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