[blindlaw] comments needed regarding policy foraudiblepedestriansignals

McCarthy, Jim JMcCarthy at nfb.org
Sun Mar 15 15:59:12 UTC 2009


Chuck,
You bring up streets with medians, which reminds me of a point in the document that I might question.  The document says that it is better for blind people to complete the entire crossing rather than to wait in a median, doing the crossing in multiple parts, usually two.  I think that when the person realizes that there is a median, he or she is more comfortable waiting there.  What sometimes happens though is that the median is not clearly indicated so a blind person is not sure where in the street area would be safe to wait.  I know that when I had a dog, he would go toward the place with the least obstructions so it was hard to realize that there might be a median.  Medians that are not raised or otherwise distinguishable to a blind person are highly appropriate places for detectible warnings and in my experience, probably the most appropriate places for them.  That, of course, is another topic.
Jim McCarthy 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:17 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] comments needed regarding policy foraudiblepedestriansignals

thanks. Some of the audible signals that have been installed thus far installed at appropriate intersections. Others have been installed ast places where there is a low volume of traffic and where there is a low demand. Apparently they are wanting to have a more a systematic approach in place to determine where signals will be installed in the future. We have many intersections where there are medians crossing several wide streets where they have not been installed. On these I personally prefer to at times to divide the crossing in to two sections to pay more attention to traffic flow. There is another location where they should probably build a pedestrian crossing either above or below ground. There is a precedent for a couple of below ground crossings one in downtown Fresno that was built in the 60's and one that was just opened a couple of years ago to go under railroad tracks that cut through the campus of the local community college. 
There have been some above ground pedestrian crossings of major roads and freeways to benefit children going to school. As a long-time cane user trained long before audible signals were fashionable or feasible I still believe that traffic flow is the best audible signal.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "McCarthy, Jim" <JMcCarthy at nfb.org>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] comments needed regarding policy for audiblepedestriansignals


> Chuck,
> I am happy to talk through this with you off line if you would prefer. 
> Nevertheless, I will offer my immediate thoughts after reading.  It is 
> a little unclear what the goal is.  This process is to prioritize 
> intersections giving those most in need APS first.  I am convinced 
> that there are several signalized (light controlled) intersections 
> that do not need these devices.  However, this might be a way to 
> provide APS at all signalized intersections in time and that may be 
> what the Access-Board will come to require.
>
> I think it is good to have as a part of the evaluation team a blind 
> person and a deaf blind person when the requester is deaf blind or 
> serves that community.  I have always found it problematic though when 
> cities say that the centers blind people use should have some super 
> priority.  I lived in Portland Oregon and the west part of the city 
> was hilly with curvy streets.  Many were not straight and some had high speed traffic.
> However, the audible traffic signals were almost never in those 
> neighborhoods (the better ones I might add) because it was assumed 
> that blind people did not frequent them.  To me that is a ghettoizing 
> assumption that results from this process.  I do think that public 
> transit centers and such places should have greater attention paid 
> though and this document would do that.
>
> Finally, in the main, I think that the traffic and street 
> configuration factors are as they should be.  I think that the 
> locations with the greatest need based on these factors should be the 
> first to receive signals.  The Fresno process is similar to others I 
> have seen, though I would prefer that the evaluation group use the factors and evaluate all
> signalized     intersections using the factors more than whether and how 
> many requests were made.
> Jim McCarthy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
> On Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:21 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: [blindlaw] comments needed regarding policy for audible 
> pedestriansignals
>
> The City of Fresno is proposing the policy shown below to evaluate the 
> installation of audible traffic signals. As this is outside my 
> expertise I would appreciate any comments regarding this document. 
> Please feel free to contact me off list if needed.
> Chuck Krugman, M.S.W., Paralegal
> 1237 P Street
> Fresno ca 93721
> 559-266-9237
>
>
> APS Policy-03-09-LP .pdf
> DRAFT ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS (APS) INTERSECTION EVALUATION 
> PROCEDURE BACKGROUND Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), also known 
> as audible pedestrian signals, are devices that communicate 
> information about pedestrian timing in nonvisual format such as 
> audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrating surfaces. APS are 
> used in conjunction with standard pedestrian activated traffic signals 
> to provide the following information to pedestrians:
> list of 4 items
> ·
> Existence of and location of the pedestrian pushbutton · Beginning of 
> the pedestrian WALK interval · Direction of the crosswalk and location 
> of the destination curb · Clearance signal interval list end They are 
> used to assist blind and visually impaired persons and other persons 
> with disabilities of all ages to cross at designated streets and intersections.
> PURPOSE
> The purpose of this evaluation policy is to set forth factors to be 
> used by the City of Fresno's Public Works Department, in cooperation 
> with the City of Fresno's Disability Advisory Commission, in 
> developing a priority listing of signalized intersection candidates to 
> be retrofitted with audible devices that will provide guidance for the 
> blind community and visually impaired persons and other persons with 
> disabilities of all ages to cross certain streets.
> POLICY
> It is the policy of the City Council that the retrofitting of existing 
> traffic signals with APS shall be based on factors established herein 
> and that such measurements and computations as may be required in 
> determining priority rating of candidate locations shall be the 
> responsibility of the Public Works Department.
> It should be noted that in special situations, an APS should not be 
> installed because of the adverse affect it could have on pedestrian 
> safety as a result of the overall traffic circulation pattern of an 
> area, or unusual geometric conditions where an APS would not provide 
> the safety benefits necessary for the blind or visually impaired 
> individuals to cross a street. It should also be noted that some 
> traffic signals cannot be retrofitted with APS without major costly 
> modifications. Retrofitting of traffic signals with APS shall be 
> subject to approval by the City Engineer.
> Important: APS are utilized to help blind and visually impaired 
> travelers recognize when a WALK signal is operating in a given 
> direction. An APS may enhance the safety of blind travelers in two ways:
> list of 1 items
> 1.
> Lessens the chance of a blind or visually impaired pedestrian 
> misjudging when the walk phase is operating, thereby lessening the 
> chance of accidentally crossing against a signal.
> list end
> list of 1 items
> 2.
> Helps blind and visually impaired pedestrians recognize immediately 
> when the walk phase begins, permitting them to cross the street in a 
> timely fashion, thereby lessening the chance of being in the 
> intersection when the signal changes.
> list end
> However, it is important to recognize that the APS does not and cannot 
> assure the blind and visually impaired pedestrians that there will be 
> no potential traffic conflicts while crossing when the APS is 
> operating. In particular, the blind and visually impaired pedestrians 
> should be aware of at least four possible conflicts.
> list of 4 items
> 1.
> Vehicles may be still clearing the intersection when the APS comes on.
> 2.
> Vehicles may fail to stop for the red light. This is particularly 
> common for motorists attempting to enter on a yellow light.
> 3.
> Motorists may stop and make a right turn on red while watching traffic 
> on their left but may fail to notice pedestrians on their right.
> 4.
> Vehicles may have right and left turns on the same phase as the 
> pedestrian.
> list end
> Because of these potential conflicts, it is important that the blind 
> or visually impaired traveler exercise due caution for his or her 
> well-being when crossing a street, whether or not it is equipped with 
> APS. It is especially important that blind and visually impaired 
> travelers be properly trained by certified orientation and mobility 
> specialists in safe travel techniques on the public right-of-way.
> EVALUATION PROCEDURE (See attached "Evaluation Form.") The following 
> basic considerations and evaluation factors shall be utilized to 
> determine whether a location is eligible to be a candidate for APS and 
> to determine its relative position on the priority list. Evaluation 
> and scoring of factors will be conducted by an evaluation team 
> consisting of a certified orientation-mobility specialist, a visually 
> impaired/blind traveler and a traffic engineer. Candidate locations 
> shall be requested by the City of Fresno Disability Advisory 
> Commission, its working groups, and constituent requests to the ADA Coordinator's office.
> Candidate locations will be evaluated by means of the sample 
> evaluation sheet attached.
> I. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS:
> APS normally will be considered for installation only if the following 
> conditions are met:
> list of 5 items
> A.
> Intersections must be signalized.
> B.
> Signals must be susceptible to retrofitting.
> C.
> Signals should be equipped with pedestrian signal actuations. (See 
> also section on "Signals without Pedestrian Actuations.") D.
> Location must be suitable to installation of audible signals, in terms 
> of surrounding land use, noise level and neighborhood acceptance.
> E.
> There must be a demonstrated need for the audible signals in the form 
> of a request from an individual or group that would use the audible signal.
> list end
> II EVALUATION FACTORS
> The following factors shall be used to establish a priority listing 
> for potential audible traffic signal candidates. Candidates will be 
> arranged in priority order of those with the highest total points (100 
> points
> maximum) on top and then in descending order. The scoring of factors 
> will be conducted by an evaluation team consistent of a mobility 
> specialist, a visually impaired/blind traveler and a traffic engineer. 
> If the request for an APS was made by a deaf blind individual, or by 
> representative of an organization serving deaf blind pedestrians in 
> order to improve access in their geographic area, the evaluation team 
> may also include a deaf blind rater. The decision whether to include a 
> deaf blind rater will be made by the City Engineer.
> A) Intersection Safety
> 1. Accident Records: Past pedestrian accident experience at the 
> intersection will be used as an indication of potential safety 
> performance. Points will be based on pedestrian accidents reported by 
> the City of Fresno's Police Department.
>
> table with 3 columns and 6 rows
> Pedestrian Accidents
> Period
> Points
> 1
> 4 years
> 1
> 2
> 4 years
> 2
> 3
> 4 years
> 3
> 4
> 4 years
> 4
> 5 or more
> 4 years
> 5
> table end
>
> 2. Intersection Configuration: The number of approaches to an 
> intersection and their geometric configuration (offset, skewed, etc.) 
> affect the ability of the blind and visually impaired persons crossing the roadway.
> In particular, traffic at 3-leg intersections tends not to provide 
> adequate audible clues for the blind to permit them to effectively 
> judge the signal phase.
>
> table with 2 columns and 6 rows
> Configuration
> Points
> 4-leg right angle intersection
> 1
> 3-leg T-intersection
> 2
> 3 or 4-leg skewed intersection
> 3
> 4-leg offset intersection
> 4
> Other complex or multiple leg intersections
> 5
> table end
>
> Note: Intersections with 5 or more legs will require special design.
> 3. Intersection Signalization: Pre-timed intersections are the easiest 
> for blind pedestrian because the phase interval is constant and can be 
> observed over time. Vehicle actuated intersections are more difficult, 
> because the pedestrian interval may be of different lengths or skipped 
> all together. Split-phasing can provide confusing auditory 
> information, as a traveler may interpret left-turning vehicles as a parallel traffic surge.
>
> table with 2 columns and 5 rows
> Signalization
> Points
> Pre-timed
> 0
> Vehicle Actuated
> 2
> Split Phasing
> 4
> Exclusive Ped Phase (for future reference)
> 5
> table end
>
> 4.
> Width of Crossing:
> Wider streets are more difficult for blind travelers to cross. If each 
> leg of the intersection has a different width, points will be assigned 
> on the basis of the widest street on which pedestrians are permitted 
> to cross.
> Crossing
> width will be measured at the point pedestrians normally cross the street. 
> Islands
> and medians will be included in the total crossing distance even if 
> they are equipped with separate pedestrian signal actuators. These 
> points will be apportioned based upon the greatest width of the 
> crossing at the subject intersection.
>
> table with 2 columns and 7 rows
> Width of Crossing
> Points
> 40 feet or less
> 0
> 40 to 59 feet
> 1
> 60 to 79 feet
> 2
> 80 to 99 feet
> 3
> 100 -119
> 4
> 120 feet or more
> 5
> table end
>
> 5. Vehicle Speed: The speed of approaching traffic reflects the 
> ability of approaching traffic to stop for a pedestrian clearing the 
> intersection as the lights change. Audible signals help blind 
> pedestrians get a timely start at the beginning of the walk phase, 
> thereby permitting clearing the intersection in a timely manner.
> Points are assigned on the basis of the 85 percentile speed on the 
> fastest approach leg. More points are assigned on the basis of higher speeds.
>
> table with 2 columns and 6 rows
> Speed Range
> Points
> 0 - 25 mph
> 1
> 26 - 30 mph
> 2
> 31 - 35 mph
> 3
> 36 - 40 mph
> 4
> 41 mph or over
> 5
> table end
>
> B. Crosswalk Characteristics
> These points will be apportioned based upon the highest-scoring 
> characteristics of any of the crosswalks at the intersection. For 
> example, if any of the crosswalks at an intersection have a median 
> island protruding into an intersection, then the intersection will 
> receive the two points allotted for that characteristic.
> list of 1 items
> (a)
> Location of Pedestrian Push Button. Pedestrian push buttons that are 
> too far from the intersection can present difficulties for blind 
> pedestrians. They may make it harder for an individual to use the 
> button as a cue for alignment and/or to push the button and cross in 
> the same cycle.
> list end
>
> table with 2 columns and 4 rows
> Location of Pedestrian Actuations
> Points
> One or more ped pushbuttons located > 10 ft from curb
> 1
> One or more ped pushbuttons located > 5 ft from crosswalk extended
> 2
> One or more ped pushbuttons out of alignment with direction of travel
> 2
> table end
>
> list of 1 items
> (b)
> Median Islands Blind pedestrians have difficulties interpreting 
> traffic clues at medians and islands. Efforts should be made to permit 
> the blind to cross in one continuous movement. In such cases, signal 
> timing should be extended to accommodate the full crossing. Divided 
> streets with or without a pedestrian signal actuator in the median 
> will be handled as a single crossing, with the width measured across 
> the entire street.
> list end
>
> table with 2 columns and 2 rows
> Median Island
> Points
> Protruding into crosswalk, or cut through.
> 2
> table end
>
> list of 1 items
> (c)
> Alignment of Crosswalk. A skewed crosswalk is one in which the 
> direction of travel on the crosswalk differs from that on the 
> approaching sidewalk. In this context, skew is not defined as the 
> angle at which streets intersect. If a blind pedestrian walking a 
> straight line from the approaching sidewalk is headed toward parallel 
> traffic lanes, the crosswalk is skewed. If the pedestrian would end up 
> deviating from the crosswalk, but would still arrive at the opposite 
> corner, the crosswalk is not defined as skewed for this purpose.
> list end
> Skewed Crosswalk
> 4
> (d) Distance to Alternative APS
>
> table with 2 columns and 6 rows
> Distance to Alternative APS Crosswalk
> Points
> 1 block
> 0
> 2 blocks
> 0
> 3 blocks
> 2
> 4 blocks
> 2
> 5 or more blocks
> 3
> table end
>
> (e) Requests for APS
> New requests for APS will be recorded by the ADA Coordinator. 
> Requestors will be asked to specify the reason for the request (e.g. 
> proximity on a route to school or work), the difficulty they encounter 
> at the intersection, and the time of day that presents the greatest 
> difficulty. This information may be used by the Orientation and 
> Mobility Evaluation team in assessing the intersection.
>
> table with 2 columns and 4 rows
> APS Requests
> Points
> 1 request
> 1
> 2 recent documented requests
> 2
> 3 or more recent, documented requests
> 3-4
> table end
>
> B) Pedestrian Usage
> Blind pedestrians share many characteristics with the sighted 
> population in that they go to public places, business, social, 
> educational and medical facilities. At the same time they have special 
> needs. For example, they may have a greater reliance on public 
> transportation than sighted persons. Audible signals should be placed 
> with the view of improving mobility of blind persons and making more 
> facilities accessible to them. Proximity of signals to these 
> facilities may assure a greater degree of utilization.
> list of 1 items
> 1.
> Proximity to facilities for people who are blind or visually impaired:
> This includes the
> Department of Rehabilitation, Social Security offices, Valley Center 
> for the Blind and other similar facilities. Special consideration may 
> be given to senior citizens complexes or public housing facilities 
> that have one or more blind or visually impaired persons in residence. 
> Points are assigned on the basis of blocks or distance (1 block equals 
> 400
> feet) from proposed APS site to subject facility. The closer the two 
> are, the more points are assigned.
> list end
>
> table with 2 columns and 6 rows
> Proximity
> Points
> 4 to 6 blocks
> 2
> 3 blocks
> 4
> 2 blocks
> 6
> 1 block
> 8
> At subject facility
> 10
> table end
>
> 2. Proximity to key facilities utilized by all pedestrians (blind and
> sighted.): This includes
> medical, educational, social, recreational, shopping, commercial, 
> business, public and governmental facilities. Points are assigned on 
> the basis of blocks or distance (1 block equals 400 feet) from 
> proposed APS site to subject facility. In case of multiple facilities, 
> points will be assigned on the basis of the closest facility.
>
> table with 2 columns and 6 rows
> Proximity
> Points
> 4 to 6 blocks
> 1
> 3 blocks
> 2
> 2 blocks
> 3
> 1 block
> 4
> At subject facility
> 5
> table end
>
> 3. Access to public transit: Because blind and visually impaired 
> persons rely heavily upon public transportation (bus or trolley), 
> special consideration will be given to those proposed APS sites that 
> have heavy general use, serves any of the facilities indicated above 
> (Ref. B-1 and B-2), or serves as a transfer point and serves 2 or more 
> transit routes within a one-block walking distance.
> list of 1 items
> a)
> Number of transit stops and/or transit routes within one block of 
> proposed audible signal site.
> list end
>
> table with 2 columns and 6 rows
> Number of Routes and Stops
> Points
> 1 - 2 routes and 1 stop
> 1
> 3 or more routes and 1 stop
> 2
> 1 - 2 routes and 2 stops
> 3
> 3 or more routes and 2 stops
> 4
> 2 or more routes and more than 2 stops
> 5
> table end
>
> b) Passenger usage is based upon the total passengers boarding and 
> debarking each day at a transit stop or transfer point within a 
> one-block walking distance.
>
> table with 2 columns and 7 rows
> Passengers Boarding and Debarking Each Day Points 0 - 49 0
> 50-149
> 1
> 150-249
> 2
> 250-499
> 3
> 500-999
> 4
> 1,000 and over
> 5
> table end
>
> C) Traffic Conditions
> Vehicle volumes, traffic distribution, traffic congestion and flow 
> characteristics may assist or impede the blind traveler in crossing an 
> intersection. Blind pedestrians can function best when crossing 
> signalized intersections that are at right angles with a moderate but 
> steady flow of traffic through the intersection on each leg and with a 
> minimum of turning movements (right or left turns). Traffic that stops 
> on each leg during each signal cycle is particularly helpful. Traffic 
> that is either light, or very heavy, or erratic in its flow makes it 
> difficult for the blind traveler to pick up audible clues as to 
> whether the light is red or green. In such cases, audible signals will 
> assist in determining when it is possible to cross the street. Points 
> may be assigned by the evaluation team based upon their perception of 
> the relative importance of each of these factors (which are not 
> necessarily dependent upon the total average daily traffic). Candidate 
> locations may score up to a maximum of 5 points for each of the 
> following factors depending upon overall traffic distribution.
>
> table with 3 columns and 6 rows
> Heavy Traffic Flow
> Vehicles per hour
> Points
> Approach traffic on all legs is in excess of 2,000 vehicles per hour 
> during any peak hour.
> 2,000 - 2,999
> 1
> Approach traffic on all legs is in excess of 2,000 vehicles per hour 
> during any peak hour.
> 3,000 - 3,999
> 2
> Approach traffic on all legs is in excess of 2,000 vehicles per hour 
> during any peak hour.
> 4,000 - 4,999
> 3
> Approach traffic on all legs is in excess of 2,000 vehicles per hour 
> during any peak hour.
> 5,000 - 5,999
> 4
> Approach traffic on all legs is in excess of 2,000 vehicles per hour 
> during any peak hour.
> 6,000 and over
> 5
> table end
>
> table with 3 columns and 7 rows
> Off Peak Traffic Presence Direction 1
> Points
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Constant (≥ 90%)
> 0
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Heavy (70-80%)
> 1
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Moderate (50-60%)
> 2
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Light (30-40%)
> 3
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Occasional (<30%)
> 4
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> None (no through lanes to create surge noise.
> 5
> table end
>
> table with 3 columns and 7 rows
> Off Peak Traffic Presence
> Direction 2
> Points
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Constant (≥ 90%)
> 0
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Heavy (70-80%)
> 1
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Moderate (50-60%)
> 2
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Light (30-40%)
> 3
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> Occasional (<30%)
> 4
> At least two vehicles present on both directions on parallel street, 
> expressed as a percentage of ten cycles.
> None (no through lanes to create surge noise.
> 5
> table end
>
> E.) Mobility Evaluation
> Each intersection being considered for audible signals should be 
> evaluated by a certified orientation and mobility specialist. Based on 
> the judgment of the O-M specialist and the evaluation team, additional 
> points may be assigned based on observed or special conditions not 
> adequately covered by any of the previous factors. This may include a 
> heavy right-turn volume, right-turn island, right-turn signals, 
> limited cone of "visibility", etc.
> Points
> Mobility and miscellaneous factors
> 0-15
> Signals without Pedestrian Actuations
> Signalized intersections without pedestrian actuations may be 
> considered for evaluation under this priority system, provided the 
> following conditions are met:
> list of 3 items
> 1.
> There must be a demonstrated problem or need that can be alleviated by 
> the installation of an audible signal in the form of a request from an 
> individual or group that would use the audible signal.
> 2.
> The evaluation team must unanimously concur with the need.
> 3.
> Appropriate pedestrian actuation buttons and circuits must be provided 
> as part of the APS installation.
> list end
> Accessible Signals at New Signal Installations Accessible signals will 
> be considered for new signal installation if it is determined that 
> installation is warranted by the criteria established above.
> Public Notice of Installation of Accessible Signals The City 
> recognizes that the installation of an APS may be of interest to the 
> community, especially residents in the immediate vicinity of the 
> candidate intersection. In addition, research has indicated that APS 
> are more effectively used by blind and visually impaired pedestrians 
> if they have notice of its location and a basic understanding of the 
> type of signal installed.
> Accordingly, the Director of Public Works will provide a notice to 
> neighbors in a 350 feet radius from the intersection of the proposed 
> installation of an APS at that site, and invite concerned citizens to 
> contact him in writing. In addition, the Department of Public Works 
> will issue press releases and informing the public and organizations 
> serving people with disabilities, especially visual impairments, of 
> type and location of proposed and installed APS.
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40
> nfb.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40s
> bcglobal.net
> 



_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40nfb.org




More information about the BlindLaw mailing list