[passcoalition] Re: prioritizing APS requests
- From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
- To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:26:50 -0500
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:
