[passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt

  • From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: PASS listserv <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:20:37 -0500

I had several emails back and forth with Janet today, clarifying the current 
and near-future situation with the MUTCD and the PROWAG.  I will post them to 
all at some point soon.

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: Update, Matt
From: acourtneyb@xxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:14:45 -0500



 I feel it is better to "speak the language of the DOT" by referring to the 
MUTCD and look at consumer requests and the prioritization tool.  



The prioritization tool awards 8 points for a Leading Pedestrian Interval, LPI, 
and 8 points for an Exclusive Pedestrian Phase, EPP.  This is on the high end 
of the point scale.



Annalyn  










 










 






 






-----Original Message-----


From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>


To: PASS listserv <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Sent: Sat, Feb 12, 2011 4:05 pm


Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt


















I'm refraining from opining on the politics of aligning with with Matt and his 
office.  Others are much more qualified to speak to this question.








On the issues raised by Ken, I agree with the first idea.  However, I don't 
think we are in a strong position to demand the NYC DoT install APS whenever 
work is done at an intersection.  Rather, we should point out that the revised 
edition of the MUTCD will soon require that APS be installed when substantial 
work is done at a crosswalk.  I think referring to industry standards is a 
better way to go.  I also do not think that automatically ranking APS at 
intersections where work is being done over consumer requests and the outputs 
of the prioritization tool is a good idea.  APS should be installed where they 
are needed, and first where they are most needed and requested.





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: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:54:22 -0800


From: cclvi@xxxxxxxxx


Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt


To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx





I share Pratik's opinion.  In fact, I would prefer that we expect a commitment 
from the d of T that starting immediately, unless already in effect, whenever 
any street geometry or signaling is changed in any way, APS are included in the 
work.  This policy could take precedence over APS work at conventional 
intersections governed by a prioritization tool.  Ken





--- On Sat, 2/12/11, Pratik Patel <pratikp1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:






From: Pratik Patel <pratikp1@xxxxxxxxx>


Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt


To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011, 11:19 AM








While I understand why working with Mat is in Mat's best political interest,


I am not certain that it is entirely in this Coalition's best interest. We


have seen slow progress at best from his office. I advise causion.  We need


to ensure that we maintain independence. It might be best to have an


informal talk with Mat, letting him know that things must move swiftly and


no more stalling. I feel like quite a bit of stalling is happening. We


should determine an appropriate amount of time--say three months by which we


should see decisions. If not, ... 





Regards,





Pratik








-----Original Message-----


From: passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


[mailto:passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AUDREY SCHADING


Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:04 AM


To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt





Upon pondering all thoughts, I agree that working with Matt as best as 


possible as a facilitator is for all of our best intetrests. Thank you.





Audrey Schading


----- Original Message ----- 


From: "Maria Hansen" <mhansen1@xxxxxxx>


To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:10
 AM


Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt








> I'm sure that we all remember the game "telephone".  Each time that the 


> message is passed along, there is a bit more distortion not to mention 


> delay.


> My other concern is that Bloomberg is a lame duck mayor.  I don't know how





> much time is left in his term.  There would be a delay in appointing a new





> commissioner and bringing him/her up to speed.  The expertise lies with us





> (especially Gene, Annalyn and Ken).


> If there is a diplomatic way to work with Matt as, say, a facilitator, 


> that may stroke his ego and smooth things out for us.  However, I think 


> that we must maintain control.


> Maria


>


> ----- Original Message ----- 


> From: "Ellen Rubin" <ellenr5@xxxxxxxxxxx>


> To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 9:38 AM


> Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt


>


>


>> Like Maria and Ray  I am concerned about allowing Mat to take the lead 


>> with DOT rather then PASS being the leader. Is there a diplomatic way to 


>> maintain our leadership on the issue of Safe Streets for those of us who 


>> are blind or low vision?


>>


>> Ellen


>>


>>


>>


>>


>> At 07:37 PM 2/11/2011, you wrote:


>>>I agree with Maria's concerns. I think we need to give Matt the benefit 


>>>of the doubt; that is, take him at his word, but keep the doubt in the
 


>>>back of our minds. I think he is committed to addressing our concerns. 


>>>That said, his influence is probably limited, and we have no idea if he 


>>>will have further health issues. So my bottom line is that we should 


>>>proceed, but do so with caution.


>>>Ray


>>>


>>>


>>>----- Original Message -----


>>>From: "Maria Hansen" <mhansen1@xxxxxxx>


>>>To: unknown <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>>>Date: Friday, Feb 11, 2011 13:29:23


>>>Subject: [passcoalition] Re: Update, Matt


>>>


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >
 Karen,


>>> > I, for one, am a bit skeptical.  Working with Matt may be fine


>>> but having him be the lead or point person on our side may not be the 


>>> best thing for us.


>>> > It may be a bad precedent to have the Mayor's Office for People


>>> With Disabilities be our spokesperson.  We do not know who the 


>>> Commissioner will be under the next administration and Matt has serious 


>>> health problems.


>>> > I think that we should diplomatically work with him but retain


>>> our position which we have been working hard to establish with DOT. 


>>> PASS should take the lead and we welcome Matt's support.


>>> > Maria


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >   ----- Original Message -----


>>> >   From: Karen Gourgey


>>>
 >   To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


>>> >   Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 10:10 AM


>>> >   Subject: [passcoalition] Update, Matt


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >   Hi All,


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >   Got a call from Commissioner Sapolin yesterday.  He is anxious


>>> to move forward with adapting the prioritization tool.  Also, he asked 


>>> pretty directly that we work with him and that we and his office 


>>> approach DOT as a united front.  He has asked for a meeting next 


>>> Wednesday with me and Gene to   work out the tool and then strategize
 on





>>> a way forward.  I also received the famous list of aps requests that DOT





>>> has.  They sent it to Matt, and then he sent it to me.  (and, I can't 


>>> send it out till Monday due to a network outage at Baruch today.) Matt 


>>> said in our conversation that he's committed to moving on the other 


>>> issues we have, but that he wants to get a little traction on the APS's 


>>> first, and he asks us to try this strategy with him.  I told him I for 


>>> one would be willing to try this.  I think his idea is to present some 


>>> places for DOT to start and just keep feeding them direction  .


>>> >


>>> >   So, are you all willing to have us try to work with him?    He


>>> seems really to want to try and seems to be asking us to give his way a
 


>>> chance.  Please let me know what you think  Also, that meeting is 2:00, 


>>> possibly running till 4:00.  Does anyone have an interest in coming?


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >   Thanks and talk soon.


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >   Karen


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >


>>> >   Karen


>>> >


>>> > Karen,


>>> > I, for one, am a bit skeptical.  Working with Matt may be fine


>>> but having him be the lead or point person on our side may not be the 


>>> best thing for us.


>>> > It may be a bad precedent to have the Mayor's Office for People


>>> With Disabilities be our
 spokesperson.  We do not know who the 


>>> Commissioner will be under the next administration and Matt has serious 


>>> health problems.


>>> > I think that we should diplomatically work with him but retain


>>> our position which we have been working hard to establish with DOT. 


>>> PASS should take the lead and we welcome Matt's support.


>>> > Maria


>>> >


>>> >


>>> > ----- Original Message -----


>>> > From: Karen Gourgey


>>> > To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


>>> > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 10:10 AM


>>> > Subject: [passcoalition] Update, Matt


>>> >


>>> >


>>> > Hi All,


>>>
 >


>>> > Got a call from Commissioner Sapolin yesterday.  He is anxious to


>>> move forward with adapting the prioritization tool.  Also, he asked 


>>> pretty directly that we work with him and that we and his office 


>>> approach DOT as a united front.  He has asked for a meeting next 


>>> Wednesday with me and Gene to   work out the tool and then strategize on





>>> a way forward.  I also received the famous list of aps requests that DOT





>>> has.  They sent it to Matt, and then he sent it to me.  (and, I can't 


>>> send it out till Monday due to a network outage at Baruch today.) Matt 


>>> said in our conversation that he's committed to moving on the other 


>>> issues we have, but that he wants to get a little traction on the APS's 


>>> first, and he asks us to try
 this strategy with him.  I told him I for 


>>> one would be willing to try this.  I think his idea is to present some 


>>> places for DOT to start and just keep feeding them direction  .


>>> > So, are you all willing to have us try to work with him?    He


>>> seems really to want to try and seems to be asking us to give his way a 


>>> chance.  Please let me know what you think  Also, that meeting is 2:00, 


>>> possibly running till 4:00.  Does anyone have an interest in coming?


>>> >


>>> > Thanks and talk soon.


>>> >


>>> > Karen


>>> >


>>> >


>>> > Karen


>>


>>


>


>


>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. passcoalition
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2011