[passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
- From: "Mindy" <mindyjoy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:32:01 -0500
Hi Karen and all,
Actually, I did see this and your subsequent post and do think your suggestions
will work for us. My concern is still, however, that Matthew and all will get
so hung up on the APs, that the other regs will take a back seat. My last
post, however, seams pretty hasty and should have been a little better thought
through.
Mindy
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Gourgey
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 6:33 PM
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Summary from MOPD of Dec 16 Meeting
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: