[passcoalition] Re: revised proposal for modification to the prioritization tool
- From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
- To: PASS listserv <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:14:35 -0500
I should clarify the delayed green definition. When you have a delayed green
on a one-way avenue or street, it would, in effect, be an LPI.
Ken, I think you were referring to a different situation. Here's one
explanation I found in my notes and comes from the internet:
"Delayed, or flashing green means the cars on one side of the intersection are
given an opportunity for a left turn with no opposing traffic, before the
lights go to straight green, which means traffic from both directions are
allowed." So Ken, your explanation was correct. Leading turns can be
confusing because they may be ambiguous and may sound like the through traffic
surge.
Ken, your challenge crossing west on the south crosswalk at 42 Street and 9th
Ave and other leading turns clearly illustrates why pedestrians should only
initiate the crossing with the near-lane parallel traffic surge.
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/
From: oandmhk@xxxxxxx
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: revised proposal for modification to the
prioritization tool
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:54:48 -0500
Ken,
I think perhaps I was unclear. The community boards need not be directly
involved or particularly invested. We propose that the district geographic
lines be used to define areas for prioritization. If the DOT and the community
board cooperate, all the better, but the main idea on the revised proposal was
to delineate neighborhoods.
Delayed green signals are essentially LPI. Leading turns are turn that happen
ahead of the through traffic, and this happens with arrow signals.
Gene
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:10:18 -0800
From: cclvi@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: revised proposal for modification to the
prioritization tool
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I offer two cautions about depending on community Boards; first, many major
intersections are at the borders of two community boards and, therefore,
neither board may feel strong ownership of it, and second, my personal and very
subjective impression is that the Transportation Committees in some community
boards are rather clueless about accessibility matters (readers of this list
will recall my urging that coalition members get into that action!)
Regarding your references to traffic signals Karen, I think the "Delayed Green"
phase may be the same thing as your "leading turn". It holds back the opposing
straight traffic for a few seconds to permit left turners to clear the
intersection. It certainly does have implications for pedestrians. For
example, as I prepare to cross west on the south crosswalk at Ninth Avenue, I
cannot start just because the westbound 42nd Street vehicle traffic surges.
Therefore, I feel the presence of both ""Delayed Green" and LPI" signals
deserve high prioritization scores.
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Karen Gourgey <kgourgey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Karen Gourgey <kgourgey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [passcoalition] Re: revised proposal for modification to the
prioritization tool
To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:40 PM
Hi Gene, Annalyn and All,
This is quite a brilliant piece of work. Beginning with Lester’s very clever
idea to do prioritizations within each community board right down through the
recommended scoring changes. You’ve very adroitly snuck in the other issues
such as DW’s without ever losing focus on the APS’s as was Matt’s request.
There are a couple of copy edit things to fix, but other than that, I think
this should go to Matt. if I had one concern, it was someone in an outer
borough, making a request for a n aps and that request being worth only one
point. No doubt, in most cases, there would be other aspects of the
intersection that would warrant and receive points.
I don’t remember, but in the original tool, do leading turns get points? (Hope
I’ve used the right term; I mean those turns that happen at the beginning of
the walk signal.) And also, does the presence of LPI’s get a point value?
That’s it for this post, one more coming up, smile.
Karen
From: passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:passcoalition-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gene Bourquin DHA
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:18 AM
To: PASS listserv
Subject: [passcoalition] revised proposal for modification to the
prioritization tool
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 uni 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:
