Southwest Commuter Path Proposed Lighting Project

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Southwest Commuter Path Proposed Lighting Project"

Frederica Haynes
5 years ago
Views:

1 Southwest Commuter Path Proposed Lighting Project Edgewood College July 19, 2012

2 Introductions District Alders Bidar-Sielaff, D5 Ellingson, D13 Phair, D20 Schmidt, D11 Solomon, D10 City Project Staff Brian Smith, P.E. Anthony Fernandez, P.E. David Dryer, P.E.

3 Project Description Lighting Project: Southwest Commuter Trail Project Budget: $250,000-$300,000 Project Limits: Assessments: Breese Terrace to South Beltline Hwy None Last met in December Where we discussed.

Usage (Avg Weekday by month) 2500 2000 1500 1000 Wheeled

4 Usage (Avg Weekday by month) Wheeled Users JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Data collected 2010/2011. Machine Count Sta. #5005 just W of Breese Source: City of Madison Traffic Engineering Division

Usage 2500 Daily Total For August 2011 2000 1500 1000 Daily Total 500 0 Data 2011.

5 Usage 2500 Daily Total For August Daily Total Data Machine Count Sta. #5005 just W of Breese Source: City of Madison Traffic Engineering Division

6 Usage 300 Weekday Wheeled Traffic by Hour August :30-8: :50-6:20 50 About 200 users In hours of darkness 0 Data Aug Machine Count Sta. #5005 just W of Breese Source: City of Madison Traffic Engineering Division

7 Why Light? There are generally two reasons why a lighting project is initiated: 1) Lighting to address crime; for example we receive frequent requests from neighborhoods and MPD to address criminal behavior with additional light, or 2) Lighting for street or path safety. For example Local streets are routinely lit based on City policy, crashes do not need to be present before a street is lit. This project is proposed under no. 2---to improve path usefulness and user safety. The Path is a very highly used transportation and Recreational corridor.

8 Why Light? Additional Light will provide improved visibility along the path. Lights illuminate path obstructions and debris and provides vertical illumination of walkers and cyclists. Path users will be more visible as other users approach. Improve visibility of walkers---peds are not required to provide a light

Why Light? Why don t bicyclists light the path? SS 347.489 Law requires bicycles have a white, front light that is visible 500 ft away.

9 Why Light? Why don t bicyclists light the path? SS Law requires bicycles have a white, front light that is visible 500 ft away. Plus a red rear reflector visible from all distances from 50 to 500 feet The law does not require bicyclist s lights to illuminate the road. The light Is intended to increase the cyclists visibility.

Proposed Presented at December 2011meeting: Light the path ---using 20 ft black pole Standard street light pole is 30 ft high Use of standard 20 pole allows for efficiencies in purchasing, storage

10 Proposed Presented at December 2011meeting: Light the path ---using 20 ft black pole Standard street light pole is 30 ft high Use of standard 20 pole allows for efficiencies in purchasing, storage and replacement Shorter poles/bollards increase cost need more to light an area, need more light fixtures, need more energy, requires more maintenance --increases cost, doesn t provide vertical illumination desired.

11 Pole and Fixture Council Crest (Initial pole and fixture)

12 Proposed (Initial) 53 Watt LED, special Type 2 w/backlight control Benefits of LEDs Higher color rendering, increased illuminance uniformity More efficient, use less energy Longer lifespan Less maintenance/relamping Produce directional light Doesn t produce ultraviolet light which attracts insects

Propose Lighting the path ---using 20 ft poles with spacing of about 210 to 230 ft Brittingham: 230 ft, 25 ft MH on concrete pole Marsh View: 230 ft, 20 ft MH on black pole SW Path (South of

13 Propose Lighting the path ---using 20 ft poles with spacing of about 210 to 230 ft Brittingham: 230 ft, 25 ft MH on concrete pole Marsh View: 230 ft, 20 ft MH on black pole SW Path (South of Beltline): 180 to 205 ft, 25 ft MH on concrete pole Starkweather: 200 ft, 25 foot MH on concrete pole Wingra (Olin to Beld): 220 ft, 25 ft MH on concrete pole Yahara (Johnson-E. Wash): 185 feet, 20 ft MH on black pole Circuit is capable of being controlled by time clock.

14 Pole Layout

15 Pole Layout

16 Revisions From the initial (December) public meeting we heard Light too bright, too cold, too blue Poles too high, will be able to see LEDs from below grade Project too expensive Project does not provide continuous light Concerns about light pollution, glare and light trespass Consider bollards for lighting From later public comments received to the City website: Path is seen as a sensitive environmental corridor Dark Skies perspective (night sky visibility) Educate path users to light themselves

17 Response Light too bright, too cold, too blue We went to work with our LED manufacturer Initial light output--6.6 Lux* Revised and reduced light output--3.7 Lux* 4300 degree K down to 3000 degree K Result in warmer light. Engineered louvers added which also decrease light intensity as well as spillage

18 BEFORE Moonlight AFTER

19 Response Poles too high, will be able to see LED lights below. Light trespass concerns. Can we reduce pole height? Poles are already much shorter than standard Street light pole. Shorter poles increase cost, requiring more poles to do the job, more fixtures, increased energy, maintenance, and siting issues, plus costs to maintain and stock non-standard equipment. The newly engineered louvers have reduced the visibility of the LEDs, also act to reduce the light intensity and further tightened the light output pattern.

