[passcoalition] Re: revised proposal for modification to the prioritization tool

  • From: "Karen Gourgey" <kgourgey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:40:06 -0500

Hi Gene, Annalyn and All,

 

This is quite a brilliant piece of work.  Beginning with Lester's very
clever idea to do prioritizations within each community board right down
through the recommended scoring changes.  You've very adroitly snuck in the
other issues such as DW's without ever losing focus on the APS's as was
Matt's request.  There are a couple of copy edit things to fix, but other
than that, I think this should go to Matt.  if I had one concern, it was
someone in an outer borough, making a request for a n aps and that request
being worth only one point.  No doubt, in most cases, there would be other
aspects of the intersection that would warrant and receive points.  

 

I don't remember, but in the original tool, do leading turns get points?
(Hope I've used the right term; I mean those turns that happen at the
beginning of the walk signal.)  And also, does the presence of LPI's get a
point value?  

 

That's it for this post, one more coming up, smile.

 

Karen

 

 

  _____  

From: passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gene Bourquin DHA
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:18 AM
To: PASS listserv
Subject: [passcoalition] revised proposal for modification to the
prioritization tool

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Annalyn and I  met the other evening and reviewed each category in the
prioritization tool.  We revised and fine tuned my original draft proposal
based on our experiences and the input from other coalition members.  I am
posting the results of our efforts.  Everyone's input is needed and
valuable, and Annalyn and I really want to get more input before we meet
with the MOPD and DoT again.  You can make public comments or ask questions
here on the listserv, or contact us off the list by email.  Thanks!  Here is
the current proposal.

 

The APS prioritization tool should reflect the uni nature of New York City,
especially in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.  The
prioritization should reflect the character of these urban environments more
consistently and weigh the factors differently when considering APS
installations. We prefer that there be a focus on citizens 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 critically
unique when considering where APS will be most needed and used.  Meanwhile,
major new construction around the City has created new risks and a need for
information about signaling.  

 

The 59 existing community board districts in the boroughs define
well-established neighborhoods.  The Department of Transportation has
traditionally worked with these entities and these boards often have
valuable input on transportation and street geometry issues.  Prioritization
of installations for APS would not begin to make the entire city accessible
for blind and low vision pedestrians if we were to prioritize on a city-wide
basis.  Therefore we suggest that prioritization happen within the boarders
established by community boards, where the needs of neighborhoods may be
fairly ranked by the object measurements of the prioritization tool(s).  The
results would be that the crosswalks in each neighborhood which need APS
would receive the most timely consideration.

 

The current tool appears to be well-suited for Staten Island, but for the
other boroughs we recommend the following modification be made to the tool:

 

 

Geometrics:

Change item:

Islands or medians:                5 points

Rationale:  Islands and medians at newly constructed bicycle lanes create
risks throughout the boroughs.  Properly located APS along with appropriate
detectable warning surfaces (DWS) can improve the safety of segmented
crosswalks.  

 

Consider these 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 located APS and
surface treatments (DWS) can make these crossing accessible.

 

Transit facilities nearby:

Change entire category to:

None                                       0

Major transportation intersections and hubs:            6

Rationale:  Train and bus routes are ubiquitous in the City.  The tool would
be improved by assigning weight to intersections where four or more bus
and/or train routes come together, or where  major transportation hubs such
as the Port Authority, Jamaica Center, Futon Terminal, and other such
facilities are located.

 

Distance to visually impaired facility:

Consider: within 300 feet:     5

                            650              3

                           1300             2

Rationale:  While nearness to a blindness facility might merit some added
consideration, most New York citizens who are blind have a need to travel
throughout the City.  Traveling near a blindness facility should be weighted
less important in our dense urban environ.

 

Distance to major attraction

Replace scoring with:

Consider: within 300 feet:     4

                            650              3

                           1300             1

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.  

 

Distance to alternate APS:

Replace all items with

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 replacing all scoring with:

None:                                      0

One                                         2

Two to six                               3

More than six                         4

Rationale:  In a densely populated urban location, multiple requests for an
APS is better weighted by providing a slight advantage over a single request
for an APS.  In less populated areas we would not want individual requests
to be at a sever disadvantage.  Therefore we suggest the above scoring.

 

Other related posts: