[passcoalition] Re: signal definitions; defining neighborhood borders
- From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
- To: <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:42:50 -0500
Ken, without putting everyone else to sleep - grin - I'll just point out when a
pedestrian is crossing either east or west on the south side of the
intersection, the near- lane parallel traffic is only east bound. When
assessing the cues to initiate a crossing, knowing where the near-lane traffic
surge will come from is crucial. Doesn't matter what direction you cross, the
near-parallel lane is the same. This concepts often misunderstood. The lane
to attend to is the one that is parallel with and closest to the traveler. It
is not the surge physically closest to the traveler, which seems to be what you
have been using.
We do agree that an APS would help, without a doubt.
Another thing we agree upon is that the DOT must put APS at all intersections
undergoing major work. This is how the PROWAG guidelines are going and will
probably be law soon.
Last, although community board lines might divide a small percentage of
intersections, in such cases any decision the DOT might make to determine the
district will put the APS assessment into a neighborhood for ranking, which is
the goal.
Thanks,
Gene
> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:02:13 -0800
> From: cclvi@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [passcoalition] Re: signal definitions; defining neighborhood borders
> To: passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Yes indeed, Gene, my example is on a two-way street. And in that example,
> the pedestrian risks being misled by the surge from "the near lane", which is
> actually westbound traffic (the nearest lanes!) Your advice of course
> applies only for an eastbound pedestrian in that south crosswalk, not one
> westbound as in my example. Bottom line- you and I agree that an APS would
> be very valuable there.
>
> I am still unsure how we can assign someimportant intersections to one
> neighborhood since many sit on what you are considering neighborhood
> boundaries. For example, The middle of 14th Street separates community board
> districts. Which neighborhood is considered the home of each of those major
> intersections? Elsewhere in Manhattan, Sixth Avenue and Eighth Avenues are
> likewise community board borders, and I am sure that in other boroughs too,
> major thoroughfares are the boundaries of community board districts often. I
> confess though, I don't have a better way to do it if we must subdivide each
> borough for purposes of prioritizing sites.
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 2/13/11, Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> From: Gene Bourquin DHA <oandmhk@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [passcoalition] Re: revised proposal for modification to the
> prioritization tool
> To: "PASS listserv" <passcoalition@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, February 13, 2011, 6:14 PM
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass HTML
> {height:100%;cursor:text;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass
> {padding:3px;border:0px;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass .yiv912171312ecxPlainText,
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass .yiv912171312ecxHTML
> {font-family:'Lucida Console' !important;font-size:80%;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass P
> {padding:0em !important;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass BLOCKQUOTE, #yiv912171312
> .yiv912171312ExternalClass UL, #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass OL
> {margin-bottom:0em !important;padding-top:0em !important;padding-bottom:0em
> !important;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass ecx*
> {text-indent:0in !important;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass SPAN.yiv912171312ecxsquiggly
> {border-bottom:dotted 1px #f00;}
>
> 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
>
>
>
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass .yiv912171312ecxhmmessage P
> {padding:0px;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass body.yiv912171312ecxhmmessage
> {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> ecx_filtered #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449 p.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449MsoNormal,
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> li.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449MsoNormal, #yiv912171312
> .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> div.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449MsoNormal
> {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> a:link, #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass
> #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449 span.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> a:visited, #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass
> #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> span.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449 p
> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New
> Roman';}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> span.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449EmailStyle18
> {font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none
> none;}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass ecx_filtered
> #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> {}
> #yiv912171312 .yiv912171312ExternalClass #yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449
> div.yiv912171312ecxyiv1636081449Section1
> {}
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
>
Other related posts:
