[passcoalition] revised proposal for modification to the prioritization tool
- From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
- To: PASS listserv <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:17:58 -0500
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 unique 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:
