Thanks, Peter, for starting this great conversation. One thing that I haven't
seen mentioned is that the lack of lighting is not just a problem from 26th to
24th, but along the whole trail. The other really dark spot is between the
Cedar Riverside LRT station and downtown.
Becca is right that this is a major infrastructure priority for our office -
but it's not just our office that wants to see lighting and call boxes on this
trail. When the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee was asked to rank ten
potential projects, this one came in first.
There's a little history on this trail that folks might be interested in.
Unlike the Greenway, which was built and is maintained by Hennepin County, or
the Grand Rounds, which are maintained by the Park Board, this trail was built
by the Met Council, as part of the Hiawatha LRT project. It was considered a
'mitigation,' and did not receive the level of planning or investment of our
other off-street trails. That's why it lacks lighting, call boxes, and lane
striping. It's also why the curb cuts at some intersections (15th and 11th
Aves S, for instance) are in what could be politely called odd locations. It's
also why the pedestrian/bicycle conflict in the location of the Cedar Riverside
station was not really considered (and why we need to make sure MTC doesn't
create exactly the same problem with the Franklin station extension).
This trail continues to exist in a sort of limbo state. It is owned by the Met
Council, but they have showed no interest in sprucing it up. The City is
considering 'adopting' it. It's disappointing that CLIC did not recommend this
lighting project for 2013. We're considering our next moves.
Lastly, I wanted to speak to Niko's concerns. Kathy's right that the primary
purpose of having lights on one's bike is not to illuminate the path, but to be
seen. One of the problems along this trail is glare from the very bright LRT
cars' lights, which overwhelm even fairly bright bike lights.
In my opinion, the energy used to light this trail will be more than worth it,
from a carbon emission perspective. Right now, this trail gets a lot of use
during the day (I use it to get to and from downtown daily). But the use drops
of precipitously after dark. It's much more of a change than on the Greenway,
which is lighted. I'm certain that the danger - both real and perceived -
created by the lack of light on this trail is deterring people from using it.
Most of these folks are likely driving single occupancy autos instead.
We need to take bicycle infrastructure seriously. If our bike trails and lanes
are only usable during the day (due to lack of lighting) and the summer months
(due to lack of plowing, etc), we will deter people from biking who would
otherwise do so. If, on the other hand, we see bike facilities as
transportation infrastructure, no less important than roads, we'll be able to
increase our cycling mode share - dramatically reducing carbon emissions.
Robin Garwood
Aide to Council Member Cam Gordon
Cooper