20 LED Fixture with Louvers Fixture on test pole, and does not represent the pole recommended For the project.

21 Response The Project is too expensive $ 250,000 in capital funds have been identified for 2012 and can be reauthorized for 2013 if the Council supports. Project cost is already less expensive than a comparable project because underground work has already been completed.

22 Response The Project does not provide continuous light While the State DOT may recommend that all paths be lit continuously, Madison Staff do not share the one-size fits all recommendation. Most Madison paths are not lit continuously. Continuous lighting increases cost tremendously requiring many additional poles and fixtures. Continuous lighting is contrary to objections we receive where people want less light on projects.

23 Response light pollution, glare and light trespass LED lights are preferred because of their ability to steer light where needed. Further modifications staff made with the reduced wattage fixture and with the engineered louvers we find even less light trespass and glare. All the fixtures are full-cut off and International Dark Skies Compliant

24 Response Use Bollards Bollards have been used in Madison in the past and have not been found to meet the needs of path users. Bollards do not provide the vertical illumination desired. Bollards are prone to vandalism and expensive to maintain. Because bollards are spaced so tightly together project costs increase dramatically. There are also costs associated with maintaining and stocking non-standard equipment. More equipment for the plow jeeps to strike.

25 Response The SW Path is a sensitive environmental corridor Certainly the path is a wonderful treed corridor, yet it is a transportation corridor. The Path runs within State owned railroad corridor purchased from the Illinois Central Railroad. It is not mapped by City Planning nor the Dane County Regional Plan Commission as an Environmental corridor or E-way. Funds to build the path were provided by the FHWA as A transportation enhancement project. Transportation was and is its primary purpose.

26 Response Dark Sky concerns The fixture is a full cut-off fixture. It is a low wattage, well engineered down light. This is not some 200 Watt Glare bomb/wall pack from Menards. Educate path users to light themselves Certainly education is desirable however it does not address the overall problem of encouraging the use of a valued transportation corridor nor does it address those folks who chose not to follow rules or norms of behavior.

27 Next: Web Opinions and Path User Survey

28 Website Comment Tally December 2011 to 7/19 about 300+ comments received 36% comments in support of lighting --39% note safety as reason to support 64% comments expressing opposition 30% note environmental corridor concerns as reason to oppose 29% note cost as reason to oppose 14% note glare or light trespass concerns

29 Path User Survey Path user survey conducted July 10, AM and 2-6 PM 562 people responded

30 Path User Survey How did Path users identify themselves the day of the survey? People noted they used the path for: Commuting or transportation 432 (45%) Active Recreation (exercise) 381 (39%) Passive Recreation (relaxation/nature obs.) 153 (16%)

31 Path User Survey How often do people use the path? Frequent (Once or more per day) 334 responses (59%) Regularly (Several times/day) 194 responses (34.3%) Infrequently 38 responses (6.7%)

32 Path User Survey Of our 562 users 181 (32.2%) people noted favoring light 200 (35.6%) people noted as possibly favoring light 171 (30.4%) people noted as not favoring light 7 (1.25%) people noted both favoring and possibly favoring light 1 (0.18%) person noted not favoring and possibly favoring light 2 (0.36%) no answer

33 Path User Survey Opinion on lighting by user type Commuters 153 support; 134 oppose; 151 possibly support Active Recreation 132 support; 116 oppose; 139 possibly support Passive Recreation 46 support; 60 oppose; 51 possibly support

34 Path User Survey Opinion on lighting by user frequency Frequent Users 108 support; 119 oppose; 111 possibly support Regular Users 67 support; 49 oppose; 80 possibly support Infrequent Users 16 support; 4 oppose; 18 possibly support

35 Path User Survey Would you use the Path more if lit? 89 people responded considerably more often 194 people responded somewhat more often 219 people responded- Not at all or less often 38 people responded Same amount of usage 22 people no answer

36 Path User Survey Do you have a headlight? 394 people responded Yes 153 responded No

37 Presentation will be posted to the City s website. Site can be accessed at:

COMPARISON OF FIXED & VARIABLE RATES (25 YEARS) CHARTERED BANK ADMINISTERED INTEREST RATES - PRIME BUSINESS*

COMPARISON OF FIXED & VARIABLE RATES (25 YEARS) Fixed Rates Variable Rates FIXED RATES OF THE PAST 25 YEARS AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LENDING RATE - 5 YEAR* (Per cent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul