting option.
I oppose lighting the bike path. Many of the people that live along the path oppose the lighting and since its in their backyard, I think their opinions should carry extra weight. Also, the $250K cost is a significant expenditure that could positively impact more people than the number of path users who support the lights. Since its an individual decision to use the path after dark, it should be an individual responsibility to figure out a lighting option.
Posted: 01/06/2012
I am a regular commuter from Commonwealth Ave to downtown for work, and have been using the Southwest Path since it opened.
I am a 42 year old fit male and rarely feel unsafe anywhere. However, there have been enough times when I felt unsafe riding down the path that I felt compelled to write my alderman about this.
I use a bike light and reflective clothing. It is often so dark that I can't see anything outside my globe of light. I've come upon unlit pedestrians, patches of ice, and small animals scurrying across the path.
I would like to see some more light in there, especially under bridges and other places. Ideally it would be as unobtrusive to the neighbors as possible and environmentally friendly of course, like the bike path lights along University Ave.
Thanks for taking input.
I am a regular commuter from Commonwealth Ave to downtown for work, and have been using the Southwest Path since it opened.
I am a 42 year old fit male and rarely feel unsafe anywhere. However, there have been enough times when I felt unsafe riding down the path that I felt compelled to write my alderman about this.
I use a bike light and reflective clothing. It is often so dark that I can't see anything outside my globe of light. I've come upon unlit pedestrians, patches of ice, and small animals scurrying across the path.
I would like to see some more light in there, especially under bridges and other places. Ideally it would be as unobtrusive to the neighbors as possible and environmentally friendly of course, like the bike path lights along University Ave.
Thanks for taking input.
Posted: 01/06/2012
Lighting the bike path using the proposed technology is a great idea & I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness devoted to the project.
Lighting the bike path using the proposed technology is a great idea & I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness devoted to the project.
Posted: 01/05/2012
I encourage all to have a drive down Willy St and Northport Dr after dark to see how terribly BRIGHT AND BLINDING the proposed bikepath lights will be if they are installed.
I need to put my visor down so as not to be distracted from the road.
The photos of the lights provided at the Dec meeting at Edgewood appear to be the exact same light fixtures used for street lighting on these newly reconstructed roads.
Communication with the alder sent 12/14 for confirmation that these are the same lamps has not met response.
City Staff Response:
Technically this is incorrect. The lights proposed for the path are 53 watt. The wattage of lights used on street projects is 103 or 156 watts, depending on roadway geometry and other considerations.
The light housings are similar, but that is where the similarity ends--what you see in terms of light output--that is materially different.
I encourage all to have a drive down Willy St and Northport Dr after dark to see how terribly BRIGHT AND BLINDING the proposed bikepath lights will be if they are installed.
I need to put my visor down so as not to be distracted from the road.
The photos of the lights provided at the Dec meeting at Edgewood appear to be the exact same light fixtures used for street lighting on these newly reconstructed roads.
Communication with the alder sent 12/14 for confirmation that these are the same lamps has not met response.
City Staff Response:
Technically this is incorrect. The lights proposed for the path are 53 watt. The wattage of lights used on street projects is 103 or 156 watts, depending on roadway geometry and other considerations.
The light housings are similar, but that is where the similarity ends--what you see in terms of light output--that is materially different.
Posted: 01/04/2012
I am a Gregory Street resident and commute to work by bicycle year round on the Southwest Bike Path. Lighting our commuter bike paths is no different than lighting our streets. If Madison is truly a pedestrian and bike friendly city its bike trails should not be effectively closed by the sun going down.
I am a Gregory Street resident and commute to work by bicycle year round on the Southwest Bike Path. Lighting our commuter bike paths is no different than lighting our streets. If Madison is truly a pedestrian and bike friendly city its bike trails should not be effectively closed by the sun going down.
Posted: 01/03/2012
The 1998 "Report of the Committee for the Design of the Southwest Commuter Bike and Pedestrian Path" stated that there would be lighting on the path only when “most of the adjacent landowners request it,” that requests should be considered “on a block-by-block basis,” and that “the only exception to this is where lighting is needed for safety.”
My house is adjacent to the southwest bike path. None of my neighbors have requested lighting this section of the path. There are no safety issues in this section of the path. The current lighting proposal uses a non existing standard of 200 feet. This lighting proposal is arbitrary and capricious by Traffic Engineering.
The 1998 "Report of the Committee for the Design of the Southwest Commuter Bike and Pedestrian Path" stated that there would be lighting on the path only when “most of the adjacent landowners request it,” that requests should be considered “on a block-by-block basis,” and that “the only exception to this is where lighting is needed for safety.”
My house is adjacent to the southwest bike path. None of my neighbors have requested lighting this section of the path. There are no safety issues in this section of the path. The current lighting proposal uses a non existing standard of 200 feet. This lighting proposal is arbitrary and capricious by Traffic Engineering.
Posted: 01/03/2012
The pro-lighting comments on this site so far do not seem close to the large numbers sited by our alders. I would question why it has been found necessary to light the path now with very little discussion in advance in the neighborhoods abutting the path, very little notice in fact that this project was planned to the degree that it has been planned (to the point that sample lighting was installed with no notice), and very few concrete examples of incidents that make lighting necessary. We've had few accidents on the path; I ride the path daily in good weather and have never seen one. Crime is virtually nil. We have nearly as many walkers on the path as bikers. I see the numbers every day as I ride. I do not agree with the casual numbers given by the city indicating that bikers far outnumber walkers. I do not understand why walkers are given much less importance as path users than bikers; this is an obvious bias if you read and listen to what has been said. I say this as primarily a biker on the path myself; I still feel that walkers and nature lovers should be considered as important path users. When I moved in to a house on the path (railroad track) years ago, the rural feel of the tracks pulled me toward the area. Our kids ran and played freely in the area. I feel it has gone downhill since then. We all bemoan the lack of natural recreational areas for our children (Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder), but in situations like this, we make decisions in favor of industrial lighting. It's wrong. The proposed lighting will be a blight on the neighborhood and not just to certain sections. It will ruin the peace and serenity of many homes along the way.
The pro-lighting comments on this site so far do not seem close to the large numbers sited by our alders. I would question why it has been found necessary to light the path now with very little discussion in advance in the neighborhoods abutting the path, very little notice in fact that this project was planned to the degree that it has been planned (to the point that sample lighting was installed with no notice), and very few concrete examples of incidents that make lighting necessary. We've had few accidents on the path; I ride the path daily in good weather and have never seen one. Crime is virtually nil. We have nearly as many walkers on the path as bikers. I see the numbers every day as I ride. I do not agree with the casual numbers given by the city indicating that bikers far outnumber walkers. I do not understand why walkers are given much less importance as path users than bikers; this is an obvious bias if you read and listen to what has been said. I say this as primarily a biker on the path myself; I still feel that walkers and nature lovers should be considered as important path users. When I moved in to a house on the path (railroad track) years ago, the rural feel of the tracks pulled me toward the area. Our kids ran and played freely in the area. I feel it has gone downhill since then. We all bemoan the lack of natural recreational areas for our children (Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder), but in situations like this, we make decisions in favor of industrial lighting. It's wrong. The proposed lighting will be a blight on the neighborhood and not just to certain sections. It will ruin the peace and serenity of many homes along the way.
Posted: 01/03/2012
I do not think lighting should be installed. I bike the SW path regularly from my house two blocks north of the path to my office on campus in Spring/Summer/Fall and walk it in winter (I won't bike in winter not because it's dark, but because of ice). It's quite pleasant to walk in a very dark space at night, looking up at the stars when it's clear. There are very few places to do this in Madison.
$250K seems like a lot of money to spend so that bikers who don't have a light (but who are legally required to have one) can be more visible to others.
I do not think lighting should be installed. I bike the SW path regularly from my house two blocks north of the path to my office on campus in Spring/Summer/Fall and walk it in winter (I won't bike in winter not because it's dark, but because of ice). It's quite pleasant to walk in a very dark space at night, looking up at the stars when it's clear. There are very few places to do this in Madison.
$250K seems like a lot of money to spend so that bikers who don't have a light (but who are legally required to have one) can be more visible to others.
Posted: 01/03/2012
I live in the Summit Woods Neighborhood and do not support this lighting project. I frequently use the path at night to bike, run, or walk our dog. I've always used at least a headlamp and I rarely see any of the other users not using lights.
I lived on the east side near the path that starts off of Dempsey before the lights were installed there and did not see how it improved safety or increased commuting. Does the City have any data showing safety or commuting increased after lights were installed (2002?)?
The cost vs the the benefits that seem marginal at best seems irresponsible considering the budget constraints the City is facing. Beyond the cost for installation, what is the yearly cost for electricity and maintenance - can we really afford this? The path has been unlit for 10 years - is it really necessary?
I live in the Summit Woods Neighborhood and do not support this lighting project. I frequently use the path at night to bike, run, or walk our dog. I've always used at least a headlamp and I rarely see any of the other users not using lights.
I lived on the east side near the path that starts off of Dempsey before the lights were installed there and did not see how it improved safety or increased commuting. Does the City have any data showing safety or commuting increased after lights were installed (2002?)?
The cost vs the the benefits that seem marginal at best seems irresponsible considering the budget constraints the City is facing. Beyond the cost for installation, what is the yearly cost for electricity and maintenance - can we really afford this? The path has been unlit for 10 years - is it really necessary?
Posted: 01/03/2012
It looks like a compromise is definitely needed here, as vast numbers of people represent the views of opposite camps.
Possible consideration: Choose three people from each camp to sit down and work out a solution together with Alder Solomon. Make sure half of this group are folks who live below grade on the bike path, as those are the ones who stand to be impacted the most by the measure proposed by Alder Solomon at the December open meeting.
I don't live on the path; I use it for walking by day; I do not favor lighting it up with 20' white-bulb poles. Preserving view of the night sky and the wildlife habitat that frequent it would be my vote. That said, I think periodic signs on the path that are visible at night and say, "SEE & BE SEEN - LIGHT YOUR OWN WAY" would get the message across. If this isn't workable, then consider waist-high bollards that light the path but not neighboring backyards. If that isn't workable, consider lights that go off at 9:00 PM. If bicyclists fear crime on an unlit bike path
after 9:00 PM, they can use the city streets when there are fewer cars to contend with.
- Shawn Schey
It looks like a compromise is definitely needed here, as vast numbers of people represent the views of opposite camps.
Possible consideration: Choose three people from each camp to sit down and work out a solution together with Alder Solomon. Make sure half of this group are folks who live below grade on the bike path, as those are the ones who stand to be impacted the most by the measure proposed by Alder Solomon at the December open meeting.
I don't live on the path; I use it for walking by day; I do not favor lighting it up with 20' white-bulb poles. Preserving view of the night sky and the wildlife habitat that frequent it would be my vote. That said, I think periodic signs on the path that are visible at night and say, "SEE & BE SEEN - LIGHT YOUR OWN WAY" would get the message across. If this isn't workable, then consider waist-high bollards that light the path but not neighboring backyards. If that isn't workable, consider lights that go off at 9:00 PM. If bicyclists fear crime on an unlit bike path
after 9:00 PM, they can use the city streets when there are fewer cars to contend with.
- Shawn Schey
Posted: 01/03/2012
I bike and walk in the dark year-round and like some other commenters I go prepared - I have light-colored clothing, with a reflective vest and a flashing light when I walk and of course a front and back light on the bike. I also carry pepper spray and have an 85db alarm on a cord around my neck. I would NOT want those lights in my backyard - I am in the neighborhood where the path runs and just want to express my opposition to this entire plan. I really think that with all the shortages in the city budget that lighting bike paths should be a LOW priority - I can only imagine someone deciding not to increase EMS staffing or equipment or some similar critical safety service but by golly those bike paths would be lit! Each winter (when we have snow :( of course) the arguments go up about the bike paths being cleared before the streets, and even tho I know those are different sets of folks doing the work it still seems to show a skewed set of priorities. I do support the idea of having the lights on timers for minimal actual lighted use time, but I think that if users just use common sense and agree to share the space things could be much more compatible. People talk about the lights for "safety" but from what I read of the city proposal I don't see that as a reason for doing this at all...so why do we need these lights? Try walking and looking up at the stars and the owls swooping by, and then imagine looking up and getting a faceful of bright, blinding light instead...bummer. Will the lights also attract hordes of insects...I can imagine riding through a cloud of bugs under the light, while being detrimental to beneficial flying critters. Stop the lights please, before this is something that cannot be reversed...thanks.
I bike and walk in the dark year-round and like some other commenters I go prepared - I have light-colored clothing, with a reflective vest and a flashing light when I walk and of course a front and back light on the bike. I also carry pepper spray and have an 85db alarm on a cord around my neck. I would NOT want those lights in my backyard - I am in the neighborhood where the path runs and just want to express my opposition to this entire plan. I really think that with all the shortages in the city budget that lighting bike paths should be a LOW priority - I can only imagine someone deciding not to increase EMS staffing or equipment or some similar critical safety service but by golly those bike paths would be lit! Each winter (when we have snow :( of course) the arguments go up about the bike paths being cleared before the streets, and even tho I know those are different sets of folks doing the work it still seems to show a skewed set of priorities. I do support the idea of having the lights on timers for minimal actual lighted use time, but I think that if users just use common sense and agree to share the space things could be much more compatible. People talk about the lights for "safety" but from what I read of the city proposal I don't see that as a reason for doing this at all...so why do we need these lights? Try walking and looking up at the stars and the owls swooping by, and then imagine looking up and getting a faceful of bright, blinding light instead...bummer. Will the lights also attract hordes of insects...I can imagine riding through a cloud of bugs under the light, while being detrimental to beneficial flying critters. Stop the lights please, before this is something that cannot be reversed...thanks.
Posted: 01/03/2012
I am opposed to lighting the length of the bike path. That it is dark in the evenings isn't a new phenomenon, so the safety concerns attendant nightfall were not what the planners meant when they said lighting for "safety" concerns could prompt an amendment to the presumption of no-lighting.
We have been assured this proposed expense of nearly $300K is not due to the presence or conduct of unsavory characters prompting this investment so it sounds like darkness is the culprit.
It's light pollution, plain and simple, notwithstanding the friendliest of new lighting equipment.
I bike the path on an almost daily basis nine months of the year (and walk it the rest.)
I wonder if Trek Bicycle likes the lighting idea, come to think of it ....
Joan Knoebel
I am opposed to lighting the length of the bike path. That it is dark in the evenings isn't a new phenomenon, so the safety concerns attendant nightfall were not what the planners meant when they said lighting for "safety" concerns could prompt an amendment to the presumption of no-lighting.
We have been assured this proposed expense of nearly $300K is not due to the presence or conduct of unsavory characters prompting this investment so it sounds like darkness is the culprit.
It's light pollution, plain and simple, notwithstanding the friendliest of new lighting equipment.
I bike the path on an almost daily basis nine months of the year (and walk it the rest.)
I wonder if Trek Bicycle likes the lighting idea, come to think of it ....
Joan Knoebel
Posted: 01/03/2012
Interesting. A full review of all comments now on the three websites that address whether to light the SW Path (City of Madison, Isthmus DailyPage site and Bikies ListServ), discloses that most commentators oppose, rather than support, fixed lighting and that, of those expressing support, many expect any fixed lighting to be low-profile and/or solar-powered.
The City proposes fixed lighting, at $250K to $300K over a three mile span, to increase use and safety. Yet it says the Path needs that lighting because its use is far more than expected, so the first reason requires more explanation. If the goal is to take cars off the road, data must be collected to determine if fixed lighting would actually increase bike commuters during nighttime hours – with the major drop in nighttime commuters plainly being weather-related rather than light-related.
Advocates confirm that the “safety” concern is not crime-related (and, indeed, studies show that lighting a previously darkened area can substantially increase crime). It instead boils down to the fact that some traveling the SW Path at nighttime are not visible because they bike, walk or run in ways that make them hard to see.
The solution to this real problem is not, at least at this time, fixed lighting of the Path. In fact, fixed lighting on the path could cause walkers/runners to stop carrying their own lights (which could cause collisions with bikers whose night vision is eliminated through that fixed lighting) and could increase the number of bikers riding without lights, who would then continue to do so in poorly lit areas off the Path.
We should start with education and, if the problem persists, enforcement of the laws prohibiting bikers from riding at night without lighting. Changed behavior through education works best through humor. So how about taking a small fraction of the $250K to $300K budgeted for lighting the Path and instead posting occasional series of signs along it using the old “Burma Shave” signs as a model (http://burma-shave.org/). If lit signs is desired, that can be done with solar lighting and very low wattage on each sign. Here’s some examples (perhaps with the last “Be Safe” sign in “Burma Shave” lettering) to get the ball rolling:
A six-sign series for Path walkers/runners:
He dressed in black…
And couldn’t be seen.
Just saw his back…
In time to scream!
Light Your Own Way.
Be Safe.
A six-sign series for bikers riding without lights:
No lights on my ride…
Through the law says I gotta…
Not so cool to collide…
I guess next ride I oughta!
Light Your Own Way.
Be Safe.
Lots cheaper than fixed lighting of the whole path and it might have much better results – including the creative jingles that Madtown folks would undoubtedly develop.
Interesting. A full review of all comments now on the three websites that address whether to light the SW Path (City of Madison, Isthmus DailyPage site and Bikies ListServ), discloses that most commentators oppose, rather than support, fixed lighting and that, of those expressing support, many expect any fixed lighting to be low-profile and/or solar-powered.
The City proposes fixed lighting, at $250K to $300K over a three mile span, to increase use and safety. Yet it says the Path needs that lighting because its use is far more than expected, so the first reason requires more explanation. If the goal is to take cars off the road, data must be collected to determine if fixed lighting would actually increase bike commuters during nighttime hours – with the major drop in nighttime commuters plainly being weather-related rather than light-related.
Advocates confirm that the “safety” concern is not crime-related (and, indeed, studies show that lighting a previously darkened area can substantially increase crime). It instead boils down to the fact that some traveling the SW Path at nighttime are not visible because they bike, walk or run in ways that make them hard to see.
The solution to this real problem is not, at least at this time, fixed lighting of the Path. In fact, fixed lighting on the path could cause walkers/runners to stop carrying their own lights (which could cause collisions with bikers whose night vision is eliminated through that fixed lighting) and could increase the number of bikers riding without lights, who would then continue to do so in poorly lit areas off the Path.
We should start with education and, if the problem persists, enforcement of the laws prohibiting bikers from riding at night without lighting. Changed behavior through education works best through humor. So how about taking a small fraction of the $250K to $300K budgeted for lighting the Path and instead posting occasional series of signs along it using the old “Burma Shave” signs as a model (http://burma-shave.org/). If lit signs is desired, that can be done with solar lighting and very low wattage on each sign. Here’s some examples (perhaps with the last “Be Safe” sign in “Burma Shave” lettering) to get the ball rolling:
A six-sign series for Path walkers/runners:
He dressed in black…
And couldn’t be seen.
Just saw his back…
In time to scream!
Light Your Own Way.
Be Safe.
A six-sign series for bikers riding without lights:
No lights on my ride…
Through the law says I gotta…
Not so cool to collide…
I guess next ride I oughta!
Light Your Own Way.
Be Safe.
Lots cheaper than fixed lighting of the whole path and it might have much better results – including the creative jingles that Madtown folks would undoubtedly develop.
Posted: 12/22/2011
I biked from Breese to the Odana golf course 5 days a week, 9 months of the year, for the past 10 years. The rest of the time I was a pedestrian, wearing a reflective arm band and carrying a light. While I understand that lighting can make biking and walking easier, and may provide the feeling of safety, I don’t feel that lighting this area is essential. I agree that more education is needed to get all path users to be more visible. (Maybe we should push coat manufacturers to use reflective tape on all coats?) The few times that I wanted more light stemmed more from a fear of the dark, and a fear of crime. But there is not good evidence that more lighting would prevent crime. It would serve to make path users more visible to each other, but perhaps education would do just as well? A few times I had trouble identifying the edge of the path, but this could be fixed by painting the edge.
If the path must be lit the details of the lighting really matter, and the needs of the neighbors and other path users must be considered. One concern I have about the current lighting proposal is that the lights are far too bright, but spaced too far apart. We don’t need to be able to read by this light. Much less light would suffice to see other path users or to identify an intersection. The gaps between these bright lights are a problem because the eyes can’t adjust. This makes these areas more dangerous than no lighting at all. If the fixtures aren’t available to provide fewer lumens evenly spread over the same area, then I think we should wait until better lighting options are available.
If the consensus is to go ahead with the current lighting, I think we should limit the lighting to the peak commuting hours, for example 5-9 pm. There is no reason to light the path all night long if the primary purpose is to prevent collisions. This would also eliminate the need to light the path for much of the summer. This would cut down on the energy used and minimize light pollution for neighbors. Perhaps some areas, such as from Midvale to the Beltline, would not need lighting at all. I would make an exception for intersections, as it can be difficult to identify side paths (such as the Odana golf course and Hammersley connector paths) with a bike light.
I biked from Breese to the Odana golf course 5 days a week, 9 months of the year, for the past 10 years. The rest of the time I was a pedestrian, wearing a reflective arm band and carrying a light. While I understand that lighting can make biking and walking easier, and may provide the feeling of safety, I don’t feel that lighting this area is essential. I agree that more education is needed to get all path users to be more visible. (Maybe we should push coat manufacturers to use reflective tape on all coats?) The few times that I wanted more light stemmed more from a fear of the dark, and a fear of crime. But there is not good evidence that more lighting would prevent crime. It would serve to make path users more visible to each other, but perhaps education would do just as well? A few times I had trouble identifying the edge of the path, but this could be fixed by painting the edge.
If the path must be lit the details of the lighting really matter, and the needs of the neighbors and other path users must be considered. One concern I have about the current lighting proposal is that the lights are far too bright, but spaced too far apart. We don’t need to be able to read by this light. Much less light would suffice to see other path users or to identify an intersection. The gaps between these bright lights are a problem because the eyes can’t adjust. This makes these areas more dangerous than no lighting at all. If the fixtures aren’t available to provide fewer lumens evenly spread over the same area, then I think we should wait until better lighting options are available.
If the consensus is to go ahead with the current lighting, I think we should limit the lighting to the peak commuting hours, for example 5-9 pm. There is no reason to light the path all night long if the primary purpose is to prevent collisions. This would also eliminate the need to light the path for much of the summer. This would cut down on the energy used and minimize light pollution for neighbors. Perhaps some areas, such as from Midvale to the Beltline, would not need lighting at all. I would make an exception for intersections, as it can be difficult to identify side paths (such as the Odana golf course and Hammersley connector paths) with a bike light.
Posted: 12/22/2011
I use the bikepath for jogging in the early AM on weekdays. I don't think that the path needs to be lighted and I would tend to agree with the neighbors who don't want to have the light pollution and/or disturbance to area wildlife. As a regular jogger on the path, it only took one time for a biker to yell at me and "suggest" that I wear a red tail light. since i don't enjoy being yelled at by bikers (or anyone else) I promptly obtained a little red light, I wear a headlamp and the red tail light when running on the path during low-light times. If the regular users of the path would agree to wear lighting (front and back) during low-light hours and the bikers would agree that it's OK to slow down temporarily to pass pedestrians and joggers, this problem will go away. I love this bike path and appreciate its use as a major commuting corridor but I do not want to see it lit up like a Christmas tree. thanks!
I use the bikepath for jogging in the early AM on weekdays. I don't think that the path needs to be lighted and I would tend to agree with the neighbors who don't want to have the light pollution and/or disturbance to area wildlife. As a regular jogger on the path, it only took one time for a biker to yell at me and "suggest" that I wear a red tail light. since i don't enjoy being yelled at by bikers (or anyone else) I promptly obtained a little red light, I wear a headlamp and the red tail light when running on the path during low-light times. If the regular users of the path would agree to wear lighting (front and back) during low-light hours and the bikers would agree that it's OK to slow down temporarily to pass pedestrians and joggers, this problem will go away. I love this bike path and appreciate its use as a major commuting corridor but I do not want to see it lit up like a Christmas tree. thanks!
Posted: 12/22/2011
I use the Southwest path roughly 5 days and evenings per week across all seasons. As a bicycle commuter, I can appreciate the bicycle and pedestrian safety angle. I'm not a huge fan of the "ninja" cyclists and the "invisible" pedestrians using the path at night without lights, and I choose to use a simple LED front light and rear flasher to light my way and stay visible to others. However, I must say I also appreciate the night sky and moonlight when I run on the path or am biking home later in the evening, and if the two test lamps by Council Crest are an indication of what the entire length's system will be like, we can say good-bye to a bit of rural solitude among the bustle of the freeway and main streets. It is especially unique when it is snowing and the surrounding urban lights combined with the snowfall casts a sunset-like glow on the terrain. Perhaps people choose not to use bike lights or headlamps so they may enjoy the setting without driving out of town. The adjacent homeowners' concerns are legitimate as well (those test lamps are REALLY bright), but I think these "getaways" of sorts are a unique asset to the path system.
I use the Southwest path roughly 5 days and evenings per week across all seasons. As a bicycle commuter, I can appreciate the bicycle and pedestrian safety angle. I'm not a huge fan of the "ninja" cyclists and the "invisible" pedestrians using the path at night without lights, and I choose to use a simple LED front light and rear flasher to light my way and stay visible to others. However, I must say I also appreciate the night sky and moonlight when I run on the path or am biking home later in the evening, and if the two test lamps by Council Crest are an indication of what the entire length's system will be like, we can say good-bye to a bit of rural solitude among the bustle of the freeway and main streets. It is especially unique when it is snowing and the surrounding urban lights combined with the snowfall casts a sunset-like glow on the terrain. Perhaps people choose not to use bike lights or headlamps so they may enjoy the setting without driving out of town. The adjacent homeowners' concerns are legitimate as well (those test lamps are REALLY bright), but I think these "getaways" of sorts are a unique asset to the path system.
Posted: 12/21/2011
A recent City response to a comment is that the project length is "3.0 miles in length." At the 12/12 meeting, I heard the Breese to Beltline segment being represented as four miles. At three miles, however, the following calculations noted in a earlier comment needs correction. The City intends to use electricity from the grid. With 84% of grid electricity produced by coal, this suggests that, spaced at 190 feet over 15840 feet (3 miles), 53 watt light poles along the SW path would consume about forty four pounds of coal during each ten hour period they are lit. http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm.
Questions for staff: Is that calculation of projected coal consumption from installing lighting under the current proposal accurate? If not, could you provide estimates of anticipated ongoing energy consumption if this lighting is installed? Could you also provide the approximate hours per year that you anticipate the lighting to be lit? A prior City response expressed an intent to light the path at night even on the longest day of the year (near 9pm) and long after most commuters have biked home. It would be good to have that annual estimate of hours lit to calculate annual energy cost of the lighting if installed.
Related questions for City staff: Do you have any estimates for changes in the number of bike commuters using the path if lighting is installed (that should exclude recreational bikers since an expressed goal is to remove cars from the road)? If so, please state any data or sources on which those estimates are grounded. That would facilitate accurate calculations of net energy gain - or loss - and overall greenhouse gas effects from installing lighting on this three miles of the path. We could then properly evaluate the installation costs (minimum of $250,000) and ongoing economic costs (maintenance, utility, specialized trucks,etc.
Another question for staff: The 1998 "Report of the Committee for the Design of the Southwest Commuter Bike and Pedestrian Path" stated that there would be lighting on the path only when “most of the adjacent landowners request it,” that requests should be considered “on a block-by-block basis,” and that “the only exception to this is where lighting is needed for safety.” http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml. Lighting advocates admitted at the 12/12/11 meeting that there have been no crime safety concerns associated with the path - and the police officer at the meeting confirmed that the lighting pattern currently proposed could increase crime (so that exception is certainly not present on that basis). Please identify, “on a block-by-block basis,” those areas along the path where “most of the adjacent landowners" have requested lighting.
Finally, a prior comment supporting both lighting the path and widening the path. Realistically, if the lighting is installed, we have to assume that will lock in the width of the path for the foreseeable future. Unless the City indicates otherwise, we are effectively making that decision now.
We need concrete information, and neutral and reliable data, on which to make the important decisions implicated by this proposal. Thank you.
City Staff Response:
The hours of lights burning can't be determined until the Council has selected what time in the evening the lights will turn off.
We dont have data available to provide an estimated increase in the number of path users that would result if the path is lit. The goal of this project is two part-- to increase path usability for the people who are using it currently and to address the concerns of people who have provided they avoid the path because it is unlit.
There are no plans to widen the path at this time. Lights would not preclude widening a path.
A recent City response to a comment is that the project length is "3.0 miles in length." At the 12/12 meeting, I heard the Breese to Beltline segment being represented as four miles. At three miles, however, the following calculations noted in a earlier comment needs correction. The City intends to use electricity from the grid. With 84% of grid electricity produced by coal, this suggests that, spaced at 190 feet over 15840 feet (3 miles), 53 watt light poles along the SW path would consume about forty four pounds of coal during each ten hour period they are lit. http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm.
Questions for staff: Is that calculation of projected coal consumption from installing lighting under the current proposal accurate? If not, could you provide estimates of anticipated ongoing energy consumption if this lighting is installed? Could you also provide the approximate hours per year that you anticipate the lighting to be lit? A prior City response expressed an intent to light the path at night even on the longest day of the year (near 9pm) and long after most commuters have biked home. It would be good to have that annual estimate of hours lit to calculate annual energy cost of the lighting if installed.
Related questions for City staff: Do you have any estimates for changes in the number of bike commuters using the path if lighting is installed (that should exclude recreational bikers since an expressed goal is to remove cars from the road)? If so, please state any data or sources on which those estimates are grounded. That would facilitate accurate calculations of net energy gain - or loss - and overall greenhouse gas effects from installing lighting on this three miles of the path. We could then properly evaluate the installation costs (minimum of $250,000) and ongoing economic costs (maintenance, utility, specialized trucks,etc.
Another question for staff: The 1998 "Report of the Committee for the Design of the Southwest Commuter Bike and Pedestrian Path" stated that there would be lighting on the path only when “most of the adjacent landowners request it,” that requests should be considered “on a block-by-block basis,” and that “the only exception to this is where lighting is needed for safety.” http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml. Lighting advocates admitted at the 12/12/11 meeting that there have been no crime safety concerns associated with the path - and the police officer at the meeting confirmed that the lighting pattern currently proposed could increase crime (so that exception is certainly not present on that basis). Please identify, “on a block-by-block basis,” those areas along the path where “most of the adjacent landowners" have requested lighting.
Finally, a prior comment supporting both lighting the path and widening the path. Realistically, if the lighting is installed, we have to assume that will lock in the width of the path for the foreseeable future. Unless the City indicates otherwise, we are effectively making that decision now.
We need concrete information, and neutral and reliable data, on which to make the important decisions implicated by this proposal. Thank you.
City Staff Response:
The hours of lights burning can't be determined until the Council has selected what time in the evening the lights will turn off.
We dont have data available to provide an estimated increase in the number of path users that would result if the path is lit. The goal of this project is two part-- to increase path usability for the people who are using it currently and to address the concerns of people who have provided they avoid the path because it is unlit.
There are no plans to widen the path at this time. Lights would not preclude widening a path.
Posted: 12/21/2011
The City response to the last comment (others may intervene before this gets posted, is that the project length is "3.0 miles in length." Excuse me? The Breese to Beltline path has always been referenced - from 1998 forward through the 12/12 meeting - when it was expressly referenced as a four mile length - as being four miles. Analysis and comments has been been based on those representations.
Could we get some good and reliable data on at least this point, if not on anything else? The lack of reliable data, on this project that would make permanent and significant to the environment and the people within the City, is simply astounding - particularly with the scarce tax dollars involved.
Please state clearly what the length is and, if it is three miles rather than four, why that is just being stated now - in the only comment to a rather lengthy and cogent comment.
City Staff Response:
The distance from Breese to just North of the Bridge over the Beltline Hwy is approximately 3 miles--the limits of the project. This distance was provided at the Nghd meeting.
The City response to the last comment (others may intervene before this gets posted, is that the project length is "3.0 miles in length." Excuse me? The Breese to Beltline path has always been referenced - from 1998 forward through the 12/12 meeting - when it was expressly referenced as a four mile length - as being four miles. Analysis and comments has been been based on those representations.
Could we get some good and reliable data on at least this point, if not on anything else? The lack of reliable data, on this project that would make permanent and significant to the environment and the people within the City, is simply astounding - particularly with the scarce tax dollars involved.
Please state clearly what the length is and, if it is three miles rather than four, why that is just being stated now - in the only comment to a rather lengthy and cogent comment.
City Staff Response:
The distance from Breese to just North of the Bridge over the Beltline Hwy is approximately 3 miles--the limits of the project. This distance was provided at the Nghd meeting.
Posted: 12/20/2011
The recent proposal to install continuous lighting for four miles along the Southwest Bike path is another example of planning that, though well intended, is likely to add to the negative effects of human urbanization on wildlife and to increase the carbon footprint of the City. The Southwest Bike path runs through older neighborhoods that were once forested or set on the edge of wetlands. Wooded areas in associated with the Forest Lawn Cemetery, The Glenway Golf Course and the Jen Jensen Children’s Park and the city right of way add to the wooded canopy and provide a hint of the ecological diversity that once existed in the areas. Native American effigy mounds created approximately 1,000 years add to the ceremonial landscape of Forest Lawn Cemetery and the seep of history into modern consciousness. The effigy mounds are within steps of the bike path. Walking the bike or riding the bike path on a dark night allows for vivid reminders about the mound builders and their ability to live light on the land. Continuous lighting and the associated pole structures, will add to the deterioration of this unique and special place and life in the City.
In a time when the City budget is so tight, it would seem that the $250,000 estimate for this lighting proposal, which is likely to cost more, could be better spent. Bike riders who ride on public roads need to use good lights to be seen and to see the chuck holes and in our roadways and the broken glass that all too often punctures bike tires. Not using adequate lights is irresponsible behavior and by lighting the bike path so that bikes can see almost as well at night as they can in the day would only encourage irresponsible behavior. Bike commuters must ride on public roads in order to access the bike path and they would either already have bike lights or should be encouraged to use lights. The carbon footprint of commuters using 2 watt bike lights for the time required to pedal home at night is likely to be significantly smaller than the energy costs of the planned installation and running of these lights, not to mention the maintenance of the lights and poles by large trucks on the path. Perhaps the money would be better spent on signage that reminds bikers and walkers to use lights at night and to provide free lights to those in need. A private biking company partner might even be willing to help with the advertising or in providing part of the cost of those free lights.
Though not a goal of the original plan, the Southwest Bike Path using the old rail road bed, runs through one of the few, if not the only, forested and unlit transportation corridors left in the city. It is a special place, not only for the opportunity to get closer to nature, but for keeping our carbon footprints smaller. Many people remain or choose to live in Madison because of the proximity of green spaces and rustic nature opportunities. Others make the choice to live and work in Madison in order to reduce their personal carbon footprint by not commuting into the city from a rural residence. Some residents also commute on the bike path either to reduce carbon footprints or to save money, with the additional bonus of receiving exercise. Residents of the city often choose recreation options that include the Southwest Bike Trail and other trails, rather than putting a foot to the gas pedal to find escape from urbanization. Cities can have joys and surprises within them that can attract people to raise families and live in an urbanized environment. To attract people to stay in the city variety and unique places are necessary to engage the human mind and spirit. Cities can’t protect people from everything, though efforts to do so can deprive people of a lot of pleasure.
There are numerous articles that chronicle the effects of night light pollution on animals from insects to birds and mammals. Even trees are adversely affected by the ever increasing use of lights in urban areas. For birds some of the most severe consequences are for mating and migrating birds. Year round resident birds, and humans, experience negative effects on circadian rhythms that affect alertness and ability to fend off disease. For birds, the interference in sleep patterns can result in increased predation of the birds. Experts and current data are available on these topics and even a brief Google search yields useful data and articles on the topic of effects of light pollution on humans and wildlife. For example, studies recommend that, if lights must be used, high pressure sodium or red lights interfere less with wildlife and human circadian rhythms – although those lights have their own energy costs.
My question: where is the data that shows lighting four miles of the Southwest Bike Path is necessary? If an environmental impact statement was required for this project, such data would be required. Though not required in this case, without that data, the project lacks credibility. If there is data that supports a problem, then scenarios to solve it can be outlined and discussed. Even if data exists or is collected in the future to support a need for some lighting, careful thought is required to look at all alternatives with a goal of reducing carbon footprints, maintaining the character of this special place for nature and humans to coexist.
The motto of this bike path could be “multiuse for multispecies”. Once lights are installed, an opportunity will be lost for benefiting from a path that is not lined with poles and lights in the future. On the good side of this discussion is the success of the path to attract bike commuters, which takes cars off the road, and recreationists, who are then healthier and happier citizens. If, in the future, it is decided that the path should be widened, the presence of light poles will add to the cost of that future project, as they will likely need to be removed and replaced to make way for a wider path. Indeed, if light poles are installed, that may well be cited as reasons not to widen the path despite perceived needs to do so.
One posted comment below suggests that people move if they don’t like the new trail lights. I do not think that it makes a better city to tell people to move out of neighborhoods. The idea is to create cities that people will want to live in and to encourage people to stay in urban environments rather than making moves to rural areas that require commuting into urban areas regularly.
City Staff Response:
Project length is approximately 3.0 miles.
The recent proposal to install continuous lighting for four miles along the Southwest Bike path is another example of planning that, though well intended, is likely to add to the negative effects of human urbanization on wildlife and to increase the carbon footprint of the City. The Southwest Bike path runs through older neighborhoods that were once forested or set on the edge of wetlands. Wooded areas in associated with the Forest Lawn Cemetery, The Glenway Golf Course and the Jen Jensen Children’s Park and the city right of way add to the wooded canopy and provide a hint of the ecological diversity that once existed in the areas. Native American effigy mounds created approximately 1,000 years add to the ceremonial landscape of Forest Lawn Cemetery and the seep of history into modern consciousness. The effigy mounds are within steps of the bike path. Walking the bike or riding the bike path on a dark night allows for vivid reminders about the mound builders and their ability to live light on the land. Continuous lighting and the associated pole structures, will add to the deterioration of this unique and special place and life in the City.
In a time when the City budget is so tight, it would seem that the $250,000 estimate for this lighting proposal, which is likely to cost more, could be better spent. Bike riders who ride on public roads need to use good lights to be seen and to see the chuck holes and in our roadways and the broken glass that all too often punctures bike tires. Not using adequate lights is irresponsible behavior and by lighting the bike path so that bikes can see almost as well at night as they can in the day would only encourage irresponsible behavior. Bike commuters must ride on public roads in order to access the bike path and they would either already have bike lights or should be encouraged to use lights. The carbon footprint of commuters using 2 watt bike lights for the time required to pedal home at night is likely to be significantly smaller than the energy costs of the planned installation and running of these lights, not to mention the maintenance of the lights and poles by large trucks on the path. Perhaps the money would be better spent on signage that reminds bikers and walkers to use lights at night and to provide free lights to those in need. A private biking company partner might even be willing to help with the advertising or in providing part of the cost of those free lights.
Though not a goal of the original plan, the Southwest Bike Path using the old rail road bed, runs through one of the few, if not the only, forested and unlit transportation corridors left in the city. It is a special place, not only for the opportunity to get closer to nature, but for keeping our carbon footprints smaller. Many people remain or choose to live in Madison because of the proximity of green spaces and rustic nature opportunities. Others make the choice to live and work in Madison in order to reduce their personal carbon footprint by not commuting into the city from a rural residence. Some residents also commute on the bike path either to reduce carbon footprints or to save money, with the additional bonus of receiving exercise. Residents of the city often choose recreation options that include the Southwest Bike Trail and other trails, rather than putting a foot to the gas pedal to find escape from urbanization. Cities can have joys and surprises within them that can attract people to raise families and live in an urbanized environment. To attract people to stay in the city variety and unique places are necessary to engage the human mind and spirit. Cities can’t protect people from everything, though efforts to do so can deprive people of a lot of pleasure.
There are numerous articles that chronicle the effects of night light pollution on animals from insects to birds and mammals. Even trees are adversely affected by the ever increasing use of lights in urban areas. For birds some of the most severe consequences are for mating and migrating birds. Year round resident birds, and humans, experience negative effects on circadian rhythms that affect alertness and ability to fend off disease. For birds, the interference in sleep patterns can result in increased predation of the birds. Experts and current data are available on these topics and even a brief Google search yields useful data and articles on the topic of effects of light pollution on humans and wildlife. For example, studies recommend that, if lights must be used, high pressure sodium or red lights interfere less with wildlife and human circadian rhythms – although those lights have their own energy costs.
My question: where is the data that shows lighting four miles of the Southwest Bike Path is necessary? If an environmental impact statement was required for this project, such data would be required. Though not required in this case, without that data, the project lacks credibility. If there is data that supports a problem, then scenarios to solve it can be outlined and discussed. Even if data exists or is collected in the future to support a need for some lighting, careful thought is required to look at all alternatives with a goal of reducing carbon footprints, maintaining the character of this special place for nature and humans to coexist.
The motto of this bike path could be “multiuse for multispecies”. Once lights are installed, an opportunity will be lost for benefiting from a path that is not lined with poles and lights in the future. On the good side of this discussion is the success of the path to attract bike commuters, which takes cars off the road, and recreationists, who are then healthier and happier citizens. If, in the future, it is decided that the path should be widened, the presence of light poles will add to the cost of that future project, as they will likely need to be removed and replaced to make way for a wider path. Indeed, if light poles are installed, that may well be cited as reasons not to widen the path despite perceived needs to do so.
One posted comment below suggests that people move if they don’t like the new trail lights. I do not think that it makes a better city to tell people to move out of neighborhoods. The idea is to create cities that people will want to live in and to encourage people to stay in urban environments rather than making moves to rural areas that require commuting into urban areas regularly.
City Staff Response:
Project length is approximately 3.0 miles.
Posted: 12/20/2011
It may seem counter-intuitive, but data reflects that lighting can increase, not decrease, crime risks. See "Light Pollution Endangers Our Security and Our Safety,"
http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-security.html.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but data reflects that lighting can increase, not decrease, crime risks. See "Light Pollution Endangers Our Security and Our Safety,"
http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-security.html.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I am in favor of lighting the path.
I am also in favor of widening the path.
I do not live adjacent to the path, but use the path for commuting and recreational purposesas a bicyclist and as a pedestrian. I use lights when bicycling and as a pedestrian, but they are not always sufficient given the area and other users.
I have heard from a former resident of that area concerned for personal safety when using path in the dark, early morning hours. I would prefer consistent lighting that does not leave pockets of darkness in between bright spots.
I think it is good that the path is increasingly used. This increase in users needs to be reflected in path designboth in terms of lighting and width. I am happy to share the path with walkers, runners, skaters, strollers, pets, people stopped to chat, etc. I am not a fast bicyclist (max speed 10 mph), but do find myself in traffic jams.
While it is important to maintain natural areas free of light pollution, the SW path is a thoroughfare in a city. I would like to see the city light (with as much light pollution control devices as possible) and widen the path to improve access and safety of the area.
I am in favor of lighting the path.
I am also in favor of widening the path.
I do not live adjacent to the path, but use the path for commuting and recreational purposesas a bicyclist and as a pedestrian. I use lights when bicycling and as a pedestrian, but they are not always sufficient given the area and other users.
I have heard from a former resident of that area concerned for personal safety when using path in the dark, early morning hours. I would prefer consistent lighting that does not leave pockets of darkness in between bright spots.
I think it is good that the path is increasingly used. This increase in users needs to be reflected in path designboth in terms of lighting and width. I am happy to share the path with walkers, runners, skaters, strollers, pets, people stopped to chat, etc. I am not a fast bicyclist (max speed 10 mph), but do find myself in traffic jams.
While it is important to maintain natural areas free of light pollution, the SW path is a thoroughfare in a city. I would like to see the city light (with as much light pollution control devices as possible) and widen the path to improve access and safety of the area.
Posted: 12/19/2011
Does the plan call for lighting the path throughout the night?
Which then leads to Does the plan call for lighting the path throughout the year?
City Staff Response:
Initially the concept provided for lighting throughout the night, however discussion brought forth at the neighborhood meeting included reducing the burning hours, for example to 11pm.
Will the path be lit throughout the year? Yes, even during the longest days of the year there are periods of darkness where path users would benefit from lighing.
Does the plan call for lighting the path throughout the night?
Which then leads to Does the plan call for lighting the path throughout the year?
City Staff Response:
Initially the concept provided for lighting throughout the night, however discussion brought forth at the neighborhood meeting included reducing the burning hours, for example to 11pm.
Will the path be lit throughout the year? Yes, even during the longest days of the year there are periods of darkness where path users would benefit from lighing.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I enthusiastically support this project. I use the the SW path multiple times daily, before sunrise and after sunset and believe this project will enhance and encourage neighborhood use of the corridor. The demonstration lighting at Council Crest is a significant improvement and I look forward to better lighting from Breese terrace to the Beltline.
I enthusiastically support this project. I use the the SW path multiple times daily, before sunrise and after sunset and believe this project will enhance and encourage neighborhood use of the corridor. The demonstration lighting at Council Crest is a significant improvement and I look forward to better lighting from Breese terrace to the Beltline.
Posted: 12/19/2011
It seems to me that any action to put up lights on the path would be very premature and the current suggested solution is extremely inappropriate. City engineers state that technology has advanced so much over the last nine years that they can now install lighting for the entire path at a feasible cost. But the lighting they propose is so high and bright it impinges on the privacy of all families who live adjacent to the bike/pedestrian path, including us. If lighting purchase and installation are held off for a few more years, the ever-lowering cost of technology may soon provide a solution that just lights the path for bikers and walkers, just during the time when there are more than a few bikers and walkers, without shining more than a few feet onto adjacent properties, and a lot cheaper in the upkeep – such as solar-powered or motion-detecting lamps on short poles. I have aleady seen just such unobtrusive yet adequate lighting installed on public paths in New York, Paris, London and other places I've visited.
It seems to me that any action to put up lights on the path would be very premature and the current suggested solution is extremely inappropriate. City engineers state that technology has advanced so much over the last nine years that they can now install lighting for the entire path at a feasible cost. But the lighting they propose is so high and bright it impinges on the privacy of all families who live adjacent to the bike/pedestrian path, including us. If lighting purchase and installation are held off for a few more years, the ever-lowering cost of technology may soon provide a solution that just lights the path for bikers and walkers, just during the time when there are more than a few bikers and walkers, without shining more than a few feet onto adjacent properties, and a lot cheaper in the upkeep – such as solar-powered or motion-detecting lamps on short poles. I have aleady seen just such unobtrusive yet adequate lighting installed on public paths in New York, Paris, London and other places I've visited.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I bicycle in daylight and at night on the SW path; mostly for commuting to work. My family and I also walk and bike on this path often for recreation. I have a bicyle-mounted headlight (and rear light). I am amazed at the number of unlit pedestrians (and a few bicyclists) after dark. Most amazing is how many people wear dark clothing after sunset; I've had several near-misses even though I have a light. I carry two lights, because there have been times my battery wears out. I've been caught with two dead lights, so even advance planning doesn't always keep me safe.
I am supportive of lighting the SW path. The draft design however is in need of improvement. I request that city engineering staff look at these issues and address them in a revised design:
1) The current design will not uniformly illuminate the path. Uniformity of illumination is particularly important for shared-use paths. Bicyclists moving between “hot spots” from poorly placed luminaires may be unable to see in the interspersed shadows (this is in the Wi DoT Bicycle Facility Design Handbook).
2) The current lighting fixture is overly "hot" (white-blue). A cooler-temperature light (yellow-white) is necessary to reduce "blindness" as one adjusts to light and darkness.
3) The section of the SW path adjacent to Gregory Street is atop a high grade and poses a unique challenge. Unlike other bicycle paths in the city, a pole-mounted lighting system is not acceptable in this area because of the steep embakement overlooking the neighborhood below. For this reason I believe a bollard-mounted (or other methods to manage light pollutuion) is needed. The remainder of the SW path, roughly from Breese Terrace to Commonwealth Avenue, and from Glenway Street to the Beltline Highway, could be illuminated with pole-mounted lighting.
4) Although the SW path is mostly tree-covered, and therefore unlikely to be a good site for solar, it would be helpful to publish the cost and feasibility of solar powered lighting systems. At least if for nothing else to demonstrate that this method is not going to work. One idea I have would be for a PV array located in open space near the Beltline Highway used to offset the power consumption of the string of lights planned for installation.
I attended the public meeting on 12-Dec-2011 and would like the thank the city staff and everyone from the neighborhood who attended.
I bicycle in daylight and at night on the SW path; mostly for commuting to work. My family and I also walk and bike on this path often for recreation. I have a bicyle-mounted headlight (and rear light). I am amazed at the number of unlit pedestrians (and a few bicyclists) after dark. Most amazing is how many people wear dark clothing after sunset; I've had several near-misses even though I have a light. I carry two lights, because there have been times my battery wears out. I've been caught with two dead lights, so even advance planning doesn't always keep me safe.
I am supportive of lighting the SW path. The draft design however is in need of improvement. I request that city engineering staff look at these issues and address them in a revised design:
1) The current design will not uniformly illuminate the path. Uniformity of illumination is particularly important for shared-use paths. Bicyclists moving between “hot spots” from poorly placed luminaires may be unable to see in the interspersed shadows (this is in the Wi DoT Bicycle Facility Design Handbook).
2) The current lighting fixture is overly "hot" (white-blue). A cooler-temperature light (yellow-white) is necessary to reduce "blindness" as one adjusts to light and darkness.
3) The section of the SW path adjacent to Gregory Street is atop a high grade and poses a unique challenge. Unlike other bicycle paths in the city, a pole-mounted lighting system is not acceptable in this area because of the steep embakement overlooking the neighborhood below. For this reason I believe a bollard-mounted (or other methods to manage light pollutuion) is needed. The remainder of the SW path, roughly from Breese Terrace to Commonwealth Avenue, and from Glenway Street to the Beltline Highway, could be illuminated with pole-mounted lighting.
4) Although the SW path is mostly tree-covered, and therefore unlikely to be a good site for solar, it would be helpful to publish the cost and feasibility of solar powered lighting systems. At least if for nothing else to demonstrate that this method is not going to work. One idea I have would be for a PV array located in open space near the Beltline Highway used to offset the power consumption of the string of lights planned for installation.
I attended the public meeting on 12-Dec-2011 and would like the thank the city staff and everyone from the neighborhood who attended.
Posted: 12/19/2011
The Westmorland Neighborhood Association established support of City of Madison development of appropriate lighting on the SW Commuter Bicycle Path as part of the implementation of the Midvale Heights/Westmorland Joint Neighborhood Plan (see
http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/ndp/documents/ MidvaleWestmorlandNeighborhoodPlan1010s.pdf). The Westmorland Neighborhood Association has previously endorsed and is working to implement the plan as a whole (see http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/ndp/documents/ MidvaleWestmorlandImplementationPlan102510.pdf), including lighting.
In the plan, "Goals, Objectives and Recommendations" begin on page 40, with a "Transportation" section beginning on page 61 "Transportation Goal A: Create an interconnected multi-modal transportation network that is efficient, accessible, and safe." The transportation section continues on
page 66, containing the goal "T(a).17 Install lighting along the Southwest Path in order to enhance safety. Consider lighting on the Southwest Path be aimed toward the ground and designed to be as inconspicuous as possible from surrounding residential lots."
In the implementation plan, page 12, long-range goals include:
• Engage property-owners along the Southwest Bike Path to determine support/opposition to lighting on the path.
• In conjunction with Engineering and Traffic Engineering, develop a plan for placement of lighting.
• Conduct petition of property-owners to determine the level of support.
• Contact District Alderperson, Engineering and Traffic Engineering to advocate for inclusion in capital budget process.
The Westmorland Neighborhood Association established support of City of Madison development of appropriate lighting on the SW Commuter Bicycle Path as part of the implementation of the Midvale Heights/Westmorland Joint Neighborhood Plan (see
http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/ndp/documents/ MidvaleWestmorlandNeighborhoodPlan1010s.pdf). The Westmorland Neighborhood Association has previously endorsed and is working to implement the plan as a whole (see http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/ndp/documents/ MidvaleWestmorlandImplementationPlan102510.pdf), including lighting.
In the plan, "Goals, Objectives and Recommendations" begin on page 40, with a "Transportation" section beginning on page 61 "Transportation Goal A: Create an interconnected multi-modal transportation network that is efficient, accessible, and safe." The transportation section continues on
page 66, containing the goal "T(a).17 Install lighting along the Southwest Path in order to enhance safety. Consider lighting on the Southwest Path be aimed toward the ground and designed to be as inconspicuous as possible from surrounding residential lots."
In the implementation plan, page 12, long-range goals include:
• Engage property-owners along the Southwest Bike Path to determine support/opposition to lighting on the path.
• In conjunction with Engineering and Traffic Engineering, develop a plan for placement of lighting.
• Conduct petition of property-owners to determine the level of support.
• Contact District Alderperson, Engineering and Traffic Engineering to advocate for inclusion in capital budget process.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I am a commuter and use the path on a daily basis. We need the lights... the city puts up street lights for a road near my house because of safety issues. Now the lights are shining on the front of our house. But I know that living in a big city like Madison that these things happen... if you don't want lights from the bike path shining in your house move.
I am a commuter and use the path on a daily basis. We need the lights... the city puts up street lights for a road near my house because of safety issues. Now the lights are shining on the front of our house. But I know that living in a big city like Madison that these things happen... if you don't want lights from the bike path shining in your house move.
Posted: 12/19/2011
i live right off the SW bike path and regularly use it for jogging and biking. Most of my use is during the day, but this year I have had two night experiences that cause me to recommend lighting on the path.
After the first Badger game of the season, I walked west from Camp Randall with a crowd of pedestrians and bikers. I had a flashlight, but the path was surprisingly black. There were a number of close calls between walkers and bikers without lights. As long as the Badgers play night games and fans park all over the neighborhood, lights would help for safe travels.
last Sunday, I went for a jog on the path and stopped to talk with a neighbor who was walking. By the time that I finished my run, it was dark. Since there is sometime debris on the path (branches, walnuts), lighting would be great to illuminate those surprises.
I am in favor of subtle lighting of the bike path.
i live right off the SW bike path and regularly use it for jogging and biking. Most of my use is during the day, but this year I have had two night experiences that cause me to recommend lighting on the path.
After the first Badger game of the season, I walked west from Camp Randall with a crowd of pedestrians and bikers. I had a flashlight, but the path was surprisingly black. There were a number of close calls between walkers and bikers without lights. As long as the Badgers play night games and fans park all over the neighborhood, lights would help for safe travels.
last Sunday, I went for a jog on the path and stopped to talk with a neighbor who was walking. By the time that I finished my run, it was dark. Since there is sometime debris on the path (branches, walnuts), lighting would be great to illuminate those surprises.
I am in favor of subtle lighting of the bike path.
Posted: 12/19/2011
Another vote to either forego the lights just now (not necessary) or get those short 4 foot lights that shine only on the path itself - not up into people's eyes. There is no reason for light to fall anywhere but the path itself. The 20 ft pole shining white light far and wide is total overkill.
I live on the east side but enjoy that stretch whenever I get over there. Madison needs MORE dark sky not less. The east side has WAAYYY too much light pollution. I can't even remember last time I saw the moon! That is truly sad.
Another vote to either forego the lights just now (not necessary) or get those short 4 foot lights that shine only on the path itself - not up into people's eyes. There is no reason for light to fall anywhere but the path itself. The 20 ft pole shining white light far and wide is total overkill.
I live on the east side but enjoy that stretch whenever I get over there. Madison needs MORE dark sky not less. The east side has WAAYYY too much light pollution. I can't even remember last time I saw the moon! That is truly sad.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I live near the downtown terminus of the SW path and both use the path and own a home directly adjacent to another path. I also have a streetlight directly in front of my home. I am in favor of the proposed LED lighting system for the SW path as both a safety and convenience for path users and as someone who lives with a nearby, unlit, path as well as a streetlight higher than what is proposed in my front terrace, which was converted from a traditional to full cutoff fixture approximately 4 years ago (although still an HID, not LED light source). The amount of light entering my windows from the streetlight less than 25 feet away has decreased dramatically since the full cutoff fixture was installed. The nighttime safety for both vehicle and pedestrain users, however, remains much better than comparable, but unlit environments nearby. I would support and encourage similar lighting as poposed for the SW path for all the paths in the city as they provide a level of safety and convenience that is expected for other, higher impact, modes of transportation, such as the arterial road near my home.
I live near the downtown terminus of the SW path and both use the path and own a home directly adjacent to another path. I also have a streetlight directly in front of my home. I am in favor of the proposed LED lighting system for the SW path as both a safety and convenience for path users and as someone who lives with a nearby, unlit, path as well as a streetlight higher than what is proposed in my front terrace, which was converted from a traditional to full cutoff fixture approximately 4 years ago (although still an HID, not LED light source). The amount of light entering my windows from the streetlight less than 25 feet away has decreased dramatically since the full cutoff fixture was installed. The nighttime safety for both vehicle and pedestrain users, however, remains much better than comparable, but unlit environments nearby. I would support and encourage similar lighting as poposed for the SW path for all the paths in the city as they provide a level of safety and convenience that is expected for other, higher impact, modes of transportation, such as the arterial road near my home.
Posted: 12/19/2011
While I can understand the concerns of those living adjacent to the path, I think if it were me, I'd rather have a lighted path running near my backyard than a darkened one. The southwest commuter trail runs through one of the most crime-filled areas of the city south of the Beltline, directly through fairly well-heeled neighborhoods. I think lights would add security to both users of the path and also those whose backyards are next to it.
While I can understand the concerns of those living adjacent to the path, I think if it were me, I'd rather have a lighted path running near my backyard than a darkened one. The southwest commuter trail runs through one of the most crime-filled areas of the city south of the Beltline, directly through fairly well-heeled neighborhoods. I think lights would add security to both users of the path and also those whose backyards are next to it.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I am a year round, daily bicycle user of the bike path from Glenway Street to the beltline. I use it less frequently between Glenway and Breese. Unlit pedestrians and cyclists are a constant worry when I'm on the path after dark. The bright bike lights that some suggest really blind oncoming bikers and walkers. This causes considerable disorientation. I too have had near misses, and one collision. There are times when children are on the path without apparent adult supervision. We've got to be able to see these kids. I feel we should err on the side of safety, and install a lighting system.
I am a year round, daily bicycle user of the bike path from Glenway Street to the beltline. I use it less frequently between Glenway and Breese. Unlit pedestrians and cyclists are a constant worry when I'm on the path after dark. The bright bike lights that some suggest really blind oncoming bikers and walkers. This causes considerable disorientation. I too have had near misses, and one collision. There are times when children are on the path without apparent adult supervision. We've got to be able to see these kids. I feel we should err on the side of safety, and install a lighting system.
Posted: 12/19/2011
I was unable to attend the meeting but did contribute a comment on this site prior to the meeting. To be honest, I felt it was a "done deal" and citizen input was only being requested because it has to be. . .
After reading the comments on this site, I am still not clear what the clear and present danger is. If it is dogs, other bicyclists or pedestrians, how does having a light here and there solve the problem? When I walk the path at night I usually walk on the dirt next to the path. I have experienced zero problems. When I ride my bike I use my light. I have commuted to work and returned at night with no problem. It is a special and enjoyable experience riding in the rain in the dark, seeing the path ahead lit by your own light.
I agree with previous writers that it is rare to have such a nature experience in the City. The owls are not going to like the lights. I don't think the crickets will either. The small children are going to miss out on an experience not always found in the city - and there are nonprofits working to increase just this kind of experience!
It surprises me that an environmentally conscious City would destroy this gem, all in the name of the environment. Very ironic.
As I mentioned before, advertising safer paths because of more lighting will increase a sense of "false safety" - there are lights on the path; we don't need a light when we walk or bike at night.
Certainly there are better ways to increase use of the bike paths than lighting them, if increased usage is the reason for this project.
Finally, what is the project beyond this one? In other words, once there is a bike freeway that is lit, what does the City have in mind? What kind of expansion is next?
I would appreciate an answer. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barb Gunner Lazaris
I was unable to attend the meeting but did contribute a comment on this site prior to the meeting. To be honest, I felt it was a "done deal" and citizen input was only being requested because it has to be. . .
After reading the comments on this site, I am still not clear what the clear and present danger is. If it is dogs, other bicyclists or pedestrians, how does having a light here and there solve the problem? When I walk the path at night I usually walk on the dirt next to the path. I have experienced zero problems. When I ride my bike I use my light. I have commuted to work and returned at night with no problem. It is a special and enjoyable experience riding in the rain in the dark, seeing the path ahead lit by your own light.
I agree with previous writers that it is rare to have such a nature experience in the City. The owls are not going to like the lights. I don't think the crickets will either. The small children are going to miss out on an experience not always found in the city - and there are nonprofits working to increase just this kind of experience!
It surprises me that an environmentally conscious City would destroy this gem, all in the name of the environment. Very ironic.
As I mentioned before, advertising safer paths because of more lighting will increase a sense of "false safety" - there are lights on the path; we don't need a light when we walk or bike at night.
Certainly there are better ways to increase use of the bike paths than lighting them, if increased usage is the reason for this project.
Finally, what is the project beyond this one? In other words, once there is a bike freeway that is lit, what does the City have in mind? What kind of expansion is next?
I would appreciate an answer. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barb Gunner Lazaris
Posted: 12/19/2011
The minimum estimated installation cost - not including extra ongoing maintenance costs, overtime costs, electricity costs, etc. - is $250,000. And that would, as the 12/12/11 meeting confirmed, provide cones of light separated by dark places (increasing crime risks as a police officer present noted) even at the tighter distance between the poles of 190 feet. (The estimated distance is 190-240 feet, so installation at 190 foot spreads probably substantially kicks up the initial installation costs.) Installing more poles to reduce those dark spaces (or moving to a system of 4 foot high poles at frequent intervals as discussed at the meeting) would, of course, substantially increase the taxpayer cost.
I commute the SW path year round, using good, though not expensive, bike lighting in nighttime hours. It more than suffices (although walkers should use their heads and carry lights in those hours as well).
In 1998, the Mayor’s Committee for the Design of the Southwest Commuter Bike and Pedestrian Path promised that there be lighting on the path only when “most of the adjacent landowners request it,” that requests should be considered “on a block-by-block basis,” and that “the only exception to this is where lighting is needed for safety.” http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml. Advocates admitted at the 12/12/11 meeting that there are no current crime safety concerns associated with the path. It was transparent at the meeting that adjacent landowners strongly oppose lighting the path.
Advocates of lighting argue that they're motivated by energy savings - i.e., taking cars off the road. They cite no data actually predicting any significant increase in commuters. A recreational rider who does not commute would not take a commuting car off the road. I bike commute all year, and love it, but recognize that many people say they'd like to do it but wouldn't regardless of lighting, once it gets cold and/or snowy. But even if there were data, energy-savings arguments are questionable on several grounds.
For example, the National Energy Foundation confirms, on a middle schooler study sheet, that a “100 watt light bulb uses 1 kw of electricity per hour” and asks how “many pounds of coal are needed to run one 100 watt light bulb for 6 hours? 8 hours? 10 hours?” The answers - “Six hours = 0.6 pounds, eight hours = 0.8 pounds, ten hours = 1 pound.” http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm. The City intends to use electricity from the grid. With 84% of grid electricity produced by coal, this suggests that, spaced at 190 feet over 21120 feet (4 miles), 53 watt light poles along the SW path would consume nearly sixty pounds of coal during each ten hour period they are lit. A major reason I bike commute is to reduce my carbon footprint. It would take a lot of extra year-round bike commuters on the SW path to offset that energy consumption.
Low cost solution: periodic signs on the SW path that say "See and be seen - light your own way." If the City wants those signs visible at night, it could fuel the signs with very low-wattage solar.
The minimum estimated installation cost - not including extra ongoing maintenance costs, overtime costs, electricity costs, etc. - is $250,000. And that would, as the 12/12/11 meeting confirmed, provide cones of light separated by dark places (increasing crime risks as a police officer present noted) even at the tighter distance between the poles of 190 feet. (The estimated distance is 190-240 feet, so installation at 190 foot spreads probably substantially kicks up the initial installation costs.) Installing more poles to reduce those dark spaces (or moving to a system of 4 foot high poles at frequent intervals as discussed at the meeting) would, of course, substantially increase the taxpayer cost.
I commute the SW path year round, using good, though not expensive, bike lighting in nighttime hours. It more than suffices (although walkers should use their heads and carry lights in those hours as well).
In 1998, the Mayor’s Committee for the Design of the Southwest Commuter Bike and Pedestrian Path promised that there be lighting on the path only when “most of the adjacent landowners request it,” that requests should be considered “on a block-by-block basis,” and that “the only exception to this is where lighting is needed for safety.” http://www.dmna.org/bikepath/bike_path_100298.shtml. Advocates admitted at the 12/12/11 meeting that there are no current crime safety concerns associated with the path. It was transparent at the meeting that adjacent landowners strongly oppose lighting the path.
Advocates of lighting argue that they're motivated by energy savings - i.e., taking cars off the road. They cite no data actually predicting any significant increase in commuters. A recreational rider who does not commute would not take a commuting car off the road. I bike commute all year, and love it, but recognize that many people say they'd like to do it but wouldn't regardless of lighting, once it gets cold and/or snowy. But even if there were data, energy-savings arguments are questionable on several grounds.
For example, the National Energy Foundation confirms, on a middle schooler study sheet, that a “100 watt light bulb uses 1 kw of electricity per hour” and asks how “many pounds of coal are needed to run one 100 watt light bulb for 6 hours? 8 hours? 10 hours?” The answers - “Six hours = 0.6 pounds, eight hours = 0.8 pounds, ten hours = 1 pound.” http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm. The City intends to use electricity from the grid. With 84% of grid electricity produced by coal, this suggests that, spaced at 190 feet over 21120 feet (4 miles), 53 watt light poles along the SW path would consume nearly sixty pounds of coal during each ten hour period they are lit. A major reason I bike commute is to reduce my carbon footprint. It would take a lot of extra year-round bike commuters on the SW path to offset that energy consumption.
Low cost solution: periodic signs on the SW path that say "See and be seen - light your own way." If the City wants those signs visible at night, it could fuel the signs with very low-wattage solar.
Posted: 12/16/2011
I use the SW bike path every day to ride from my office downtown to my home on the west side (near Midvale Blvd, not on or near the path). Most nights I am biking in the dark.
I do not support the current plan to install 20 ft tall lights on the residential sections of the path.
I value having some public space that is not lit 24/7, but I also acknowledge that there are too many dog walkers, joggers and bikers who foolishly use the path at night with out properly lighting themselves.
Are shorter lights being considered? LED lights mounted only a few feet high (3-4) and aimed mostly downward at the path would have a similar effect on safety for most of the path and would not cause as much light pollution for neighbors of the path, with whom I sympathize with greatly.
Really, users of the path should be lit, not the path itself. Bikes obviously should be required to have sufficient front and rear lighting, but walkers should also not be out without at least a hand held flashlight and/or reflective clothing.
I think that there should be a compromise solution that improves public safety with some low level light, but does not take away the night for neighbors of the path. I would hate for the lights to lead to 6 ft privacy fences being erected along the path in the residential areas, which would destroy the aesthetic of the path.
I use the SW bike path every day to ride from my office downtown to my home on the west side (near Midvale Blvd, not on or near the path). Most nights I am biking in the dark.
I do not support the current plan to install 20 ft tall lights on the residential sections of the path.
I value having some public space that is not lit 24/7, but I also acknowledge that there are too many dog walkers, joggers and bikers who foolishly use the path at night with out properly lighting themselves.
Are shorter lights being considered? LED lights mounted only a few feet high (3-4) and aimed mostly downward at the path would have a similar effect on safety for most of the path and would not cause as much light pollution for neighbors of the path, with whom I sympathize with greatly.
Really, users of the path should be lit, not the path itself. Bikes obviously should be required to have sufficient front and rear lighting, but walkers should also not be out without at least a hand held flashlight and/or reflective clothing.
I think that there should be a compromise solution that improves public safety with some low level light, but does not take away the night for neighbors of the path. I would hate for the lights to lead to 6 ft privacy fences being erected along the path in the residential areas, which would destroy the aesthetic of the path.
Posted: 12/16/2011
Thanks for the opportunity to offer comments on this project.
We have lived adjacent to the bike path for nearly 10 years and use it regularly for commuting and recreation, both in daylight and at night. We greatly value the night-time atmosphere on the path and in neighboring areas. The opportunity to view the night sky beyond the reach of artificial lighting is very rare in the city, and this would be lost with the installation of lights. While the effort to increase utilization of the bike path is worthwhile, there absolutely will be negative impacts to the unique characteristics of the path. As for the undeniable safety benefits, we have witnessed numerous close-calls and occasional accidents on the path: in broad daylight. As path users and adjacent property owners we oppose the SW Bike Path Lighting project as currently proposed.
Thanks for the opportunity to offer comments on this project.
We have lived adjacent to the bike path for nearly 10 years and use it regularly for commuting and recreation, both in daylight and at night. We greatly value the night-time atmosphere on the path and in neighboring areas. The opportunity to view the night sky beyond the reach of artificial lighting is very rare in the city, and this would be lost with the installation of lights. While the effort to increase utilization of the bike path is worthwhile, there absolutely will be negative impacts to the unique characteristics of the path. As for the undeniable safety benefits, we have witnessed numerous close-calls and occasional accidents on the path: in broad daylight. As path users and adjacent property owners we oppose the SW Bike Path Lighting project as currently proposed.
Posted: 12/16/2011
I've been hearing from both sides about the proposal for lights on the SW bike path. I may have a solution.
those against are concerned about wildlife habitat and light pollution
those on bikes want the lights for visibility and safety
but, they don't need 20' poles or bright white lights to achieve that. what about knee-height lights in red with downward facing reflectors. gives the visability to the path without damaging everyone's (and critter's) night vision and puts the light where it's needed and not where it's not wanted.
I've been hearing from both sides about the proposal for lights on the SW bike path. I may have a solution.
those against are concerned about wildlife habitat and light pollution
those on bikes want the lights for visibility and safety
but, they don't need 20' poles or bright white lights to achieve that. what about knee-height lights in red with downward facing reflectors. gives the visability to the path without damaging everyone's (and critter's) night vision and puts the light where it's needed and not where it's not wanted.
Posted: 12/15/2011
I commute to work year around on the SW Trail - from the Capital Trail to Virginia Terrace. What a wonderful asset this trail is!
I make use of lights, front and back, on my bike. I would like the public to be aware of an incident I had a couple of years back: I was lighted, and moved to the passing lane to by-pass a lighted pedestrian. Ahead of me, unknown to me, was an on-coming pedestrian. This person had no light or reflective clothing. I was not aware of their presence until my left arm jarred their left shoulder! Riding at commuter speeds (15 mph), it was a matter of mere inches preventing either of us from very serious injury.
I understand the concern of adjoining home owners regarding spill-over lighting. However, I have to believe that safety trumps the issue. Next time it could be a child out later than they expected to be, a loose pet wandering, wildlife foraging - or maybe a homeowner themselves thinking that if they can see me, I can see them. Such was not the case that night two years ago.
I commute to work year around on the SW Trail - from the Capital Trail to Virginia Terrace. What a wonderful asset this trail is!
I make use of lights, front and back, on my bike. I would like the public to be aware of an incident I had a couple of years back: I was lighted, and moved to the passing lane to by-pass a lighted pedestrian. Ahead of me, unknown to me, was an on-coming pedestrian. This person had no light or reflective clothing. I was not aware of their presence until my left arm jarred their left shoulder! Riding at commuter speeds (15 mph), it was a matter of mere inches preventing either of us from very serious injury.
I understand the concern of adjoining home owners regarding spill-over lighting. However, I have to believe that safety trumps the issue. Next time it could be a child out later than they expected to be, a loose pet wandering, wildlife foraging - or maybe a homeowner themselves thinking that if they can see me, I can see them. Such was not the case that night two years ago.
Posted: 12/14/2011
Sent to B. Solomon:
Thank you for holding the lighting of the SW bike path meeting last night. To be honest going in I was totally against the lighting. But, as you explained that you are hopeful this will encourage bikers to ride more often (and get the hell off the road and outta my way ;) I came away with acknowledging that even though personally I don’t want the bike path lighted ..... if it increases bikers and decreases automobiles then this is a win for the community at large. My concerns are heightened in that the back of my yard is one of those yards with a steep grade. My concerns of light spillage was reinforced after the “expert” from the UW on lighting said the proposed lighting was not appropriate, esp in areas with a steep grade. I understand your limits. You have the money allocated and I assume this money must be spent in 2012? And that it would be a feather in your cap to get this done while you are on council. I understand that. However, I would strongly encourage you to be thoughtful with regards to the type of lighting and how it plays out for people who are close to the path or who have a steep grade in the back yard. It would be nice to have special lighting in the areas where the 21’ pole 52 Watt LED is not appropriate. As I stated last night it would be nice for those "100’s" of people who are wanting the lights could financially support it. I know lots of parks (state and local, along with libraries) have “Friends of….” groups. Perhaps the funding could be raised. I strongly encourage you to be cautious and take your time and get this “right” for all parties involved.
Sent to B. Solomon:
Thank you for holding the lighting of the SW bike path meeting last night. To be honest going in I was totally against the lighting. But, as you explained that you are hopeful this will encourage bikers to ride more often (and get the hell off the road and outta my way ;) I came away with acknowledging that even though personally I don’t want the bike path lighted ..... if it increases bikers and decreases automobiles then this is a win for the community at large. My concerns are heightened in that the back of my yard is one of those yards with a steep grade. My concerns of light spillage was reinforced after the “expert” from the UW on lighting said the proposed lighting was not appropriate, esp in areas with a steep grade. I understand your limits. You have the money allocated and I assume this money must be spent in 2012? And that it would be a feather in your cap to get this done while you are on council. I understand that. However, I would strongly encourage you to be thoughtful with regards to the type of lighting and how it plays out for people who are close to the path or who have a steep grade in the back yard. It would be nice to have special lighting in the areas where the 21’ pole 52 Watt LED is not appropriate. As I stated last night it would be nice for those "100’s" of people who are wanting the lights could financially support it. I know lots of parks (state and local, along with libraries) have “Friends of….” groups. Perhaps the funding could be raised. I strongly encourage you to be cautious and take your time and get this “right” for all parties involved.
Posted: 12/14/2011
Considering the fact that homeowners along the path opposed lighting when the path was installed, as well as the lack of evidence that the lights are needed (crime or accident data), this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Considering the fact that homeowners along the path opposed lighting when the path was installed, as well as the lack of evidence that the lights are needed (crime or accident data), this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Posted: 12/14/2011
I bike the path yearround, day and night. I use bike lights. I enjoy riding in the dark or by moonlight.
The test lights near Council Crest seem to me to illuminate the yards behind them, and I support the neighbors who do not want the lights. If lights are installed, then I think that shields should be installed to prevent light from shining in the homeowners' windows and on their property.
I bike the path yearround, day and night. I use bike lights. I enjoy riding in the dark or by moonlight.
The test lights near Council Crest seem to me to illuminate the yards behind them, and I support the neighbors who do not want the lights. If lights are installed, then I think that shields should be installed to prevent light from shining in the homeowners' windows and on their property.
Posted: 12/13/2011
I support the proposal to light the bike path. I commute from the eastside to my job on the westside and biking home at night can be hair raising to say the least. All of you who are proud of your super bright lights are blinding me since I am riding the opposite way of most of the commuters. The lights mounted on top of helmets are the worst. I have a bright light but with the oncoming lights in my eyes, it is very difficult to see pedestrians walking on my side of the path. Please shine your lights down more when you are on the path. As for the peds, even those with flashlights are usually only shining them forward. And when people or bikes have red lights on the front and/or white lights on their backs, it's really confusing in the pitch dark. I think an education plan for the proper use of lights is a great idea but I think a lot of people out there think they are already well lit when they are not.
I also support dark sky compliant lights and limiting the lighting of backyards. Perhaps the bollard lights are an option or some other method for lighting the path. If there is snow cover, there is usually good reflection so it's not as difficult to see then (so maybe snow covered lights aren't as much of an issue). I don't think there needs to be a lot of light on the path to make it a lot safer.
I support the proposal to light the bike path. I commute from the eastside to my job on the westside and biking home at night can be hair raising to say the least. All of you who are proud of your super bright lights are blinding me since I am riding the opposite way of most of the commuters. The lights mounted on top of helmets are the worst. I have a bright light but with the oncoming lights in my eyes, it is very difficult to see pedestrians walking on my side of the path. Please shine your lights down more when you are on the path. As for the peds, even those with flashlights are usually only shining them forward. And when people or bikes have red lights on the front and/or white lights on their backs, it's really confusing in the pitch dark. I think an education plan for the proper use of lights is a great idea but I think a lot of people out there think they are already well lit when they are not.
I also support dark sky compliant lights and limiting the lighting of backyards. Perhaps the bollard lights are an option or some other method for lighting the path. If there is snow cover, there is usually good reflection so it's not as difficult to see then (so maybe snow covered lights aren't as much of an issue). I don't think there needs to be a lot of light on the path to make it a lot safer.
Posted: 12/13/2011
I live on the bike path and am totally opposed to the proposal to light the path and destroy my ability to go out into my back yard and enjoy the sanctuary of darkness that will disappear with path lighting. Those who were around when the path was originally proposed will recall that there was loud and clear opposition to lights on the path, and that it was agreed at that time that it would not be in the plans. I've seen the demonstration lights at Council Crest and am not convinced that the light won't bleed beyond the path into our yards. Unlike that location, the path is significantly higher in many of the other neighborhoods it traverses, so even if lateral stray light is controlled to some degree, vertical light will have more of an effect. I am a pedestrian commuter on the path every morning, before sunrise in the winter. I wear a flashing light in front, one in back, and a reflective triangle on my backpack. I've been doing that for years and have yet to have had any incidents. It's my understanding that front lights are required on bikes at night, and bikes that pass me in the winter are almost without exception well lit front and back. Let's spend money instead on educating path users on personal light usage and enforcing existing laws on same. But please don't take away one of my last remaining opportunities to see the moon and stars on my daily commute or lose the sanctity of my back yard.
I live on the bike path and am totally opposed to the proposal to light the path and destroy my ability to go out into my back yard and enjoy the sanctuary of darkness that will disappear with path lighting. Those who were around when the path was originally proposed will recall that there was loud and clear opposition to lights on the path, and that it was agreed at that time that it would not be in the plans. I've seen the demonstration lights at Council Crest and am not convinced that the light won't bleed beyond the path into our yards. Unlike that location, the path is significantly higher in many of the other neighborhoods it traverses, so even if lateral stray light is controlled to some degree, vertical light will have more of an effect. I am a pedestrian commuter on the path every morning, before sunrise in the winter. I wear a flashing light in front, one in back, and a reflective triangle on my backpack. I've been doing that for years and have yet to have had any incidents. It's my understanding that front lights are required on bikes at night, and bikes that pass me in the winter are almost without exception well lit front and back. Let's spend money instead on educating path users on personal light usage and enforcing existing laws on same. But please don't take away one of my last remaining opportunities to see the moon and stars on my daily commute or lose the sanctity of my back yard.
Posted: 12/13/2011
During the 12/13 public hearing, bollard lighting was mentioned as an alternative. This type of low profile fixture (typically below 48") would light the path surface, without glare onto adjoining properties. Due to the low height, many more fixtures would be required to achieve the desired uniformity of illumination.Thus installation and maintenance costs would be higher. Also, during heavy snowfalls, the fixtures could be covered (as would the bike path).
Examples of this type of fixture can be seen at:
http://www.rabweb.com/product_line_detail.php?prodline=BLED
For more information on bike path lighting see also:
www.dot.wi.gov/projects/state/docs/bike-facility.pdf
During the 12/13 public hearing, bollard lighting was mentioned as an alternative. This type of low profile fixture (typically below 48") would light the path surface, without glare onto adjoining properties. Due to the low height, many more fixtures would be required to achieve the desired uniformity of illumination.Thus installation and maintenance costs would be higher. Also, during heavy snowfalls, the fixtures could be covered (as would the bike path).
Examples of this type of fixture can be seen at:
http://www.rabweb.com/product_line_detail.php?prodline=BLED
For more information on bike path lighting see also:
www.dot.wi.gov/projects/state/docs/bike-facility.pdf
Posted: 12/13/2011
I live along the SW Path and also bike the Path at night (mostly in warmer weather). Yes, I admit I wouldn't mind having lights for better biking visability, but I also value even more my natural backyard and the work we have done to create a continuous urban green space along the path. It is a remarkable corridor for spring and fall migratory birds, habitat for owls (lots of hollows in snags for nests), and a delight for dragonflies, damselflies, and butterflies. There is a whole ecosystem up there which is the result of eleven years of hard work. I really am referring here to the extensive native plant communities which we have tried to restore which supports this ecosystem. (The prairie at Odana and the Path is mine) There is no doubt about it, biking or walking the Path is a real joy. I walk my dog there daily more than I bike there. Introducing lights to an environment like that will, without any doubt, take away something very precious for a lot of us who use and live along the Path. Consider the stunning beauty of a moonlit night.
As for myself, to solve the problem of frequently not being able to see oncoming traffic, I bought a high quality bright light plus reflective clothing and that took care of my concerns. I bike the darkest part of the Path between Regent and Odana.
P.S. Maybe a consideration for small lights fixed to the high sides under the overpass bridges (ex: Spooner and Prospect) would add to the safety factor in those areas. I feel uncomfortable in those places.
Sue Reindollar
I live along the SW Path and also bike the Path at night (mostly in warmer weather). Yes, I admit I wouldn't mind having lights for better biking visability, but I also value even more my natural backyard and the work we have done to create a continuous urban green space along the path. It is a remarkable corridor for spring and fall migratory birds, habitat for owls (lots of hollows in snags for nests), and a delight for dragonflies, damselflies, and butterflies. There is a whole ecosystem up there which is the result of eleven years of hard work. I really am referring here to the extensive native plant communities which we have tried to restore which supports this ecosystem. (The prairie at Odana and the Path is mine) There is no doubt about it, biking or walking the Path is a real joy. I walk my dog there daily more than I bike there. Introducing lights to an environment like that will, without any doubt, take away something very precious for a lot of us who use and live along the Path. Consider the stunning beauty of a moonlit night.
As for myself, to solve the problem of frequently not being able to see oncoming traffic, I bought a high quality bright light plus reflective clothing and that took care of my concerns. I bike the darkest part of the Path between Regent and Odana.
P.S. Maybe a consideration for small lights fixed to the high sides under the overpass bridges (ex: Spooner and Prospect) would add to the safety factor in those areas. I feel uncomfortable in those places.
Sue Reindollar
Posted: 12/13/2011
I ride from the east side to Research Park for a bike commute. I rarely take the bike path when it is dark because the roads are safer. I have often marvelled that I feel safer on Speedway versus the SW bike path when it is dark. But I ride as fast as I can on Speedway to limit the number of cars passing. Thanks for looking for a solution.
I ride from the east side to Research Park for a bike commute. I rarely take the bike path when it is dark because the roads are safer. I have often marvelled that I feel safer on Speedway versus the SW bike path when it is dark. But I ride as fast as I can on Speedway to limit the number of cars passing. Thanks for looking for a solution.
Posted: 12/13/2011
I live near the bike path and use it daily to bike to work all year. I believe the lights will negatively and dramatically alter the aesthetics and feel of the path and the neighborhoods through which it passes. Lights will make the path more like a mall parking lot or an airport landing strip.
I understand that the purpose or goal of the lights is to improve the safety of path users. Yet, the proponents of the light project cite no patterns or even incidences of crime or collisions justifying the need for the lights. Also, based on my observations from commuting on the path since it first opened, use of the path at night drops significantly during the cold weather months of December–April. It doesn’t make any sense to light the path all night every night all winter. I urge you to reconsider this project. It is not necessary and the negative impacts outweigh the safety gains. Thanks for considering my comments.
Also, can you please state whether funding for this project has already been approved as part of the 2012 budget?
City Staff Response:
Yes the 2012 budget has already been approved. The project is not intended as a safety project, though we expect safety to be improved. The Path is a transportation corridor and we believe it will benefit from additional lighting.
I live near the bike path and use it daily to bike to work all year. I believe the lights will negatively and dramatically alter the aesthetics and feel of the path and the neighborhoods through which it passes. Lights will make the path more like a mall parking lot or an airport landing strip.
I understand that the purpose or goal of the lights is to improve the safety of path users. Yet, the proponents of the light project cite no patterns or even incidences of crime or collisions justifying the need for the lights. Also, based on my observations from commuting on the path since it first opened, use of the path at night drops significantly during the cold weather months of December–April. It doesn’t make any sense to light the path all night every night all winter. I urge you to reconsider this project. It is not necessary and the negative impacts outweigh the safety gains. Thanks for considering my comments.
Also, can you please state whether funding for this project has already been approved as part of the 2012 budget?
City Staff Response:
Yes the 2012 budget has already been approved. The project is not intended as a safety project, though we expect safety to be improved. The Path is a transportation corridor and we believe it will benefit from additional lighting.
Posted: 12/12/2011
What is the business purpose for spending $ on a large project like this during such tight budgetary times? What/who is driving this proposal? I see no rationale posted by City Traffic Engineering. I would imagine it's related to safety? What data is there to document a serious enough safety concern to warrant this major project?
I have been bicycle commuting 10-11 months/year for 30 years from the near west side, using the SW Path since the day it opened. I use a bright light on the front and back of my bike. I am still riding this week, at dusk or after dark. Over the 8-10 years since the path opened I have never had even a close call at dusk/night with other bikers, runners, skaters, dogs or pedestrians.
Of course, I don't try to ride at my same fast daylight speeds when it is dusk/dark. Some still do, especially those obviously returning from long aerobic rides - and I am a weekend lycra guy who loves to ride at fast speeds into the countryside, during the day. At a reasonable speed (mildly aerobic, and I am in good shape) I have plenty of time when commuting from work to spot those who don't wear bright clothing or have a light.
I also walk frequently on the SW path, since I live nearby. I have never had a close call with a biker doing this - I use my flashlight to warn them, and I usually walk facing oncoming bikers.
It's beautiful to walk on the path at night and enjoy the quiet, the stars, the moon, and the occasional owl. This experience will be lost with the proposed lighting. Flashlights and bike lights are inexpensive. The country-like feel, especially along the woods and cemetery between Glenway and Virginia Terrace, is rare in the city and should be treasured and preserved.
An alternate proposal is an education campaign using signage to strongly encourage: bike lights and flashlights, slower biking speeds at dusk/night, walk facing "traffic", groups reducing their voice volume and being respectful of all users.
Please try this minimalist approach to see if it addresses whatever concerns are driving this poor use of tax dollars.
Jeff Carroll
What is the business purpose for spending $ on a large project like this during such tight budgetary times? What/who is driving this proposal? I see no rationale posted by City Traffic Engineering. I would imagine it's related to safety? What data is there to document a serious enough safety concern to warrant this major project?
I have been bicycle commuting 10-11 months/year for 30 years from the near west side, using the SW Path since the day it opened. I use a bright light on the front and back of my bike. I am still riding this week, at dusk or after dark. Over the 8-10 years since the path opened I have never had even a close call at dusk/night with other bikers, runners, skaters, dogs or pedestrians.
Of course, I don't try to ride at my same fast daylight speeds when it is dusk/dark. Some still do, especially those obviously returning from long aerobic rides - and I am a weekend lycra guy who loves to ride at fast speeds into the countryside, during the day. At a reasonable speed (mildly aerobic, and I am in good shape) I have plenty of time when commuting from work to spot those who don't wear bright clothing or have a light.
I also walk frequently on the SW path, since I live nearby. I have never had a close call with a biker doing this - I use my flashlight to warn them, and I usually walk facing oncoming bikers.
It's beautiful to walk on the path at night and enjoy the quiet, the stars, the moon, and the occasional owl. This experience will be lost with the proposed lighting. Flashlights and bike lights are inexpensive. The country-like feel, especially along the woods and cemetery between Glenway and Virginia Terrace, is rare in the city and should be treasured and preserved.
An alternate proposal is an education campaign using signage to strongly encourage: bike lights and flashlights, slower biking speeds at dusk/night, walk facing "traffic", groups reducing their voice volume and being respectful of all users.
Please try this minimalist approach to see if it addresses whatever concerns are driving this poor use of tax dollars.
Jeff Carroll
Posted: 12/12/2011
1: how much will it cost to clean snow off the LED lights? This has been a problem with traffic lights - snow sticking.
2: I took a look, from the bike path, at the demonstration lights and thought they were too bright. Takes away from the nature feel.
3: If bicyclists and walkers have appropriate lights then this lighting would not be necessary and in fact this lighting may contribute to a "false" sense of safety and result in less usage of appropriate bike or walker lights.
1: how much will it cost to clean snow off the LED lights? This has been a problem with traffic lights - snow sticking.
2: I took a look, from the bike path, at the demonstration lights and thought they were too bright. Takes away from the nature feel.
3: If bicyclists and walkers have appropriate lights then this lighting would not be necessary and in fact this lighting may contribute to a "false" sense of safety and result in less usage of appropriate bike or walker lights.
Posted: 12/06/2011
Please post a diagram of where the lights are to be installed along the path. Use the original engineering diagrams developed when the path was designed. This would help homeowners know where the lights are placed in relation to their dwellings. Thanks.
City Staff Response:
Thanks for the comment. The light pole layout with sufficient detail to note property addresses will be provided at the 12/12 Meeting.
Please post a diagram of where the lights are to be installed along the path. Use the original engineering diagrams developed when the path was designed. This would help homeowners know where the lights are placed in relation to their dwellings. Thanks.
City Staff Response:
Thanks for the comment. The light pole layout with sufficient detail to note property addresses will be provided at the 12/12 Meeting.
Posted: 12/06/2011
Could you please clearly label the photos of the two different light sources on the city information page regarding this project. Will you make public concerns regarding this change in lighting and how the concerns are addressed?
City Staff Response:
Thanks for the comment. We will revise the labels. The public comments received will be posted and if necessary updated information will be provided in response.
Could you please clearly label the photos of the two different light sources on the city information page regarding this project. Will you make public concerns regarding this change in lighting and how the concerns are addressed?
City Staff Response:
Thanks for the comment. We will revise the labels. The public comments received will be posted and if necessary updated information will be provided in response.
Posted: 12/06/2011
Although the demonstration lights at Council Crest are superior to the path lighting south of the Beltline, there is still a very significant amount of light spreading laterally (at 90 degrees to the path). Large portions of the path north of Odana Road have adjacent properties sited from 20 to 60 feet BELOW the grade of the path, in addition to the 20 feet of elevation of the lights above the path. This creates the potential for path lighting shining into bedrooms facing the path, particularly when natural screening by leaves is absent during the long winter months. Path lighting, at a spacing of 190 to 240 feet, also far exceeds city street lighting density on residential streets adjacent to the path. Many adjacent property owners value the natural setting adjacent to the path as a mini-wilderness in an urban setting. The current path light prototypes would destroy this ambience.
If path lighting must be installed, I would recommend that the lights be modified to provide additional lateral sheathing on the order of 3 to 4 feet to keep the light confined to the path right-of-way, particularly in areas where the lighting towers high above adjacent residences. This would not impair transverse illumination.
Path lighting was vehemently opposed during initial public hearings. The path has been a good neighbor to date. I would like to keep it that way.
A.D. Long
Although the demonstration lights at Council Crest are superior to the path lighting south of the Beltline, there is still a very significant amount of light spreading laterally (at 90 degrees to the path). Large portions of the path north of Odana Road have adjacent properties sited from 20 to 60 feet BELOW the grade of the path, in addition to the 20 feet of elevation of the lights above the path. This creates the potential for path lighting shining into bedrooms facing the path, particularly when natural screening by leaves is absent during the long winter months. Path lighting, at a spacing of 190 to 240 feet, also far exceeds city street lighting density on residential streets adjacent to the path. Many adjacent property owners value the natural setting adjacent to the path as a mini-wilderness in an urban setting. The current path light prototypes would destroy this ambience.
If path lighting must be installed, I would recommend that the lights be modified to provide additional lateral sheathing on the order of 3 to 4 feet to keep the light confined to the path right-of-way, particularly in areas where the lighting towers high above adjacent residences. This would not impair transverse illumination.
Path lighting was vehemently opposed during initial public hearings. The path has been a good neighbor to date. I would like to keep it that way.
A.D. Long
Posted: 12/06/2011
I am a bike commuter from Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood to downtown for work, and have been using the Southwest Path since it opened. It's great to see that the city is pursuing lighting on the path; I fully support it.
Even with my own lights and reflective clothing, I've experienced enough near-collisions with other bikes (usually un-lighted, but even those with lights), joggers, walkers and dogs that I don't feel safe using the path at dusk or early night. Lighting would help extend my use of the path in what I call "shoulder seasons"late fall (late October-early December) and late winter/early spring.
I am a bike commuter from Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood to downtown for work, and have been using the Southwest Path since it opened. It's great to see that the city is pursuing lighting on the path; I fully support it.
Even with my own lights and reflective clothing, I've experienced enough near-collisions with other bikes (usually un-lighted, but even those with lights), joggers, walkers and dogs that I don't feel safe using the path at dusk or early night. Lighting would help extend my use of the path in what I call "shoulder seasons"late fall (late October-early December) and late winter/early spring.
