[Colorado-Talk] Fwd: NFB Boulder Valley: Exciting APS Intersection Advocacy Project updates

Sun Jul 5 17:09:15 UTC 2026

Greetings Chapter members and friends,
Please read below for some exciting news from Jordyn Castor. I sent this
out a while ago, but my Outlook did not pass it along, so there are even
more improvements than she listed here.
It's time to go to the city Council to extend our gratitude and encourage
even more improvements and great partnership.

At your service,

Maryann Migliorelli—President
National Federation of the Blind Boulder Valley Chapter
Office: 303-499-9125
Cell 720-284-2318maryannmigs at gmail.com

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jordyn Castor <jordyn2493 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 12:53 AM
Subject: NFB Boulder Valley: Exciting APS Intersection Advocacy Project
updates
To: Maryann Migliorelli <maryannmigs at gmail.com>
Cc: Judy Dixon <judydixon at comcast.net>, Jim Wolcott <jimwolcott8 at gmail.com>,
Heather Pauze <heathersg123 at gmail.com>, Gerry Leary <lgerry51 at gmail.com>,
Libbi Lovejoy <libbislens at gmail.com>, Andrea Brandies <brandandr at aol.com>,
Bette Barford <bettebarford at gmail.com>

Hey there intersection APS advocate enthusiasts!!!!

Our project is making significant headway  with the P1 intersections we
submitted to the City of Boulder 11/19/2024. We are small but mighty and I
am so very very proud of us for continuing to see this through!

I’d love intersection verification of the following and whether or not the
intersections have two APS buttons on one pole, or separate pole
configurations, where there is one pole per crossing, i.e. two APS poles
per corner. For example, if I were crossing 30th and Arapahoe, there would
be one pole with an APS push button at the 30th crosswalk domes, and a
second push button at the Arapahoe cross domes, separated by hopefully 10
feet or more.

Intersections:

  - Broadway and Iris (North)

  - Broadway, Lashly, Hanover, and 41st (South)

  - Baseline and Broadway (South)

  - Table Mesa and Broadway (South)

Here are the intersections I’ve verified have been completed so far:

  Separate pole per crossing (6) — the preferred setup:

  - 28th and Arapahoe

  - 28th and Canyon

  - Walnut and 28th

  - Arapahoe and 30th

  - Arapahoe and 48th

  - Arapahoe and 38th

  One pole per corner (4):

  - 30th and Canyon

  - Walnut and 30th

  - 14th and Canyon

  - 15th and Canyon

I’m also attaching the APS request form from the city, so we can fill it
out for new intersections as we come across them. I’ve requested info on
how the NFB as a collective group can update our spreadsheet The city has
on file, too.

I also sent a letter to the city requesting that the one pole per crossing
be the preferred configuration used for APS installations moving forward,
and I’ll paste that letter below. I'd be extremely grateful if you are able
to try out some of these intersections and send your preferences and
gratitude to the city as well.

Happy travels!!!!

Jordyn

My Letter:

Hello,

My name is Jordyn Castor, and I'm a blind pedestrian who relies on
Boulder's Accessible Pedestrian Signals to get around the city safely and
on my own. Before anything else, thank you for the APS work the city has
already done. It has made a real difference in where I can go
independently, and it has genuinely changed my life and deepened my love of
Boulder.

I'm writing about one design choice that matters a lot for how usable these
signals are, and to ask the city to keep it in mind as the work continues.

The choice is whether each crosswalk gets its own pole and pushbutton, or
whether both crossings at a corner are combined onto a single pole. From
using these signals myself, separate poles per crossing are noticeably
safer and easier for me to navigate.

When the crossing I'm about to make has its own pole and button, I can
press the button and then use that same spot to line up with the crosswalk
and listen to traffic before the signal changes. With a shared pole, the
button doesn't clearly belong to one crossing, so if the light changes
before I'm aligned, I have to start over, re-orient myself, and find the
right button again. By then I've usually lost the walk interval. A
dedicated signal also lets me use its tone to find the crosswalk and to aim
my line of travel as I actually cross, which makes the whole crossing more
predictable, efficient, and safer to cross. And when both signals are on
the same pole, their audible tones overlap and trample each other, so it's
genuinely hard to tell which crossing has the walk signal, and which APS
belongs to which crossing.

On June 19th and 20th I went around and used a number of these signals, and
the intersections with both signals combined on one pole were significantly
harder to orient to and cross than the ones with separate poles per
crossing.

It also lines up with the federal standards, which actually treat separate
poles as the rule and the combined setup as the exception. The Public
Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), whose final rule took
effect in September 2023, state in section R307.4.1 that "where two
pedestrian push buttons are provided on the same corner, they shall be 10
feet or more apart." It's a requirement, with an exception only where that
separation is genuinely infeasible. The MUTCD works the same way: a normal
walk tone is used where the two signals are at least 10 feet apart, and a
spoken message is the fallback used only when installing them that far
apart isn't technically possible. The research behind these rules (NCHRP
3-62, with support from the National Eye Institute) found that blind
pedestrians identified the correct crosswalk fastest and most accurately
when the two signals were on separate poles near the curb, at least 10 feet
apart. That is exactly the difference I feel on the street.

I have two requests. First, if it's possible, I'd love to see the corners
that were already built with a single pole brought up to the separated
configuration. Those include 30th and Canyon, Walnut and 30th, 14th and
Canyon, and 15th and Canyon. Second, and just as important to me, I'm
hoping the city will make separate poles per crossing (10 feet or more
apart) the default for all future APS installations and upgrades, and only
fall back to a combined pole at the specific locations where the separation
truly isn't feasible. Several Boulder intersections are already built this
way, including 28th and Arapahoe, 28th and Canyon, Arapahoe and 30th, and
Arapahoe and 38th, so I know it's achievable here. I'd be glad to walk any
of these with your staff to show the difference in person.

Our chapter has put together a list of the intersections we think need this
work, and I've attached it here for your reference. I haven't been able to
walk all of them myself yet, so if you're able to share which ones the city
has already completed, and how the poles were configured at each, it would
help us keep our records accurate, and understand which intersections have
been made accessible so far.

Thank you again for your continued work to make Boulder accessible to
everyone. I'm thrilled at the independence and freedom I am gaining to
travel around the city now!

Best,
Jordyn Castor
Accessibility Advocate, National Federation of the Blind, Boulder Valley
Chapter
jordyn2493 at gmail.com
(616) 970-6002

A couple of references, if useful:
PROWAG technical requirements (R307.4.1):
https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/technical.html
PROWAG final rule, Federal Register (2023):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260705/22475702/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ped Signal Request.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1213136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260705/22475702/attachment-0001.pdf>