[passcoalition] Re: prioritizing APS requests
- From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
- To: PASS listserv <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 06:35:14 -0500
Annalyn and Ken,
Ordering requests is important. I think some clarification or discussion is
needed around the issue. The prioritization score that is produced by the tool
should not be used City-wide to compare all crosswalks. If it were, certain
factors like off-peak-time traffic flow or the number of requests would
severely skew outcomes so that only certain boroughs or particular
neighborhoods would consistently get installations. Perhaps we should
recommend that the scores be used to prioritizing installations within boroughs
or within neighborhoods? Anyone's thoughts?
As Ken suggested, assessments might done first with the oldest requests, then
then the locations with the highest numbers of requests, and finally looking at
all those requests in an area (e.g., downtown Brooklyn) and using the
prioritization tool to determine where in that area the APS are most necessary.
I am putting out all my modification ideas below. Everyone's comments welcome.
Annalyn and I will be discussing these in a conversation soon. Here they are.
The APS prioritization tool should reflect the unique nature
of New York City. We prefer that there
be a focus on people who are blind who are living and working in New York City.
In our city there are so many attractions,
multiple public transit lines, and facilities for people with visual
impairments, that these features may not be considered as critical when
considering where APS will be most needed and beneficial. Meanwhile, major new
construction around the
City has created new risks and a need for information about signaling.
Therefore we make the following
recommendations:
Geometry:
Change item:
Islands or medians: 5
points
Rationale: Islands and medians at newly constructed bicycle
lanes create risks throughout the boroughs.
APS can improve the safety of segmented crosswalks, along with
detectable warning surfaces.
Transit facilities nearby:
Change entire category to:
None 0
Major transportation hub: 6
Rationale: Train and bus routes are ubiquitous in the
City. There may even be a rationale that
where transit is not available, APS would be more needed because. The tool
would be improved by assigning
weight only to major transportation hubs such as the Port Authority, Jamaica
Center, Futon Terminal, and other such facilities.
Distance to visually impaired facility:
Consider: within 300 feet: 5
Rationale: While nearness to a blindness facility might
merit some consideration, most people who are blind have a need to travel
throughout the City. Traveling within
one block of a facility should be weighted less important in a dense urban
environ.
Distance to major attraction:
Consider: within 300 feet: 3
Rationale: Major attractions are found throughout New York
in all the boroughs. We propose that
nearness to an attraction should be weighed with a moderate score. The
likelihood that a visually impaired
pedestrian might be traveling to any particular attraction in New York is
relatively low.
Distance to alternate APS:
Greater than 300 feet: 3
Rationale: most of the 15,000 intersections under consideration
will not be near an existing alternate APS.
We think that the factor should be weighed moderately.
Requests for APS:
Consider:
None: 0
One 2
Two to six 4
More than six 8
Rationale: In a densely populated urban location, multiple requests
for an APS is better weighted by providing an advantage over a single or
low-number-request request for an APS
Consider added categories:
Painted or delineated bulb-outs: 8
Rationale: Establishing shorter crossing lengths at many
crosswalks is being accomplished by painted and bollard-delineated
bulb-outs. Blind pedestrians have no way
to know where to stand. Properly
installed APS and surface treatments can make these crossing accessible.
Thanks.
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/
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: prioritizing APS requests
From: acourtneyb@xxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 23:57:07 -0500
Gene and Ken,
I have started to review the Prioritization Tool and and would like to add some
comments to your discussion.
I have spent the last several years teaching at Selis Manor and observed the
APSs installed for Sixth and Seventh Avenues because the poles existed and no
APSs for 23rd Street despite the LPI when crossing 23rd Street at both corners.
I'm concerned that adding consideration of existing infrastructure will allow
DOT to continue to install APSs where it is easy to do so rather than where one
is needed. Signalization for the intersection and the pedestrian signal
control for each cross walk should be the focus.
Regarding turning cars; despite how much time is spent teaching how to analyze
an intersection and anticipate turning cars, when my student and I reach the
crosswalk with an APS, attention turns to the sound of the voice announcing the
walk light is on and turning cars become a distant afterthought. I now stand
at the corner, demonstrate the APS and state it tells only that the walk light
is on, it does not tell if and when car(s) will turn toward you as you cross.
Sometimes I have a student stand and note the turning cars for a cycle or two
before actually using the APS and crossing.
Noting the number of people requesting an APS at a specific crosswalk might
suggest the merit of the request but it could place travelers in the outer
boroughs at a disadvantage. Being outside Manhattan is sometimes a
disadvantage in itself.
I am concerned about the medians or islands added as a result of bike lanes and
pedestrian plazas. Some areas are only painted. Although an APS will not
address the need for detectable warning strips and well defined borders, I am
not sure if timing is properly adjusted in each situation.
Annalyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
To: passcoalition <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, Feb 7, 2011 8:35 pm
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: prioritizing APS requests
Ken,
I'm examining the tool currently and appreciate your input. Two points where
we might disagree. I'll just out this out for your response. The last thing I
would like would be for the DOT to consider the readiness of the infrastructure
when assessing a crosswalk. We do not want decisions being made because the
existing poles happen to be convenient or the underground work is easily
completed. I want the DOT to make decisions based on the objective needs and
the highest potential for making a crosswalk accessible.
My other concern would be the time of the request. I surely agree that seven
years is ridiculous. But again, I think we want the crosswalks fitted with APS
based on their comparative scores, which would not include time. It would make
sense for the DOT to perform their assessments with the tool in the order that
APS were received, and that might cause older requests to be installed earlier.
If I could ask one more question. I don't see how an APS helps with turning
traffic. An APS cannot help a pedestrian with the challenge of turning cars at
a typical intersection. How would an APS assist you when it relates to turning
cars at the beginning of a Walk phase? There's are situation when there a
leading protected turns, where an APS can provide valuable information, but
there are no leading protected turn in effect in NYC as far as I can tell.
Thanks,
Gene
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:01:23 -0800
From: cclvi@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: prioritizing APS requests
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
When requests for APS installations are evaluated, I hope the prioritization
tool used will include, among other factors; 1.How long it has been since a
request was first made
2. How ready the existing infrastructure is for installations
3. documentation of dangerous incidents
4 volume of turning vehicles
5. volume of pedestrians (Contrary to the prioritization we have been shown, a
high volume of genral public use of a crosswalk makes that crosswalk less
dangerous not more dangerous for a blind pedestrian)
If these criteria are included in evaluations, I should think that the North
crossing at Eighth Avenue and 55th Street will score high. I made my first
request seven years ago. That crosswalk already has ped heads in the perfect
positions. Not many pedestrians cross there. A high percentage of vehicle
movement is turning from the avenue into the crossstreet or from the cross
street into the avenue, both one-ways. I have reported about a half dozen
dangerous incidents, in one of which I was hit by a turning vehicle. I was not
injured but there is a police report on record. Ken
--- On Sun, 2/6/11, Karen Gourgey <kgourgey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Karen Gourgey <kgourgey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 6:33 PM
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
Other related posts:
