[passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
- From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
- To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:31:57 -0500
Karen, I know we talked about this offline. Just a word t the group. It may
not be tour advantage to ask or expect the DOT to review and fix all the
problems at an intersection when they plan an APS installation. These can be
very different activities. We should continue to press them on APS and other
issues, but perhaps not in typically in conjunction.
Gene
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:01:04 -0500
From: SchadingA@xxxxxxx
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
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
To: PASS listserv
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
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:
