Dorene Cornwell

October 22, 2002

I want to speak strongly in favor of accessible pedestrian signals, detectable warnings and clear barriers between roadways and pedestrian routes called for within the recommendations of the Public Right of Way Advisory Committee to the U.S. Access Board.

I write as a person with significant vision problems, as a frequent pedestrian and user of mass transit, as someone with a strong interest in pedestrian safety, as the former partner of a blind person killed at a location where, I believe several other pedestrians had also been killed, and as the aunt of a two-year-old. Two-year-olds and their multiply distracted parents need all the help they can get to stay within bounds of places like crosswalks; measures that will help blind people will almost certainly also help my nephew, his mother, and many people like them.

I do not feel competent to evaluate some of the engineering issues raised in many of the comments I read while preparing to write my comments. I generally prefer strong articulartion of targets with a menu of options for how to meet those targets over broad sweeping mandates, but I think creation of standards is vital for discussion of how to create a built environment that meets the needs of many different people.

I use the word "people" here specifically because I am very skeptical of group pronouncements ostensibly on behalf of people who might or might not share characteristics with me.

I have experience with some low-budget alternatives to sidewalks in my neighborhood in Seattle based on elevated asphalt strips along roadways. This approach is better than no sidewalks, which is another too common occurrence. I cannot speak for how well the elevation break works for blind people. However, Too me it seems like the particular method in use there does not offer clear enough break w ith the roadway to allow drivers reduced risk of hitting pedestrians, be they blind sighted, purple or green-haired, toddlers, schoolkids, the elderly or presumably able-bodied.

As to unintended consequences, I absolutely think unintended consequences must be embraced. We can build all the accessible bus stops we want, but they will do no good at all if, for example, one cannot get safely from the bus stop to one's final destination. In my experience, often the most dangerous part of a trip is the last 1/4 mile or so from a bus stop to the door of my destination. I realize that articulating ways to address this point is probably beyond the scope of this particular report, but I do not believe unintended consequences are necessarily a valid reason to reject all the work done so far.

Thank you very much for noting my comments.

Dorene Cornwell,
Seattle WA