[passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
- From: "Audrey Schading" <SchadingA@xxxxxxx>
- To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:01:04 -0500
I think that does, Karen.
________________________________
From: passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karen Gourgey
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 7:27 PM
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
OK, so then, we can ask that wherever APS's are installed, all other
guide lines are followed, so that at least when an intersection is
treated, it's a complete job Does that work?
Karen
.
________________________________
From: passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gene Bourquin
DHA
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 7:08 PM
To: PASS listserv
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
I will need time before any meeting with Matt to confer with Annalyn and
other interested folk to discuss our ideas on modifying the tool for New
York City.
The prioritization tools has to be for APS only because that is its
entire purpose and its nature. The tool looks at an intersection and
then each of the individual crosswalks and does take into account the
existing signaling, architecture, and the environment surrounding the
crossings. So it already accounts for all the other factors. What it
cannot do is make recommendations about other factors.
If I could, let me illustrate with some examples. Whether a crosswalk
should be a priority can be determined by the prioritization score, but
whether a curb cut needs a compliant detectable warning surface is not
something we need to determine. We already know that following all
current guidelines that all curb cuts must have a DWS. This would
likewise be true of cut-throughs at islands and refuges. This would
also be true for pedestrian clearance signal lengths, which must be set
at 4 feet per second (or better, 3.5 feet per second).
The prioritization tool helps make a judgment about where we really need
to have an APS, but other concerns we have are a matter of following
guidelines and not getting sloppy. I don't see how we could combine
these two different purposes into the APS prioritization.
Gene
Dr. Eugene A Bourquin
_____________________________
DHA, COMS, CI & CT, CLVT
Support deafblind children in Guatemala!
Go to www.FRIENDSofFUNDAL.org <http://www.friendsoffundal.org/>
<http://www.friendsoffundal.org/> Visit:
http://www.bourquinconsulting.com/
________________________________
From: kgourgey@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 18:33:23 -0500
Hi Mindy and all,
I talked with Matthew Puvogel the other day and said I wanted to change
the flyer to ask people to include in their requests to include not
only APS's, but intersections they find dangerous or confusing. I
thought that would get us on the road.
Also, Ms. Newman indicated that she wanted to do things in a systematic
way, taking everything into account. Perhaps what we should in sist on
is that whenever there is a request for an aps, a full review should be
conducted. Matt wants to do that using the priority tool, and he wants
to meet with Gene to modify the tool, so that it's appropriate for this
environment. Gene, is there a way that when the tool is modified,
additional factors can be added that would assure a more wholistic
look at each intersection being considered?
Karen
in
________________________________
From: passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mindy
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 5:43 PM
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
Greetings,
I agree with Gene's assessment and am more than a little concerned about
this concentration on aps, as though none of the other "dangers" exist.
I don't believe we can allow ourselves to be held to such a narrow scope
of advocacy. We must insist on a big picture remedy. I'm afraid that
if we allow Mat's understanding of the situation to guide our course, .
. . It's just too scary to contemplate.
Don't misunderstand; I realize that we need to start somewhere, but I
believe the whole problem needs to lie squarely on the table, with all
of the parts in clear view of the City officials before we start taking
what might be random steps.
Thanks.
Mindy
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Bourquin DHA <mailto:oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
To: PASS listserv <mailto:passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:44 PM
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
I think the summary from Matt is essentially correct. It
contains almost nothing about issues other than APS because that's how
the meeting went. I did manage to force myself into the discussion but
had mere minutes to present on detectable warns and other matters in the
survey. It should have been noted that DOT was informed by the survey
of the many non-compliant installation features, especially at bike
lanes.
I am not necessarily opposed to a process and political focus on
APS, but acting as a technician here, I think that DWS, bulbouts, and
other architectural changes are as important for blind pedestrian
safety. Perhaps more important.
Matt seems intent on keeping the focus on APS, and perhaps we
should go with that flow. But as we move forward, the others issues
need to be address. Knowing when the walk signal begins is good, but
knowing where to stand to cross or when you are stepping into a bicycle
lane are too. Smile.
Gene
Dr. Eugene A Bourquin
_____________________________
DHA, COMS, CI & CT, CLVT
Support deafblind children in Guatemala!
Go to www.FRIENDSofFUNDAL.org <http://www.friendsoffundal.org/>
<http://www.friendsoffundal.org/> Visit:
http://www.bourquinconsulting.com/
________________________________
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:20:41 -0800
From: cclvi@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Can a PASS member who was there respond with documentation of other
content that is important to us? ...such as what you note, Karen, and
any commitments D of T made.
--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Karen Gourgey <karen.gourgey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Karen Gourgey <karen.gourgey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [passcoalition] Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
To: "'passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 1:54 PM
Hi Everyone,
Below is the summary of the Dec 16 meeting furnished by Matthew PuVogel
of the Mayor's Office for people with disabs. My concern with it is the
limited exposure given to the other needed accommodations like
detectable warnings, and, of course, it sounds like folks still don't
understand LPI's. I'll also send the flyer they want to send to the
community. I want to respond to Matthew tomorrow morning So, if you
have comments, please let me know by this evening if at all possible.
Thanks.
Karen, (see below for MOPD summary.
On December 16, 2010 The Mayor's Office
for People with Disabilities met with the Department of Transportation
and the Coalition of Pedestrians for Accessible Safe Streets (PASS) to
discuss the new DOJ criteria to be utilized when installing Accessible
Pedestrian Signals, and the below summarizes the basic working approach
for proceeding.
All new installations of lights in New York City will now be evaluated
using the complete Department of Justice criteria, and if they are
deemed to be a priority, an Accessible pedestrian signal will be
installed.
It was determined that PASS requests should be submitted to the
Department of Transportation Borough Commissioner and a copy sent to
MOPD.
To start with a baseline, it is necessary to know where the signals have
been installed to date, and if and when the complete Department of
Justice standards have been followed when installing accessible
pedestrian signals.
Further, too meet the unique urban setting that is New York City,
modifications to the DOJ criteria should be considered, and MOPD and
PASS will examine the tool and provide comments on how the DOJ criteria
can be modified.
As DOT strives to improve pedestrian safety, such changes in
intersection design and signalization continue to make the pedestrian
phase of street crossings increasingly difficult for people with vision
loss.
Changes include intersections with multiple lanes, irregular shapes and
complicated phasing.
Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities will continue to partner
with PASS concerning additional pedestrian matters such as Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), pedestrian plazas, and the installation of
bike lanes.
The statements above attempt to provide a brief summary of the
conversation of December 16, and set forth some steps to get momentum
generated on accessible signals, and to assure that other identified
matters of safety are flagged for future strategic planning discussions.
The above does not assert to include all of the details or opinions
expressed at the meeting or in accompanying documents, or to include all
of the critical safety issues to be explored in future planning
partnerships.
Karen Luxton Gourgey Ed.D., Director
Computer Center for Visually Impaired People
Baruch College, City University of New York
One Bernard Baruch Way, Box H-0648
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1426
Fax: (646) 312-1421
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/ccvip/
Other related posts:
