COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wed., 10/18/00, 2:25 p.m. - - - BILL 000506 - Relocate southerly curb of Erie Ave. BILL 000508 - Held till call of Chair. BILL 000510 - Re towing zone locations, hours. BILL 000511 - Extend time period to strike Sharswood Street from City Plan. BILL 000512 - Withdrawn at request of sponsor. BILL 000513 - Placing Parrish Street on City Plan. BILL 000538 - Authorizing K. Osuala to construct, use, maintain one-story garage addition. BILL 000542 - No motor home parking Bennington St. BILL 000547 - Right turns on Chestnut. Held till call of Chair. BILL 000582 - Extend time period to legally abandon right-of-way in former Annin Street Plan. BILL 000584 - Extend time period to allow for development of shopping center along 52nd Street BILL 000589 - Eliminate portion of Chang Street. BILL 000604 - Authorizing water mains and appurtenant work along Paleski Road. BILL 000605 - Appropriate right-of-way through Hagy's Mill Road. BILL 000606 - Grant right-of-way for water main purposes along Paleski Road. RES. 000041 - Re dangers caused by deteriorating retaining walls. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 10/24/00 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE I N D E X Page 000506 Paul Lonie, Streets Department . . . . . . . . Martin Soffer, Planning Commission . . . . . . 5 Nancy Sen, Streets Department. . . . . . . . . 6 000508 Nancy Sen, Streets Department. . . . . . . . . 7 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission . . . . . . 14 000538 Nancy Sen, Streets Department. . . . . . . . . 15 Darwin Beauvais, Aide to Jannie Blackwell. . . 16 000510 Charles Denny, Streets Department. . . . . . . 17 000542 Charles Denny, Streets Department. . . . . . . 17 000604, 605, 606 Paul McCloskey, Water Department . . . . . . . 20 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission . . . . . . 22 000512 Paul Lonie, Streets Department . . . . . . . . 27 000513 Paul Lonie, Streets Department . . . . . . . . 28 000582 Paul Lonie, Streets Department . . . . . . . . 30 000584 Paul Lonie, Streets Department . . . . . . . . 32 000589 Paul Lonie, Streets Department . . . . . . . . 33 000547 Debra Russo, Managing Director's Office. . . . 35 Robert Wright, Streets Department. . . . . . . 37 Paul Levy, Center City District. . . . . . . . 63 3 10/24/00 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE (Index, cont'd.) 000547, cont'd. Donald Nigro, President. . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers Sarah Borden, General Manager, Rittenhouse Row 77 Sue McNamara, Delaware Valley Bicycle Coalition 78 Kate Ryan, Thomas Jefferson Hospital . . . . . 92 Dennis Winters, Clean Air Council. . . . . . . 97 Jennifer Escorcia, Bicycle Club of Phila . . . 116 Kevin Smith, Del. Valley Transit Users Group 123 John Jordan, Washington Square West Resident 127 Resolution 000041 Debra Russo, Managing Director's Office. . . . 143 4 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000506 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. With me are committee members Councilmember Rizzo, Councilman Wilson Goode, Jr., Councilman David Cohen, and Councilman Darrell Clarke. We have a quorum, I believe, right? We do have a quorum. What we will do this afternoon is, we will take the bills out of order from the calendar. In order to move the hearings along much more quickly, we will take those bills with little or no testimony attached to them so we can run those bills first, and then we'll take the bills we expect to have significant testimony on. We do this in this arrangement all the time because it does move much quicker. And as soon as my clerk gets back to me. . .
The clerk will read the title of the first bill. 5 10/24/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000506
Bill No. 000506, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No.'s 157, 158, and 226 by relocating the southerly curb line of Erie Avenue between Second Street and Sedgely Avenue, relocating a portion of the southerly curb line of Erie Avenue at the southeast corner of Second Street and Erie Avenue, and relocating a portion of the northerly curb line of Erie Avenue at the northeast corner of Second Street and Erie Avenue.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000506, I think: This is an administration ordinance 20 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to relocate the curb lines and the described portions of Erie Avenue to make the intersection safer for children crossing to their school. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the 6 10/24/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000506 committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The purpose of this bill to revise lines and grades of the subject streets for public safety purposes. The Planning Commission staff supports this bill, and the Commission will recommend approval of Bill 000506 at its next meeting on November 2, 2000. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000508, an ordinance granting permission to the owners of certain newsstands located within the 1st Councilmatic District to construct, use, and 7 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508 maintain on a temporary basis newsstands with a greater dimension of advertising than that permitted by general ordinance; in particular, granting such permission with respect to the owners of the newsstands located at the southeast corner of Broad and McKean Streets, the southeast corner of Broad and Tasker Streets, the southwest corner of Tenth and Reed Streets, the southeast corner of 13th and Mifflin Streets, the northeast corner of Juniper and Market Streets, the northwest corner of Tenth and Market Streets, the northeast corner of Ninth and Market Streets, the southeast corner of Eighth and Market Streets, and the northeast corner of 11th and Walnut Streets, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor with the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 23 000508 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill authorizes newsstand owners at nine particular locations within the City to 8 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508 install new newsstand structures. The Streets Department will need to review the final plans for the structure to be installed at these locations as part of the newsstand licensing process. We would like to point out that at one location, the northeast corner of 11th and Walnut Streets, we expect that there will not be sufficient room to accommodate the footprint size required by previous ordinance. And, therefore, the Streets Department objects to the passage of this bill in its present form. The Streets Department would have no 14 objection to the legislation if the 11th Walnut and Street location were not included, which is -- that's the last location of the nine.
Is there anyone here from the Newsstand Association? (No response.)
I happened to notice on the southeast corner of Broad and McKean last evening a new newsstand that has kind of like been temporarily dropped on the sidewalk. It is not like the newsstands that we had been talking about that -- similar to the one at 12th and 9 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508 Market.
I haven't a clue to these things -- are these the self-contained units that we worked on or not? Do you happen to know?
I'm not aware of that, but I can send our inspectors out and get back to you. Did you notice if it was a wooden stand?
No, it's metal, they're metal. So at least they're conforming to the material.
But it is a larger version of the square newsstand on the east side of East Penn Square.
I don't see any real significant difference other than a larger newsstand. And if it's not going to accommodate the amenities that we were hoping to have in the newsstand, then I, as the sponsor of that, would not agree to that. So I'm going to hold this bill -- 10 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508
-- until someone from the Newsstand Association and the advertising company, if they're still a partner in this, gets back to me to let me know what they're doing.
There was a motive to my madness. Although some people disagreed with it, it wasn't just to put larger newsstands there; we wanted something that was going to be much more attractive and also accommodate the needs of the operator while we address the issue of what needs to be -- what they're obligated to do by the code.
Exactly. And a lot of work with all of the departments, you know, under your guidance --
Listen, I'm not going to throw all that work aside. Either they do what we asked them to do or they'll have to figure out a better way of getting a newsstand that conforms to the materials in the code, and not come up with an over-sized newsstand and think 11 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508 that that's what's going to get them past me; that's not going to work. So I'm going to hold this. And I just wanted you to go on record as to what you knew today, and I'll bring this back up at a later date.
Okay. And we'll send somebody out to look at it. And I guess we'll have a meeting of the parties and we'll, you know, let you know.
And I noticed at that same location at the southeast corner of Broad and McKean, after about a year, we finally got them to relocate the newsstand a little further south on Broad Street because it was literally blocking entrance to the bank building at Broad and McKean. So the stand that I observed last night is back where the old stand was. Now, that may just be temporary because there's electrical hookups, but I don't know that to be a fact.
So, again, I thought somebody would be here today to testify. 12 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508 Apparently not, 'cause no one has contacted my office.
They're busy making their business, so -- but we'll get in touch with them.
And while you're here, I've had discussions with L&I, and I believe I may have spoken to the Managing Director about it. There are a couple of locations where there have been abandoned newsstands in Center City, one being across the street in front of the Wanamaker building, and another one at Seventh and Walnut, which probably allows for maybe two foot of sidewalk from the curb in, and it's sitting there abandoned. And there's another one at the southeast corner of Fourth and Market. I'm really just trying to get rid of those things completely.
I mean, I know they've been abandoned for four years or more.
I do know that the Streets 13 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000508 Department was asked to help L&I remove them because we have a little bit better equipment than they do. And, actually, we're in the process of getting some procedure together that they could officially notify us, after due process has been made to the owners and -- because Streets would be happy to help, but we want to make sure that legally we're allowed to pick it up and remove it.
I mean, the one at Seventh and Walnut is probably the most offensive, and the most dangerous one.
There is virtually probably two foot or less of public walk space.
You have to step into the street to get around there.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
We just concur with what Nancy had said, and now that the bill's being withheld, we would like to partake in that review since we have not seen any of those things.
These are new microphones. What you need to do with these is, you have to pull them as close to you as possible and speak directly into them.
Okay, excuse me. You've answered the question that we're going to withhold the bill, 'cause our review -- we'd like to review these sites, and we had some concerns with them as well.
Hearing none, the clerk 15 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000538 will read the title of the next bill. And let the record reflect that Councilman Ortiz is now present and Councilman Mariano.
Bill No. 000538, which is on the second page, is an ordinance authorizing Kate Osuala, the owner of the property located at 1301 South 57th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19143, to construct, use, and maintain a one-story garage addition on and over the south footway of Thomas Street, adjacent to the property 1301 South 57th Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, members. Again my name is Nancy Sen. I'm here from the Streets Department to testify on Bill No. 000538. This bill authorizes Kate Osuala to construct, use, and maintain a one-story garage addition, projecting a maximum of three feet into the south footway of Thomas Street, adjacent to her property at 1301 South 57th Street. The garage addition leaves adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway on Thomas Street. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 16 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000538 objections to the passage of this bill.
Also for the record, my name is Darwin Beauvais. I'm from Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell's office. She introduced the bill and she does support the decision.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Is Charles Denny here from the Streets Department? Do you have two bills? (Witness comes forward.)
Bill 000510, an ordinance 24 amending Section 12-2409 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing Zone Locations and Hours," by 17 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000510 adding as a towing zone location the north and south sides of Green Street between Tenth Street and Eleventh Street graffiti, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon. My name is Charles Denny. I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer, and I'm here to testify on Bill 510. The Streets Department posted this regulation on June 17th of this year, and we have no objections to this posting.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
On of the list is Bill No. 000542, an ordinance establishing a no 23 motor home parking regulation on Bennington Street, Pike Street to Luzerne Street, both sides.
The Streets Department 18 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000542 posted this regulation on August 11, 2000. And the Streets Department has no objections to this bill.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000605, which is on of the announcement, is an ordinance 22 authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to select and appropriate a certain right-of-way through 8480 Hagy's Mill Road for construction, reconstruction, alteration, connection, operation, 19 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000604, 5, 6 maintenance, and inspection of water facilities, partly along and within the bed of Paleski Road, a private street, from Hagy's Mill Road to approximately 489 feet southwesterly of Hagy's Mill Road. I believe that is also a companion Bill 8 No. 000604. Paul? Which is an ordinance 9 authorizing the construction of water mains and appurtenant work and a right-of-way partially in and along portions of a private street known as Paleski Road and along the southwesterly boundary of Manatawna Farms in the Roxborough area of the City. And Bill No. 000606, an ordinance to authorize the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City, to enter into agreements owners of the properties and their successors of an L-shaped private street known as Paleski Road that begins southeasterly of Schuylkill Nature Center's property, approximately 489 southeasterly of Hagy's Mill Road, thence in a southeasterly direction for approximately 137 feet, and continuing in a southwesterly direction for approximately 635 feet for the grant of a 20 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000604, 5, 6 right-of-way to the City for water main purposes. These three bills will be heard at the same time.
In the interest of time, that's how I planned it. My name is Paul McCloskey, and I'm with the Philadelphia Water Department testifying on these three bills introduction. To give you an introduction, Manatawna Farms and the Schuylkill Nature Center area of the City encompasses the upper portion of the northwestern upper Roxborough. The nature center is devoted to preserving the nature, undeveloped area for environmental education. The Manatawna Farms, which is adjacent, is a working farm, owned and operated by the City through the Fairmount Park Commission. Within the nature center adjacent to the farm is a residential community. The property are served by onsite sewerage treatment facilities and wells. Over the last few years, there's been genuine concern over the quality and quantity of water produced by the individual wells. The current construction of the housing development 21 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000604, 5, 6 over a landfill in nearby Montgomery County has sharpened the concern over the possible contamination of the water table and water quality. The severe drought of 1999 has severely hampered all the wells' ability to provide adequate water to the households. A public water main has recently been extended to Spring Lane to the Montgomery County line. This makes public water relatively available to the community. Bill No. 604 authorizes the Water Department to construct water mains in along a private street known as Paleski Road from Hagy's Mill/Spring Lane southward through the Schuylkill Nature Center property for approximately 489 feet. Thence in the same road southward, approximately 137 feet more and then westward in an L-shaped direction approximately 635 feet till it comes to an end. This main would service half the properties. A second water main will be laid along and within the southern property line of Manatawna Farms. This main will service the remaining properties and the City's farm itself. In order to provide access for one of the water mains, Bill No. 605 authorizes the 22 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000604, 5, 6 Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City, to purchase a right-of-way for water purposes through the Schuylkill Nature Center in and along the private road of Paleski Street. Bill No. 606 provides for the continuation of the access in the private road by authorizing the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City, to enter into agreements with the owners of the properties and their successors of the private road for the granting of a right-of-way to the City for water main purposes. The agreements will also revise the language that the City may place the right-of-way on the City Plan at a future date. We recommend that the bills be voted favorably out of committee. Due to the urgency of this situation, we request the rules of City Council are suspended and that the three bills have their reading at the next Council hearing.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the purpose of this bill is to provide the residents of this area with water service. The proposed right-of-way will be 23 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000604, 5, 6 purchased from the Schuylkill Nature Center for a price of $ 2000. The money will come from the capital budget of the Water Department. Additionally, in the near future, the Streets bills will be introduced into City Council, which will strike paper streets from 8 the City Plan to consolidate the 500-acre 9 landscape for the Schuylkill Valley Nature 10 Center. 11 Therefore, by action at its meeting on 12 October 19, 2000, the Planning Commission 13 recommends that Bill No. 000605 be approved. 14 Thank you. 15
Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.) 24 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000511
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 000511, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 12 No. 980443) approved June 25, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 120 of the area bounded by 18th Street, 19th Street, Master Street, and Jefferson Street," by striking from the City Plan and vacating Sharswood Street from 18th Street to 19th Street, widening Harlan Street on the northerly side, relocating the southerly curb line of Harlan Street, and placing on the City Plan Gratz Street from Jefferson Street to Harlan Street, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the bed of Gratz Street and the northerly 15-foot widened portion 25 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000511 of Harlan Street, by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets. And the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000511: This is not an administration ordinance 11 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Michael Koontz, Project Manager of the Redevelopment Authority, dealing with the Cecil B. Moore residential development area. The purpose of this ordinance 15 is to extend the time period to strike Sharswood Street from the City Plan and place Gratz Street and widen Harlan Street on the City Plan to facilitate new home construction. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.) 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000512
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000512, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 9 No. 980444) approved June 15, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 58," by striking from the City Plan and vacating Reno Street from Broad Street to 13th Street, Camac Street from Brown Street to Parrish Street, and a portion of Ogden Street from Watts Street to a point approximately 85 feet east of Watts Street; and by placing on the City Plan Park Avenue from Brown Street to Parrish Street, by relocating Camac Street from Brown Street to Parrish Street, and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes within the portion of Ogden Street being stricken from the City Plan and vacated by this ordinance, and the dedication to the City of unopened portions of Park Avenue and Camac Street, 27 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000512 all under certain terms and conditions, by extending time for compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000512: The Survey Bureau requests that this bill be pulled at the request of Councilman Clarke because the conditions have already been met, and this has been confirmed by the Board of Surveyors, and it would be redundant legislation.
Are there any questions from the committee? (No questions.)
I asked that the bill be withdrawn because the conditions in the ordinance 23 have already been met and it's been confirmed by the Board of Surveyors. Councilman Clarke's aware of it. 28 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000513
He's aware of that? Okay, thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000513, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 8 No. 970818) approved April 13, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 11 58," by placing on the City Plan Parrish Street from Ninth Street to 12th Street, Brown Street from Tenth Street to 12th Street, Marvine Street from Fairmount Avenue to Brown Street, Warnock Street from Fairmount Avenue to a dead-end turnaround north of Brown Street and Reno Place from Percy Street westwardly to a dead-end turnaround, all under certain terms and conditions, including the including dedication to the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of the streets being placed on the City Plan by this ordinance, by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My 29 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000513 name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000513: This is not an administrative ordinance 7 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Cardel Blue of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the expiration date of an ordinance approved July 1, 1997. The purpose of that ordinance was to grant the authority to place five streets on the City Plan to facilitate residential development. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. 30 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000582
Bill No. 000582, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 4 No. 990366) approved July 1, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the striking from City Plan No. 17-S and abandoning of a certain right-of-way for gas main purposes and public utility purposes within the lines of former Annin Street, extending from the 50-feet wide right-of-way, formerly 28th Street, to 29th Street, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization and conditions therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000582: This is not an administration ordinance 21 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Robert Boothroyd of Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period to legally abandon a right-of-way in former Annin Street between 29th and former 28th Street and to erect a new facility 31 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000582 for Rosa Foods, Incorporated. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000584, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 17 No. 990368) approved July 1, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 266," by striking from the City Plan and vacating Jefferson Street from 50th Street to a dead-end turnaround northwestwardly therefrom and striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes, under certain terms and conditions, by extending the period for compliance 32 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000582 with the Authorization conditions therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000584: This is not an administration ordinance 10 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Evan Sparks, of PIDC, 2600 Centre Square West, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period and allow for the development of a retail shopping center along 52nd Street. This ordinance 15 is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 33 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000589 clerk will read the Title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000589, an ordinance amending Section 1 (b) of an ordinance 5 (Bill No. 000374), approved August 11, 2000, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 121 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a portion of Chang Street and by placing a dead-end turnaround at the terminus of Chang Street, all under certain terms and conditions."
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 000589: This is not an administration ordinance 19 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Philip Licht, of Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, who represents the 27th and Girard Trust. The purpose of this ordinance 22 is to provide three parcels and eliminate a portion of Chang Street which borders and separates these parcels to facilitate commercial development. There was an error in the original 34 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000589 development of this ordinance, and this corrects that error, allowing the legislation to go through perfectly. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Before you do that, could I get a show of hands of all those who are here to testify on Bill No. -- On the bill concerning the Chestnut Street Transitway, would you just raise your hand? And who is here to testify on the bill 22 concerning the -- the resolution concerning retaining walls? Could you show your hand again? Okay, thank you. I just wanted to get a sense of how 35 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 many people are here for what bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 000547, an ordinance regulating the movement of traffic on Chestnut Street, in particular authorizing right turns to be made from Chestnut Street at certain intersections in Center City, Philadelphia.
For some reason, we weren't supplied with a witness list so just about everyone in the audience is here to testify, so I will leave it up to you to be as civil as you can and come forward and speak. Miss Russo, are you the only one testifying on behalf of the City? Okay, whoever's from the City, come up first -- you could stay there, sir. And we'll get the City testimony first, and then Paul, everybody else -- you could stay there, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Debra Russo. I'm here on behalf of the Managing Director's Office for the City of Philadelphia. The testimony I'd like to offer today concerns the 36 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 possible withdrawal of federal funding with respect to right-hand turns on Chestnut Street. It's the Managing Director's understanding at this point in time that there are many issues involving the federal grant whereby the bus lane was created on Chestnut Street. There has been some documentation, although not clear, that that federal funding could be in jeopardy if the City of Philadelphia were to allow right-hand turns on Chestnut Street. What I'd like to offer to the committee is if they would be willing to work with our office and the Streets Department in exploring these issues as to whether or not these allegations are true as to whether or not there is any federal funding in jeopardy. Also, we need to -- if the funding in jeopardy, we need to know the amount, and right now, all those issues are not clear. So what I would offer to this particular committee is the assistance of my office and the Streets Department and the Law Department in exploring particular issues further. Thank you. 37 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Thank you, Miss Russo. And as you recall, just this week, we had a meeting in my office -- myself, you, and the Managing Director. And as I indicated, I think it was, on Monday -- I lose track of the days, but I think it was Monday -- I will hold the bill since I was the chief sponsor of this. But I wanted to get all of the testimony on the record today so that when we find out whether there is some -- we are jeopardizing any federal or State funding that went into this project, we'll be able to make a decision more accurately at that time. But I do want -- I wanted to get all of the testimony on the record today. Thank you.
And that's the understanding of the Managing Director's Office. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Robert Wright, and I'm the Transportation Engineering Manager of the Department of Streets. 38 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Okay, my name is Robert Wright, and I'm the Manager of the Transportation Engineering section of the Department of Streets. In 1995, the Department of Streets was requested to undertake a comprehensive study of the Chestnut Street Transitway to solve two major problems on this facility. The first was the condition of sidewalks, which had greatly deteriorated due to inappropriate materials used when the Transitway was constructed in 1975. The second was the proliferation of delivery vehicles which had occurred on the once transit-only corridor. The nature of the street as one which was open to traffic at some hours and not during others and the often confusing signing for this was seen as an additional difficulty. The creation of the Transitway in 1975 was viewed by many as a plus for this city and was consistent with efforts underway in other major 39 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 cities at that time. Since then, some of these cities have completely removed their transit streets for various reasons. While transit operations were revised several times during the life of the transitway, it remained a transit facility for its years of existence. A major 8 factor which influences this is the high 9 percentage of people entering Center City on 10 transit, estimated to be over 60 percent of all 11 Center City-bound trips. 12 The Department's intent and the 13 redesign of Chestnut Street was to preserve a 14 semblance of the transit exclusivity, which has 15 been in place since 1975. Four SEPTA bus routes 16 enter Center City via Chestnut Street, carrying 17 over 50,000 riders per day. As espoused by the 18 City's Transit First policy, the desire to 19 maintain an operational advantage for these buses 20 through the use of an exclusive transit lane was 21 very strong. There were also requests from 22 businesses along Chestnut Street to bring back 23 motor vehicle traffic and parking. The creation 24 of the Transitway and its removal of traffic were 25 believed by the businesses to be detriments to the 40 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 success of the many shops on Chestnut. Accordingly, the proposed redesigned Chestnut Street was a compromise of sorts. Through a widening of the cartway, we were able to once again accommodate vehicular traffic in a single moving lane. On-street parking was reinstituted on the north side of the street, with a loading zone in each block for delivery vehicles. The right-side curb lane was established as a transit lane, to be used only by buses and bicycles. To reinforce the right lane as a transit-only lane, it was decided to not allow right-hand turns from Chestnut Street onto southbound intersecting streets. This would ensure that private vehicles would not need to use the right lane. This approach was viewed as consistent with the City's transit preference policy, and it preserved the transit exclusivity introduced with the opening of the Transitway. This concept was presented to the Chestnut Street Business Association and the various individual property owners, institutions, and stakeholders during the project design phase. 41 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 While initial concerns were expressed about the proposed operation, ultimately, the affected parties determined that the project would improve the situation and agreed that it should move forward. This was also the sense of a public hearing conducted by City Council in June of 1999 on this project and the proposed operational change in Chestnut Street. Additionally, the creation of the Transitway resulted in some of the wider sidewalks in Center City along Chestnut Street. With these wide footways and the reduced amount of traffic, the Transitway became very popular as a pedestrian-friendly route. It still has the highest pedestrian volumes of any street in Center City.
One of the factors in this popularity was the lack of turning traffic, since there was no 19 traffic on Chestnut Street; thus, pedestrians could cross numbered streets without any conflict from traffic either turning onto Chestnut Street or turning from Chestnut Street. With the proposed dedicated bus lane, this conflict-free pedestrian path would be retained at least on one sidewalk along the corridor. 42 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 The overall cost of the improvements on Chestnut Street is approximately $13 million. 7 milling coming as transit assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Each of these agencies stipulated that there must be a dedicated transit lane and made this a condition of the funding. 5 million, has also warned the City that any change in the operation of the exclusive transit lane will cause it to reconsider its participation. Thus, the City stands to forfeit a total of over $10 million in outside funding if any change is made in the operation of the transit lane. Additionally, subsequent funding application of this nature may be at risk. We realize that the change in operation on Chestnut Street is significant one. However, given the public outreach efforts undertaken during the project's development and the relatively short amount of time the new operation has been fully in effect -- the street was 43 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 reopened to traffic only in mid-July -- we would recommend that this operation be permitted to remain for some longer period of time to allow us to fully and fairly judge its effectiveness. This will permit stakeholders and users to become more accustomed to the benefits of the reintroduction of general traffic to Chestnut Street, something that has been desired by many for quite some time.
How much more time do you think you would need to determine whether we should do the -- lift the prohibition on turns or not?
We would normally look for at least a year of full operation.
An additional year? For how long has it been open now to traffic?
It's been fully open since the middle of July, so we would look for a full year. So if we could get --
From this date, another year? For a full year, including -- to this July you're saying?
Till mid-July of 2001. 44 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
And I think I heard -- I'm not sure if I heard you right because we don't hear things up here. It kind of bounces around with this new system. You made mention of the fact that Chestnut Street has always been a very high-volume pedestrian way?
And that it appears that people use Chestnut Street because of the pedestrian-friendly environment because there were not cars -- the cars were not allowed there at a particular time?
How did you get to that? Is that a scientific survey or is there -- I mean, did you poll people?
We polled people and we also did some pedestrian counts over the last few years, went out and actually tried to count people on different blocks. And some of the information we obtained just from those rather non-scientific counts showed that there were more people on Chestnut Street than on Market Street and other streets. 45 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Have there been any surveys since you've reopened it to traffic?
There have been no 5 specific surveys. We've heard comments from some of the businesses, both pro and con, but we haven't really conducted a survey.
I guess I find -- I must be one of the people who would have found Chestnut Street, prior to reopening it up to traffic, to be more intimidating 'cause I had this sense, when I was on the pedestrian way, I never expected to have vehicles, but yet there were the double-car buses and other kinds of vehicles that would use it daily. I never really felt as though, in my opinion, it was pedestrian-friendly. In fact, I believe there were crosswalks in the middle of intersections at one time?
And they were eliminated because they were creating a very pedestrian-unfriendly environment?
All right, just curious. 46 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
I'm not through yet. I think you heard my statement that I would hold this bill. I'm not certain if I would recommend that we hold it for a year. Naturally, I'm only one voting member here, but my biggest concerns are for what the financial implications may or may not be. Was there any consideration -- or do you have any statistics? Or when you were looking to design the reopening the Chestnut Street, did anyone ever take into consideration what the impact on the businesses would be?
Councilman, if I may? Like, you said, the sound here is -- did you say that things were eliminated like crosswalks and -- because they were creating a pedestrian- friendly environment?
Dangerous. They were dangerous. There were crosswalks in between 47 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 the numbered streets, between 15th and 16th, between 16th and 17th. In the center, there were these pedestrian walkways so that people could transit from one side of the street to another. Now, in a mall environment -- in Disney World, that works, but it didn't work on Chestnut Street, because you still had public transportation vehicles and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- in addition to delivery trucks. So it wasn't as though we eliminated vehicles entirely from the Chestnut Street mall. You always had both things happening at the same time. And for me, and I may be in the minority here, and I'll get to you, Councilman Rizzo. For me maybe, and I may be in the minority, I always felt very intimidated because I had this sense of kind being like, I guess, oversafe about the fact that I was walking down the sidewalk but yet, there was still cars, and I just couldn't figure out how we can call it a pedestrian walkway or mall when you had vehicles running down there constantly. So -- and I believe those center intersection walkways, or whatever the technical 48 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 name for it is, were eliminated because they posed a big hazard to pedestrians. I mean, people would walk out into the middle of the street and -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They've been eliminated.
They've been eliminated. So it wasn't working, it didn't work. And I guess there are other issues as to what the implications to the business community was. I mean, there are lots of different opinions out there. Was it the fact that we did take vehicles off that caused the business community to suffer? Or was it the fact that people's shopping habits had changed and they went to malls anyway? I don't know if we can put our finger on the exact reason for that but I think, in opinion again, that's obviously what led me to do this bill, is that the fact when you took vehicles off that street, it caused businesses to suffer. And I know in the evening -- because most of my free time, if it's not down in my neighborhood going to restaurants, it's in Center City -- Chestnut Street is much more vibrant today, there 49 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 are many more people walking the street at night. You may have had high pedestrian traffic during the day, but I know in the evening, before cars were allowed back on, very few people walked Chestnut Street. Councilman Clarke and then Councilmember Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, first I would like to thank you for agreeing to hold the bill. As the cosponsor of the bill, I agree that I think we need some more discussion, particularly centering around the public funding nature of this bill. But I had a question with respects to the design of the project and also the existing enforcement. As you recall, prior to bringing back vehicle traffic to Chestnut Street, it was essentially used both, as the Chairman stated, as a mass transit route and additionally, a delivery route. One of the problems that I have, and this kind of centers around the enforcement arm, is in evaluating whether or not we should continue to proceed with the current no-right-hand-turns or ask for those no-right-hand-turns to be taken off 50 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 of -- you can't get a clear sense of what we should do because you currently have loading vehicles in the transit lanes, in the passenger lane. I have no idea what to do because I can't get a sense of what's going on around there. And my question is, first of all, did you take into account that you were essentially eliminating a substantial portion of the loading zones? In addition to which, is there any idea of when we might get some enforcement on Chestnut Street, given the existing conditions?
I can answer he loading zone issue. We did talk to the business people on the street and also worked with the Parking Authority, and each block has a loading zone of varying length, usually at least three delivery trucks long, and in some cases, four. The problem that we have been experiencing now is that there is illegal parking in the loading zones. So there is an enforcement issue. Again, the right turn is an enforcement issue. The Department of Streets isn't an enforcement agency. We've talked to the Parking Authority and police about heightened levels of enforcement. 51 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 The Parking Authority has responded, the police have said they would respond. We're still waiting to see.
You're saying that there is currently loading zones on each block?
They're at least three panel truck's lengths long; in some cases, they're four trucks long. And they vary as to the location on the block. We tried to tailor it, each block so they would be closer to the businesses that needed the deliveries more than others. Some of the businesses have rear access, where they can get delivers deliveries from Sansom Street or the street on the north side, which I believe is Ranstead or Ludlow, depending on the block. So businesses do not --
What was the length prior to the reconstruction of Chestnut Street?
The length of the loading zone? 52 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
So by the elimination of half of them and by the lack of enforcement, we pretty much have a zoo around there, right?
All right. Even if we get adequate enforcement, we'll still have a problem because we've eliminated half the loading zone.
Some of the loading habits that developed when the Transitway was in effect was that some of the numbered street's businesses would have their loading vehicles park on Chestnut Street. So you have some vehicles that are actually making deliveries or picking up on some of the side streets that at one time used Chestnut Street, and now they may have a problem because 53 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 the loading zones are tailored for the businesses on Chestnut Street. So we recognize in trying to get as much metered parking for patrons or businesses or whatever to park in that we had to compromise and provide a loading zone that was sufficiently enough for most occurrences.
For the record, I'd like to make a note that, you know, I would like to have some discussion about the western side of Chestnut, and I'm assuming that we're having a similar problem on the eastern side where the Chairman's district lies about that loading zone, because it is really getting out of hand. And I understand the need to have commerce but, you know, we have to come to some happy medium 'cause that's -- it's just not acceptable. With respects to the request for enforcement, how is that done; with a phone call, with a letter? 'Cause normally the Parking Authority doesn't hesitate to give people a ticket, and I'm wondering why they're not doing that.
We have actually met with 54 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 both police and the Parking Authority many times during the project design, and we've also sent letters after the project completion to continually ask them to give us higher levels of enforcement. As I noted, the Parking Authority has been there and we have noticed a good response. The police have needed a little more pushing, what they said they would enforce it.
So the Parking Authority is responding, the police are not, essentially, really responding as you would like.
Who has the primary responsibility of writing tickets on Chestnut Street; is it the Parking Authority or the police?
The Parking Authority addresses the parked vehicle and the police are addressing the moving violations like the right turns.
All right. So my 55 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 issue with respects to delivery vehicles are really the Parking Authority's responsibility.
Okay. I'd like to really talk to you about that 'cause I'd like to come up with some sort of solution; in other words, in the best case, a compromise that we can accommodate everybody's needs, okay?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Chairman adequately addressed the issue. But, again, that false sense of security that once existed there before the -- when it was not accessible to vehicle traffic, you -- I think of all the times I can remember possibly being hit by a motor vehicle, it was on the Transitway, because you got, again, that false 56 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 sense of security that you were in an area that was vehicular-free, and police cars, cabs -- one of the biggest problems was when people didn't realize that they weren't supposed to be on the Transitway, and then when they realized they were, they ran like, you know, they moved out quickly to get off the Transitway before being observed by police. And I have personally witnessed the problems with the right-hand turn there. And, again, I concur totally with the Chairman and Councilman Clarke on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. I think, you know, the intentions obviously were to stimulate and revitalize Chestnut Street, to bring more activity there. And in the process, I think, obviously, when you change things, you kind of create other problems for yourself and you have to figure out a way of getting around this. And I appreciate the fact that you're asking for more time; I just don't know if a year -- I think a year might be a little bit too much. But the irony of the whole thing is, 57 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 when Councilmember Clarke talks about loading zones, maybe we need to look at -- not the irony of it, but maybe we need to look at -- and I was always wondering we permit deliveries at certain hours in Center City. I mean, I take 13th Street in most mornings from South Philadelphia, and I'm constantly zigzagging in and out of where delivery trucks are, all along 13th Street, from Spruce Street as far north as Sansom, 'cause I generally turn up Sansom. So 13th Street, Chestnut Street are not unalike, they're very; right-hand turns are allowed on 13th Street. But the circumstances are very similar, and I suspect that it's the same thing on 11th Street, 12th Street, what have you. So maybe we need to look at, for another discussion, establishing delivery times. But the irony of the whole thing is, now that we have provided for parking on Chestnut Street for private vehicles, personal vehicles, the other issue I raised a couple months ago, which I have not been able to move forward on, is the handicapped parking: they take up approximately 60 to 70 percent of the spaces, so 58 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 that reduces the number of spaces for delivery trucks, which are short-term parking, as what is the purpose of metered parking in the first place. So, again, there are lots of other things going on out there that are probably creating this hazardous situation and this need to figure out, do we need to open up two lanes for travel as opposed to one. So cumulatively, we have to just look at this and figure out what do we eliminate or what do we add. I just, sitting here listening -- and I'll take the rest of the testimony in a minute. When you think about -- I'll give you a hypothetical. I'm driving in my car and I'm going west on Chestnut Street from the Schuylkill Expressway -- I'm sorry, going east on Chestnut Street, coming from the west going east on Chestnut Street. And I get to 18th Street and I want to go to 16th and Walnut, 16th and Walnut. If I were permitted to make a right-hand turn off of Walnut Street, I would be traveling four blocks: two blocks east -- three blocks: two blocks east to 16th, one block south to Walnut. Under the -- three blocks, right? 59 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 Under the present rules and regulations, I now have to travel twelve blocks east to Sixth, one block over to Walnut Street, and then twelve blocks west again to get to 16th and Walnut Street. Now, there are those who argue about the bus lane and the bike lane, but have we looked at the additional traffic that is now being placed on all of the streets as a result? Because it creates another bottleneck. The bottleneck used to be 18th Street; now the bottleneck, I guess, becomes Sixth Street. We just moved the one bottleneck from one location further east. And what about air pollution issues? That many more cars traveling approximately two and a half miles to go three blocks. There's something definitely wrong with this picture, in my mind, in my opinion. So there are a lot of other issues in addition to do we respect the right-hand lane, the south lane being for bikers and buses. Well, I think the bicycle people are air-quality advocates, as I am. So, you know, when you take one thing away, you may be making conditions worse.
So if we're all concerned that we want 60 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 people to use more public transportation and not use their personal vehicles -- and that's just going to be when people make up their mind to do that. But we are creating air pollution problems by keeping that many more vehicles on the street for that much more time -- in the best-case scenario, when they're just moving and there's no 9 traffic jam-ups. But you know what Walnut Street gets like and you know what Sixth Street likes when you get to Sixth Street to make the right-hand turn for everybody who legally follows the rules and goes as far east at Sixth Street, so -- And then you have the problem with Jefferson Hospital: people can't turn into the emergency services. Ambulances could get away with it, but you or I, if legally we wanted to get someone to the emergency room, we would literally be forced to break the law. And I'm worried that someday someone may have someone in their car in an emergency situation, the police officer doesn't know it, pulls the car over to ask them for their identification, and the driver's trying to explain that they got to get to a hospital. The cop's 61 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 probably figuring they're just saying that because they wanted to avoid the ticket, and something happens to that person, I think we put ourselves in a really dangerous situation by making this prohibition as long as it is. There may be a compromise at some point too, where we can't do all of the streets, I don't know yet. But I just wanted to share that with you. There's a lot of things going on out here that I think need to be addressed. Any questions for this witness? Councilman Cohen?
If I may add something to the Chairman's statement about the right-turns (inaudible) the Walnut Street retail establishments to have free access to Walnut Street from Chestnut Street. Often you have to ride east on Chestnut Street to a street that goes south to get to the Walnut Street.
It's two and a half miles. If I -- I'll just briefly say it. If 62 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 I was driving east on Chestnut, when I get to 18th, if I wanted to go to 16th and Walnut, I now have to go two and a half miles (25 blocks), which in city terms is about two and a half miles, to get to 16th and Walnut 'cause I have to travel east to Sixth Street, which is blocks, and then 8 come back another 12 blocks to 16th, as opposed to 9 the three blocks if I were permitted to make the 10 right-hand turn off of Chestnut Street from 18th 11 to 16th. So -- 12
You know, that's absolutely true. I know at the beginning of the week, I had an appointment at Wills Eye Hospital, and I had to go east on Chestnut till I could find the proper street to cut south, you know, to be able to get to Walnut and then come back to Walnut to Eighth and Walnut where Wills Eye Hospital is. I think there's got to be some method of having free access to Walnut Street at every level or you're going to have a big outcry from the Walnut Streets merchants.
We already are crying. 63 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Oh, oh, okay, I'm glad to hear that. They knew about it real early and I think they're doing the right thing by making it clear. We've got to find the answer to it.
And the Avenue of the Arts too, it restricts the Avenue of the Arts access. Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
The next line of witnesses, please come forward. And as you come to the table, for those of you who have not been here before, please identify yourself for the record and spell your last name for the stenographer, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Paul Levy, and I'm the Executive Director of the Center City District. I want to thank Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Clarke for holding this 64 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 hearing. What I'd like to do -- I've already distributed, I believe, copies of my testimony -- is offer what I think are seven very good reasons why City Council should authorize right turns on Chestnut Street. First of all, as I think this conversation just went on, when you post rules on a street that exists no other place in the City, I think you create a confusion, which is unnecessary. We are trying to attract tourists to the City, we're trying to welcome the parents of people who go out to the University out in West Philadelphia, and we have now posted a no-right-turn the entire length of street, which creates confusion and requires us to use the police officers, who should be enforcing the no-parking by all of the delivery trucks, to be pulling people over on Chestnut Street, pulling them over for making this turn. I guess the simple question is, do we want our police officers in "the place that loves you back" to tell people exactly what you just said: No, I'm sorry, you need to go all the way 65 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 to Sixth Street in order to get to Walnut Street. Second, as I think came up in the earlier discussion, the police are right now tied down enforcing this no-right-turn. We need to free them up to prohibit the illegal parking that is going on by the delivery vans. I am certainly a major supporter of having commerce in this city, but what is going on is those delivery vans are parking there all day, they are taking their parking ticket as the cost of doing business, they're getting one ticket, and they're sitting there all day. We need the police officer to tell them simply to move. They are not serving the businesses on Chestnut Street; they are using it as a very inexpensive parking lot to go to Market Street and to go to Walnut Street. I think a much more important key issue is, number 3, Sansom Street is where we have put the parking. We have a zoning code that prohibits a lot of parking on both Chestnut and on Walnut Street. There are 2000 parking spaces on Sansom Street between 20th and Seventh Street; that is 12 percent of the parking supply that we have south of Market Street. We are now telling people 66 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 driving into Center City that they can't get to the parking that we've zoned and put onto Sansom Street. Third, as Councilman DiCicco has already said, we are creating a real-life safety issue by not allowing people to get to the emergency room at Thomas Jefferson Hospital. Whatever money we have put into Chestnut Street, we have put ten times as much into the Avenue of the Arts, and to say that we're not going to have people be able to turn right to the get to the Regional Performing Arts Center and all the other theaters make no sense. But I want to get to the arguments that we're going to hear the rest of this afternoon, and that is that if we're going to try to preserve the remnants of a failed transitway, we're going to fail again. Those who are here to defend the status quo and say that we want SEPTA buses to move as quickly as possible on the street I think are making a huge mistake. Clearly, when you have a dedicated transitway on a highway, you want buses to move at 30 to 40 miles an hour. To encourage buses to go at 30 to 35 miles an hour 67 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 down Chestnut Street is exactly counter to what we need on safe vehicular and pedestrian streets in Center City. This is not progressive planning, this is turning the cars and street back over to high-speed buses. We do have a dedicated transit lane on a very wide street; it's called Market Street. There is no reason why Market Street can't provide those transit-only lanes.
As I think, Councilman, you, yourself said, Chestnut Street used to close down at night. The proof of the failure of that previous plan is there was not a single restaurant or business opened after 5 o'clock on Chestnut Street until the street was liberated, and cars and people were returned. We now have restaurants opening up on that street, we have a thriving street, we have people living upstairs, we are restoring the tax base. And now to, I think, the most interesting point. Placing buses and bicycles in the same lane makes no sense at all. Bicycles are a very energy-efficient way of commuting to work. But I will tell you, as having participated in 68 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 this process, there was no planning whatsoever to pick Chestnut Street as a bicycle route. This was chosen because someone in the last City administration knew that buses and bicycles were very high priorities for federal funding, and they thought they would be clever by saying, Let's put buses and bicycles together and we'll get some federal funding. That's what we did, it's that same thinking that got us a failed transitway for years. 12 I will ask a very simple question: Do 13 bicyclists only ride east in Philadelphia? We 14 have a dedicated eastbound route, we have a 15 dedicated route to go in that direction. Are they 16 all on Penn's Landing, or do they find other ways 17 to come back? 18 My point is more serious than that. 19 Philadelphia needs thoughtful planning for bicycle 20 routes. There are many less traffic streets in 21 Center City, such as Locust, Spruce or Pine, which 22 would be much safer and saner routes for bicycles 23 to go in either direction. There is not a 24 bicyclist in their right mind who proceeds forward 25 at 15 miles an hour on a bicycle that weighs 40 69 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 pounds who wants a 39,000-pound SEPTA bus behind them at miles an hour. That is a formula for 4 failure, it is a formula for unsafety. 5 Clearly, the bicycle coalition is not 6 supporting Chestnut Street because it's ideal 7 bicycle planning; it's because they believe they 8 have a half a loaf and they feel symbolically if 9 it's taken away, they will never get anything back 10 again. The Center City District, therefore, will 11 place again on the table an offer we've made 12 before: that we will help fund the type of 13 bicycle transportation planning that really needs 14 to happen we can so pick the same routes -- the 15 same routes -- so that people can commute sanely 16 to work on their bicycles. 17 I will tell you very quickly, without 18 reading the details, we did a survey in the last 19 week of bus, bicycle, pedestrian, and car movement 20 on Chestnut Street. You have that in my 21 testimony. I will simply say that if City Council 22 is interested in doing the best thing for the 23 largest number of people, you should know that 24 there are 40 times as many bus riders as there are 25 bicycle riders on Chestnut Street, there are 22 70 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 times the number of car drivers as there are bicyclists. So if we're going to do the greatest good for the greatest number, we need to look at buses first, cars second, and find a much saner place for bicycles. I should also tell you that we've looked at SEPTA's information and gotten their ridership information. Typically, they have 5,000 riders a day on buses on Chestnut Street; 37 percent of them are during the morning rush hour. Maybe there's a compromise here that we have a dedicated transit lane when 40 percent of the riders are coming in at morning rush hour. Think about the routes on Chestnut Street; they're inbound routes, they're not outbound routes from the City. There are any number of sensible ways. We welcome the offer of the Managing Director's office to do something sane here. But the Center City District strongly supports opening right turns on the street to support businesses.
We believe there's an appropriate place for buses and for bicycles, but to try to do all in one place is a formula for failure. 71 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 Thank you very much.
Where did everybody go? Any questions? Is there a committee here? (No questions.)
Thank you. Your testimony, as usual, is always very eloquent and very informative.
I think what may happen as a result of today's hearing is, I may want to create one of those little task that I normally put together and, obviously, I will reach out to you, Mr. Levy.
And see if we can't figure out something, and I really appreciate your willingness to look at alternative bike lanes in the Center City Special Services District, and I believe we can find something 72 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 that, for me, is much more safe than what goes on out there today.
It has always been for me an issue of public safety as well as making it more convenient for automobile drivers to commute throughout Center City. Again, thank you for your testimony.
I'll leave it up to the folks who are up there to decide who's first and second. And, again, just identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
My name is Donald Nigro, N-I-G-R-O. I'm President of the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the organization. Before I get to my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the example that you cited, traveling eastbound Chestnut and you're at 18th Street. I would think that if somebody would need from that location to get to 15th or 16th and Walnut, the thing to do would be to make 73 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 a left turn at 18th Street or at 16th Street and go to Market Street, and then cut over to Walnut Street. There are -- I don't see the need to go all the way down to Sixth Street or to cross Broad Street.
I'd like to respond to that. That's if someone knows their way around the City. I mean, I get letters from people who we are trying to attract to come to this city. I got a letter from a lady who lived in New Jersey, came to the City because she wanted the experience of Philadelphia. She heard about renaissance going on downtown. She came to the City to have dinner. She was on Chestnut Street, unfamiliar with Chestnut Street. It's foreign territory to her. She was lost, basically lost, couldn't find her way south. And it's just not -- it isn't just about Walnut Street, by the way. I used that as an example because that was the closest street south of Chestnut. If you want to take it further, you can go as far south as you want. If you want to get to Spruce, you want to get to Locust, you want to get to Washington Avenue, it's 74 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 the same conditions that apply. She was issued a citation because she made a right-hand turn off of Chestnut Street in a panic, basically. She was very anxious because the further east she got, the more she felt that she was lost. She got a ticket. She is never coming back to Philadelphia again, because she went to the restaurant, paid an exorbitant amount of money to park her car legally and then gets whacked with a $75 ticket for turning right off of Chestnut Street. That is not a an isolated case. It happens many times, because I'm only citing one letter. I've gotten many letters, and I get letters from people who own restaurants, when their customers walk in and say, It took me an hour to get here, I'm sorry I'm later for my reservation, and in the process, I got a ticket to come to your restaurant to eat 'cause I couldn't find the damn place. And that's the kind of stuff that we hear.
Well, if I may say, I think your point about visitors is an excellent one, and perhaps maybe the solution is clearer signage. In 75 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 other words, make left turn to go right. But the Delaware Valley --
Make a left-turn to go right to where? I mean, the signage is going to say, If you want to get to Le Bec Fin, make a right here, but if you want to go to Tre Stalini, go three blocks south, make a right, travel ten blocks south to Tasker, and then make a left. You know, get real. Getting to Walnut Street may be easy for some people, but for someone who doesn't know, and they want to get to a specific place on Walnut Street, there's not enough room for the signage that you would need to direct them properly.
And neither am I, but be realistic. If you've traveled to other cities or out into the country and you're looking for a place of destination, it's difficult, and all of the signage in the world sometimes doesn't help you get there.
Perhaps maybe the question could be put to our traffic department. 76 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 The Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers urges the City of Philadelphia to strictly stick to its commitment on how the bike transit lane would be used. We urge the City to recognize that high levels of automobile traffic deteriorate the experience of walking and shopping the streets of Center City. All one needs to do is compare what -- how pleasant it is to walk Center City at 10, o'clock on Sunday morning 11 compared to other times. Adding capacity to Center City streets induces traffic and ultimately increases congestion on the streets. Center City is served by an extensive network of transit lines. This network is capable of carrying many more passengers and could be made to be made much more attractive for people to travel to Center City. SEPTA's commuter rail system is the slowest in the country. Philadelphia's buses, unlike those in most other major cities, lurk along with delays caused by one passenger stop at every block rather than at every other block; and, two, the operators' refusal to adequately encourage passengers to exit from rear so that people can 77 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 immediately board at the front. We urge that the southern lane of Chestnut Street be kept exclusively for bikes and transit. Please do not fall into trap of applying the City Line Avenue mobility improvement techniques to Center City. Thank you.
Hi. I'm Sarah Borden. I'm General Manager of Rittenhouse Row. My last name is B-O-R-D-E-N. Rittenhouse Row is a marketing destination firm that's nonprofit and membership- based, and we promote the area from Broad Street to 21st Street, between Spruce and Market Streets. Our membership consists of over 265 retail, restaurant and corporate members. Our interest in this bill -- there's two major reasons: One is the employees of these merchants commute into the City; not all of them, but a majority of them do commute in. And their parking is on Sansom Street. If they come in from the Schuylkill, come down Chestnut, again, it's a 78 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 roundabout way to have to reach the parking garages on Sansom Street, and the no-right-turn rule is a problem for them. Also, in just finding parking spots, moving around the City, driving to the City, it is a hindrance to getting to particular places that you need to be, whether you know your way around or not. Secondly, our organization, we promote that area. We bring in visitors, we bring in people to go to our restaurants, to shop at our stores, to go to the spas and salons, and they are not familiar with the area. They have a difficult time getting to our members' facilities. And for these two reasons, we definitely support allowing right turns off of Chestnut Street.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hi. My name is Sue McNamara. I'm the director of the Bicycle Coalition of the Delaware Valley. The Bicycle 79 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 Coalition has 2,000 dues-paying members but also we also represent thousands of Philadelphians who bicycle for choice or economic necessity. When Chestnut Street was created -- when the current design that Bob Wright talked about was created, it was a compromise. And we -- The whole compromise was completed less than three months ago, and as a compromise, everyone had to give up something, so -- and we understand that with 3,000 miles of streets, this was the only mile -- this was the only part of the street where cars weren't allowed free rein, as they are in our other 3,000 miles of streets. And we compromised and everybody says, Well, you're sharing it with the bikes and the buses, and how does that feel? So I'll talk a little bit about, 'cause that wasn't what I was going to originally talk so much about. But bike/bus lanes are not an uncommon thing. Yes, they're not the best thing, but we have a tight, constricted city where we all have to share a very limited cartway, and so how do you best do that in? In some cases, a dedicated bike lane certainly is the optimum thing that we are 80 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 looking for 'cause traffic-calm streets, we'd love to see more traffic-calm streets. We'd love to -- in order to get some of these things, we'd have to remove parking, something that's been an extreme issue and something very hard to get through the City. So I would like, if we're putting all of things on the table, let's entertain removing some of the on-street parking, especially as we continue to build parking garage after parking garage, and try and move some of this parking into the garages. But the other thing, the bike/bus lane is -- it's used all over. I just came from Paris, where I rode a bike around Paris for a week. They effectively use bike/bus lanes everywhere in that city. And they were big, I didn't feel -- even though I didn't even speak the language and it wasn't my country, I didn't feel dangerous on a bike/bus lane. It can be used if we make people comfortable with it, we maintain it. It's far more dangerous to have the cars moving in and out of the bike/bus lane when you don't expect them than to know that you have a bus lane -- all you're fending off is buses. I 81 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 think, actually, the red design of the bike/bus lane is really a positive thing, making a visual separation between that and the driving lane is really helpful. Myself, I'm a more experienced cyclist but I actually feel very comfortable in that lane. Less experienced cyclists are going to feel comfortable in it. It is on the bike network plan, so it is a part of the network of streets that we are trying to create, which is 300 miles of bike networks. One of the reasons that I was told that this hearing was held was to provide access to garages, is that true, access to a few garages on Sansom Street? It was sone of the difficulties. In the mailing that I got from Councilman Nutter's office, it said that it was looking at this to provide access to parking garages on Sansom Street. And, clearly, that was one of the things that kind of offended us a lot, that access to parking garages and access to things for private automobiles are sort of being considered over the mobility of people who may not have access to a private automobile and may not have that choice, 82 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 people in transit who, many times, can't afford a private automobile, and seeming the weight the needs of a few against the needs of many, many who don't have a voice of their own, or not as strong a voice certainly as businesses. And really quickly, I just also wanted to commend the Streets Department and the Mayor's Office of Transportation for trying something new.
So often in Philadelphia, and especially in our Streets Department with traffic engineering, we never try anything new. We hold on to these things that were, like created in the '60s, and we fail to address new traffic engineering ideas. And here they go, they try something new and they give it a shot, and it took them like less than three months and they're already being called to task for it. And we want to applaud them for thinking ahead, we want to encourage them to do more thinking-ahead things and not to do less and not feel like they're going to get bitten every time they do something that's forward-thinking. And I guess that's just -- I did want to address the thing that you also said about the, you know, that the bicyclists with air quality 83 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 should want people driving around less. It sort of goes back to an old axiom that people often say, you know, you don't solve being overweight with loosening your belt buckle. And Don touched on it. If we allow more cars on Chestnut Street, everybody has proven in planning that that just makes more cars into Center City. It doesn't really -- eventually, that gets clogged up and it doesn't mean -- because people know they can travel freely there, then they do, and then that creates congestion. So in the end, the ultimate -- it may not be tomorrow, but in five years, the air quality is worse because the traffic is more clogged. I think that we have so many cars in Center City and we're not doing much to address limiting cars in Center City; we're just sort of doing things to address adding more cars in Center City. And that's not what forward-thinking cities are doing. Forward-thinking cities are looking at limiting cars, they're looking at limiting parking, they're looking at, not having so much on-street parking, adding more bikes, adding more 84 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 pedestrians. And that, it's proven, attracts tourists, and it attracts people to spend their money. People don't go to Europe to sit in an automobile; they go to stroll in pleasant streets. And by accommodating the car as king, we have to start looking at other ways of doing this. And this was a first step, and I think we should continue that. I would agree with Bob, let's give it a year and then recompromise. We're not totally against recompromising; we just want it to be a compromise, not just, Okay, well, the cars want this, let's give it to them. Thank you for letting me speak.
Thank you. I've been to Italy three times, and it's a cultural thing, people do walk. And people don't eat inside, most people want to eat out on the sidewalks at restaurants, at outdoor cafes. It's just a cultural things.
But I think that Americans, given that opportunity, would want that too. 85 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
I don't believe -- at least it's not my intention -- to remove the bike/bus lane from Chestnut Street, my intentions were not to encourage more cars to come. That very well may happen, but that's not my intention. I mean, you heard Paul Levy. I've been willing to work with the Bicycle Coalition 'cause I ride a bike. I don't take it to work because, to be perfectly honest, I just can't do it because of the nature of my job. But I drive a bike. I'm on Columbus Boulevard and I'm frightened to death. There's a bike lane there. But there are many streets in the City, and I don't know if there are other areas where we have bike/bus lanes. Is Chestnut Street the only bike/bus lane that we --
Actually, Market Street is a bike/bus lane and Walnut Street is a bike/bus lane, but those nobody even notices 'cause they're not red.
But I ride on the streets and I always wondered -- I mean, you drive on 11th Street since we removed the trolley lines where I live, between Wharton and Bainbridge, on 86 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 the north side of Washington Avenue, in both directions, going north and south, there's a bike lane. There's no bike lane south of Washington Avenue, it ends. And you're always interacting with traffic. So we don't have these exclusive lanes, and I know that's what we attempted to do on Chestnut Street, but it's not working, and I don't know if a year will make it any different. I think in three short months we have already experienced some of the problems that unintentionally may have been created. I applaud the Administration, the previous administration, for looking for alternatives, for trying to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. They tried it in 1976 -- it didn't work -- when they created the Chestnut Transitway. I really think that the best solution for us is to look for an alternative route -- Spruce Street, Locust Street, what have you, that Paul Levy mentioned, and create a bike lane on those streets. I just don't think it will ever work properly on Chestnut Street. That's my opinion . 87 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
And maybe we can convince SEPTA to put bicycle racks on their buses on Chestnut Street so that when you get to 18th, you could put the bike on the bike rack and maybe have a discounted or free transportation east to Sixth Street.
Yeah, that's a whole 'nother issue, which I could discuss with you outside, but --
I would certainly support putting a bike lane bike lane on Spruce Street or Sansom Street, but you'd have to remove a lane of traffic, that's the only way of doing it, or a parking lane, both of which are incredibly unpopular. And if we have the support of Council and they want to push this through and try that, hey, we'll be there for you and we'll do everything we can, but that's a major political battle.
We'll see. My 88 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 chief of staff's saying, what about the bikes that don't stay in bike lane? We -- that's enforcement, but we won't get into that one. You know, those are the things we can put on the table for when we convene with the task force in a couple of weeks. I'll notify the appropriate people to sit at those meetings. Thank you for your testimony. Councilman Clarke?
Did you say that there's currently a bike/bus lane on Market Street?
On Market Street and on Walnut Street, according to the signage. You can't --
How does that work currently, as it relates to the ability to --
Those two don't work at all. 89 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
And it's because people drive in the lane or is it because of the right turn?
I think it's more because of people driving in it. I would say that Walnut Street is probably the most intimidating street in town for a cyclist simply because of the volume of traffic and with the buses. Market Street is less intimidating on the north side 'cause you have three lanes, two travel lanes with the one bus lane; more intimidating on the south side because there's one travel lane and one bus lane.
But it doesn't really -- it's not the right turn only?
Is there any way to make right turns on Walnut and Market Street?
Well, yeah. But because you have cars -- actually, what we're not -- what we're opposed to, it's not so much that there are 90 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 right turns, that people are turning right; it's that they're staging themselves in that lane to turn right. So it's not particularly the turn itself; it's the moving over into the lane.
But the answer to the question is, you can make a right-hand turn off of Market; you can't make a left. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Yeah, it's -- and Market Street also has the issue that the surface is horrible for bicycles 'cause it's really bumpy because of the buses, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
Okay. I'm just trying to get some clarity because, you know, you implied that Market and Walnut Street, with the exception of the people illegally driving in those lanes, if it were not for that, those would be streets that, you know, would be something that could live with as it relates to bicycle traffic. But you didn't indicate it had anything to do with the right-hand turns; it's more the people driving 91 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 illegally or queueing up in the lanes that create the problem, not the right-hand turns.
No, it's the -- yeah, it's people traveling illegally in the bus/bike lane.
Because if somebody is making a right turn, they have to stage themselves into that right lane before they turn. So they're coming from the left travel lane into the right lane to turn.
But I'm saying that -- but you're saying that -- is that what they do on Market Street?
Yeah. Market Street's horrible; I'm saying Market Street's horrible.
But you said it was horrible because of the people driving in the lane.
Because of the amount of 92 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 traffic and the people driving in the lane. Yeah, no one pays attention to the bus lane on Market Street or Walnut Street; they pay attention to it more, though not enough, on Chestnut Street.
So if there was a way that people wouldn't queue up far back in the street --
If they queued up closer to the corner, like maybe two cars --
I mean, I think that the red street is a good step towards the less queueing up in the lane.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Clarke. My name is Catharine Ryan, 93 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 R-Y-A-N, and I am here to represent Thomas Jefferson University and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. And I apologize if some of the things I say really are repetitions, but I think it's important to state the Hospital's and the University's position on this right-hand turn situation. We obviously support the opening of Chestnut Street to vehicular traffic. I think it's been beneficial to both the City and merchants, but we vehemently oppose the restriction on right-hand turns, particularly at Tenth Street. The entrance to Jefferson's emergency department at is at Tenth and Sansom. Persons traveling on Chestnut Street literally pass the hospital and have to go a circuitous route down to Sixth Street, then to Spruce, then to Ninth, and finally to Sansom in order to cross Chestnut and access the emergency department. Now, if you know the City, it's frustrating. And, as Mr. DiCicco said, if you don't know the City, as the vast majority of patient and visitors who are coming to Jefferson, it's an arduous situation, it's agonizing. 94 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 I happen to be the director of the patient services department at Jefferson, which is primarily the complaint department, among other things, and I can assure you that I don't get only a few complaints about getting to the hospital and access to the hospital. Obviously, the whole issue of the parking on Chestnut Street is also an incredible situation. My office fronts on Chestnut Street, between Tenth and 11th. If I open the curtains and look out, it is virtually a parking lot on many, many days at certain times of the days. Between the cars that are parked and the trucks loading and delivering, the buses and the cars and the cyclists all travel in single lane. I also use short-term parking -- offsite parking at Delaware Avenue that Jefferson now provides, and I ride a shuttle every night down Chestnut Street. And as late as 5 and 6 o'clock at night, cars are still in the right-hand lane because of the incredible traffic and the delivery trucks. Another practical and logistical situation and consideration that we ask you to think about is the movement of traffic from 95 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 Jefferson's valet parking operation at 11th and Sansom. I also happen to be responsible for that particular service. Last year, we moved 90,000 cars; this year, we expect to move close to 100,000 cars, and we have to do that onto 11th Street. Because we can't turn onto Chestnut because we can't turn right from Chestnut, the drivers are forced to go to Market, then down Chestnut Street. And if you ever go to 11th Street, you'll recognize that it's probably the most congested street in Center City.
You're saying they're traveling north on 11th to Market, east on Market to Tenth, and then back south on Tenth to get to Tenth and Chestnut.
Right, to get to Tenth, because our lot is located -- the entrance on Tenth Street. So it's just a horrendous situation on a daily basis.
So 100,000 more vehicles are traveling between Chestnut and Market, 11th to 10th, and Market to Chestnut that would normally have turned onto Chestnut to go one block east of Tenth. 96 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Yes. And our drivers do, on occasion, make that right-hand turn on Chestnut Street, and then they make a right-hand turn on Tenth and they get ticketed like everybody else. The police and the parking maids are routinely ticketing drivers. And I tell you that I get letters, I get telephone calls, I get walk-ins, and people are not happy. As recently as yesterday afternoon, because there was so much congestion surrounding the hospital on 11th Street -- you know, we get blocked up at Market and even beyond Market. You get one car through the lights, so sometimes it can take our valet driver as long as 40 minutes on a really bad day to make a circle and to get the to parking lot. The police closed our valet parking operation yesterday. It's not the first time that it's happened. And, therefore, patients coming into the hospital were just shooed away, they weren't even able to access an empty drive-through 97 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 yesterday at about o'clock. 3 We, therefore, ask you to strongly consider the passage of this bill, and we support it 110 percent.
Thank you. And thank you for your testimony. Next witness? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. Push that little black button.
My name is Dennis Winters, and I am a transportation policy analyst with the Clean Air Council. The Clean Air Council is a membership-supported nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to protecting everyone's right to breathe clean air. The Council works through public education, community advocacy and oversight of the government to ensure enforcement of environmental laws. I want to thank City Council for holding this hearing on Bill No. 000547 regarding the Chestnut Transitway. The Clean Air Council is disappointed in the short notice given on this 98 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 hearing and that it had to learn of the hearing via the grapevine. Given the extent to which the Clean Air Council has been involved with Chestnut Street over the last few years through correspondence, testimony, and public statements, it does not seem unreasonable to expect some sort of more formal notification. The Clean Air Council also sent a letter with several attachments concerning Chestnut Street and this bill to Councilman DiCicco on September 27th. That correspondence included a request for a meeting with the Councilman to discuss the nature of this bill. The Council not here to say we told you so. It was apparent to all at the time that the compromises all users of Chestnut were being asked to make would fall heaviest on transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. With Philadelphia's continuing non-enforcement of most traffic laws, many people fully expected Chestnut's new design to fail. The Clean Air Council is curious about the status of Philadelphia's Transit First policy. Lifting the prohibition on right turns 99 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 off of Chestnut Street eviscerates the dedicated nature of the right-hand bus and bicycle lane. Buses will be locked in traffic with automobiles, and any advantages that buses should have in that lane will be lost for good. A considerable investment of federal public transportation dollars will have been squandered on a facility that accommodates automobiles to the detriment of all other modes. The Federal Transit Administration can and should ask that its considerable investment be returned. The Clean Air Council has seen newspaper articles saying that the right turns are needed to get motorists to the existing and new parking garages on Sansom Street. Forget that the new garages are being built in spite of existing City plans that calls for them only north of Chestnut Street, forget that reactionary ordinances and special interests-serving zoning decisions have replaced well thought-out comprehensive city planning that involves the entire community. Philadelphia's status as a world-class city is being seriously undermined by its 100 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 obsequious accommodation of automobiles in Center City. While cities all over the United States and abroad are reducing and restricting access of the car to the central business district, Philadelphia, in spite of ad advantages of its colonial street grid structure, is heading down the wrong path. SEPTA's transit division bus fleet serves a large segment of the City's low-income population and people of color. Eliminating the advantage buses have on Chestnut Street, therefore impairing access to Chestnut Street and Center City by improving the street for only motorists, may signal the discriminatory move that raises serious environmental justice issues. Clean Air Council believes that all traffic laws require enforcement, particularly in an era where the lack of enforcement jeopardizes equal access and safety. But there are very good reasons for not abandoning this concept this early, if at all. Clean Air Council also believes there are ways to make the present Chestnut Street design work, including some creative ways to aid 101 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 enforcement. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with this committee prior to reporting this bill to the full Council.
I have attached Clear Air Council's prior statements and testimony on Chestnut Street for your review. Those items include: our letter of September 27th to Councilman DiCicco; our testimony before City Council in June of 1998 on Chestnut Street; the Clean Air Council's position on Chestnut Street of April 8, 1998; and copies of letters to Councilman DiCicco on March 27, 1998 concerning Chestnut and Sheldon Kimbar, regional administrator of the FTA, in March. And then I've been writing like crazy to some of the remarks I've heard. And if I can, I would like to say a couple of other things -- ad-lib a couple of other things. First of all, it seems to the Clean Air Council that at present, the Chestnut Street Transitway is not operating as designed and it isn't finished. In a meeting with the City's Streets Department and the Department of Transportation, we were told that the parking meters would be smart meters. We were told that 102 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 there would be enforcement of existing traffic ordinances, and until that happens, you can't judge the effectiveness of the transmit mall. At least those two things have to be tried. If it requires additional money to have that enforcement of traffic laws, then so be it. That should be a priority for the Council. Finally, if you want to see a world-class transit mall, I just happened to have attended Rail-Volution, a public transportation conference in Denver a week ago. The 16th Street transmit Mall is exactly how a transit mall is supposed to operate, folks. And it's marvelous and it's a boon to business, rather than a detriment. If you do things right the first time, you don't have to keep redesigning them every twenty years. " If you will read our testimony on our position when we were given the opportunity to testify previously, you will see that we acknowledged and pointed out all of the existing problems that you're having. No 103 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 one listened to us then and, you know, I hope the Council and others listen a little better this time. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Thank you, Mr. Winters. I want to let you know that I never believed that this was going to be a success at the time either, for reasons different than yours, obviously. I believed that the prohibition of the right-hand turns would not get us to where we thought we needed to be in terms of revitalizing Chestnut Street. And I think in the best-case scenario, if we had the smart meters and we had the enforcement, the other issues that have been discussed and I've talked about earlier would still be existing. At Clean Air Council, you heard some of my comments. Putting an automobile through a two-and-a-half-mile additional distance to go -- to get to Point A to Point B, I certainly think adds to the problems of air pollution. And I'm not talking about one car; I'm talking about literally tens of thousands of cars a week. 104 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 In effect, I believe that what we have created on Chestnut Street is of a greater disadvantage to the Clean Air Council and the folks who are concerned abut that than if we were to allow right-hand turns, based on the examples that I have laid out here today.
Councilman, the advantages that Chestnut Street had for air quality was lost when cars were returned to it 11 hours a day. 12
But I don't know 13 if we have -- and maybe the Streets Department 14 needs to answer this. I don't know if the City of 15 Philadelphia, the core of Center City, has 16 realized any significant increase in vehicles 17 coming into the City because Chestnut Street has 18 been reopened. In my estimation -- and as someone 19 who spend a considerable amount of time in Center 20 City -- all we've done is remove the bottleneck at 21 18th and Chestnut and created two more additional 22 bottlenecks: one at Sixth and Chestnut, one at 23 11th and Market, and as a previous witness 24 testified to, the 100,000 cars a year that are being valeted out of Jefferson Hospital. 105 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 So I don't know if all of a sudden, people fond out that now I can ride down Chestnut Street, I'm going to start using my car to go to the City of Philadelphia. I don't think that is what happened. I don't have any statistics to prove otherwise, whether it did or not. I just don't believe, on my practical experience, being out there, walking a lot, that that has occurred. And it certainly was never my intention, or would be my intention, to encourage more vehicular traffic. I have been working for two years on a design to move people around that quadrant of Center City on the east side of Broad Street more effectively and efficiently by creating some more attractive means of public transportation. I have gotten SEPTA to agree and somewhat the DRPA and the Penn's Landing Corporation and everybody else to maybe put in a trolley system, a trolley system on a track, not the rubber tires.
So, understand, I'm not against bicyclists, I'm not against 106 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 dedicated bike lanes, if they work. I don't believe that they're working for the general public at large on Chestnut Street. That's all I'm saying. Thank you. Councilman Ortiz?
I think they don't work. I think they actually have made Chestnut Street an incredibly dangerous area for bike riders right now, the way it has been organized. I have staff, I have people who ride bikes into Center City, and when you go down on Chestnut Street, it's only one lane now for buses and the bike riders because the cars and the delivery trucks that park down Chestnut Street really make it only a one-lane travel again, and you have cars and buses and bicycles all going down the same lane. And so it's become a very dangerous place. And I was reading an article, I think it was in the New York Times, about actually that big cities are going and looking at bike lanes and -- as ways of breaking down congestion, and that this is something that is going on across many different urban areas. And I agree with you about Denver. 107 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 I've been to Denver a few times and I walked from one side of the street to the other. And then I came back the other way, stopping on the way to sit down and browse through the book stores and so on. It's an example of something that we should have looked at. And maybe it's because Denver is smaller in terms of population or whatever, but they put a lot of thought into that, and you see the commerce flourishing and the stores full of people and a lot of pedestrians and functions.
I just have to say one more thing. I cycle Chestnut Street every day and that's how I get around in Center City. And it is -- to me, it's a much safer place to be than most other places in the City for the simple reason -- if cars were out of there, it would be extremely safe because it's not difficult to stay a block ahead of a bus, they stop at every corner. And I'm not, as you can tell, a rather rapid cyclist, I don't speed. And it's my lane, it belongs to bicyclists and transit users, and that makes a difference. I have never been yelled at in the red lane, and that I cannot say about any other 108 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 street in the city. So if you somehow eliminate -- I mean, I remember the fight to get bikes back on Chestnut Street. I hope this does not deteriorate to a point where you eliminate cyclists' access to Chestnut Street.
I don't think that's the purpose; I think we got to increase them but make it safe.
Mr. Winters, before you leave, I just want to offer a hypothetical again. Let's just assume, for the purposes of this conversation, that the number of vehicles who use Center City, this corridor that we talk about, from Front to 22nd Street and Market to Walnut, hasn't increased as a result of the Chestnut Street Transitway opening up to vehicles. Let's just assume that the number of the cars are the same. Given the scenario I laid out, without getting from Point A to Point B, would you not agree that that contributes immensely to more -- adding to air pollution, because cars are on the street traveling a further distance now? I mean, 109 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 if I'm going --
But you and I know 9 -- we know the neighborhood. See, we're from the 10 'hood, we understand it. I'm talking about 11 people who aren't familiar with it, and that 12 happens every day probably hundreds, if not 13 thousands, of times a day. 14 Now, given the scenario that I laid out 15 of going from 18th and Chestnut to 16th and Walnut 16 adds an additional 25 blocks that the car is on 17 the street, not counting how many times it stops 18 for a red light, not counting about whether or not 19 -- not taking into consideration whether the car 20 is stuck in traffic jam. Normal flow. 21 Doesn't that increase the carbon 22 monoxide being emitted from automobiles immensely? 23 And if you multiply that hundreds or thousands of 24 times, according to the number of vehicles that 25 are on the street, isn't that more harmful to us? 110 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Well, I mean, you're asking me to make a decision on a quantity I have no idea of.
Well, let me ask you, if your car idles for ten minutes or it idles for a half an hour, are you putting more pollutants in the air --
Most pollution from automobiles comes from when you turn the key to start it and when you turn it off at the end of the trip. That's where most of automobile pollution comes from.
So it doesn't matter then if cars are using the streets and if more cars come in because --
Because once they start, there's no additional air pollution going to.
Of course it matters, but the significance is -- I can't judge the significance of that.
Well, I'm not asking you to give me an expert evaluation. But I 111 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 think from a practical standpoint, if the car is running minutes longer, 15 minutes longer than 4 it would have because the person can get to Point 5 B quicker, is not that car contributing to more 6 air pollution that's being emanated into the air 7 than had it been able to get to 16th Street 8 quicker? 9
Why not put two signs 17 over the travel lanes at 20th Street that simply 18 say "Chestnut Transitway, no-right-hand-turns Next 19 14 Blocks"? Why not try that as a compromise? 20 Why is it always cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users that have to compromise? It's ridiculous.
Well, I think we're all trying to compromise, but thank you. I'm sorry, you have questions for 112 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 Mr. Winters? Councilman.
Thank you. How you doing, Mr. Winters? As you know, we've had several discussions about bicycles and pedestrian right of ways and thinks of that nature, and I'm glad to see you're here. I just want to clarify something on the western side of the Chestnut Transitway, the district that I represent. I asked Councilman DiCicco to incorporate the Broad Street intersection in this particular bill, but I did not incorporate the remainder of the intersections in the particular bill because I did want to have some discussion with the coalition and other individuals before we did that. I did Broad Street because it's clear to me, given the investment on the Avenue of the Arts South Broad, it makes no sense not to allow people to turn south on Broad Street. I mean, we've spent close to $300 million, given the Art PAC and all of the other additions that we've put down there, and it just doesn't make sense for us to not have people have an opportunity to turn down Broad Street. 113 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 But I will sit down with you and, you know, as I said, I'm willing to have some analysis done on the other intersections before, you know, we incorporate any amendments to this particular bill.
Well, we certainly -- Philly Walks and the Clean Air Council certainly wants to work with you and Councilman DiCicco on whatever task force there might be.
What's the theory? (Lost testimony here due to equipment power failure.)
At any rate, you know, you can discourage transit in steps. And I think what we have done -- we don't have the perfect transitway anymore, I don't think we had it in '98 when we started the project that gave us what we have today. I don't think it was done right in 114 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 '76. But if you move cars into that right-hand lane, you've totally eliminated any transit advantage to the lane. It would have been silly to paint it red.
All right, thank you. I was just interested in the theory. Incidentally, in the support for bike lanes, is any consideration given to whether or not bikes actually use the lanes? Or is it a general policy in the hope that ultimately, bike users will begin. I'm thinking of -- I frequently have to go up York Road into the Jenkintown area. And once I get to 66th Avenue, going north, there's a bike lane on York Road and it reduces -- it always -- there's a tremendous lineup of cars because what before was two lanes of traffic becomes one lane. And I live in that area and I've never once seen a bicycle rider at any time of the day or evening ever use that. And I was wondering, are there any studies as to use? Or is it a general policy in the hope of encouraging bicycle riders?
Well, I think because bicycles really have only gained the access that 115 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 they have lately -- that, is in the last two Federal Transportation bills -- that communities like Philadelphia are still experimenting and don't always know what will be best for cyclists. I think they are trying to use their best judgment based on what little operating experience they have to put them down in the right place, but I think the Streets Department would agree with you that there are places they put them down where they didn't work, and there are other places where they have people demanding they put them down. So, I'll tell you, as an experienced cyclist, I don't use lanes very much. The responsible cyclists have to obey all the laws Pennsylvania provides for motor vehicles, and I operate in the motor lane on the right-hand side, and I feel safer there usually than in some of the lanes that are down, only because I'm experienced enough. A novice cyclist probably needs the margin of safety that a bike lane might give them.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Hi. My name is Jennifer Escorcia, E-S-C-O-R-C-I-A. I'm from the Bicycle Club of Philadelphia, I'm currently their secretary. And hopefully tonight, I'll be elected as the new president. Anyway I'm also here as a concerned citizen. I'm a bicycle commuter. I live up in Northeast Philly. I work at Temple University, and have to go to the post office on Chestnut Street to pick up the Bicycle Club mail, and I have to go home after that.
Could you really pull the microphone very closely. I'm having great trouble hearing you, even with hearing aids.
Okay. I travel from Northeast Philly -- 117 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
-- to Temple University,, that's where I work. And since I'm the bike club secretary, we have our post office box down on Chestnut Street, 21st and Chestnut. So I have a lot of experience with riding down Chestnut Street. And especially since we have the new transit lane since July, I have found it to be very accessible to bicycles. I'm also finding, though, that we have a real problem with enforcement right turns. I see pedestrians trying to walking across the numbered streets and almost getting run over by cabs making illegal right-hand turns. I think forward-looking cities, as the gentleman before me talked about, are trying to calm traffic down in our downtown area. It promotes people spending their money at shopping areas instead of going home and buying things on amazon.com and eddiebauer.com or going out to the King of Prussia Mall where they're not a pedestrian. I think the transitway is a good idea, but I think we ought to give it a try for a year. 118 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 I think that we should enforce the no-right-hand- turns. And the question to me, though, is there's always this question about all of this excess driving that's happening because of Chestnut, and I'm kind of confused. What happened when we couldn't drive cars on Chestnut Street, how did we go east?
Well, that's my point, ma'am, is that we haven't done it -- we haven't made the situation any better. We invested $15 million and we still have a lot of congestion. Opening Chestnut Street up to vehicular traffic was supposed to relieve that. I don't think we've accomplished much, and I said that earlier. I thought it was a bad idea in the beginning. Not that I'm suggesting we go back to the total elimination of vehicles, but we've just moved the bottleneck from one location to two other locations. And that's all I'm suggesting.
And so there's no other road that traffic can go west to east? It's just Chestnut Street for downtown?
No, you can go -- 119 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 but if you're not familiar with the area or -- I shop at Boyd's. If I drive to Boyd's and I want to go home, I would have to make a left on 18th Street to go to Market and then out Market east to wherever it is I'm going to make a right, but I know the neighborhood, I understand that. There are some folks who traditionally would think, If I get on Chestnut Street and I go east, I'll be able to turn right to go south. Many people don't understand that. And I don't know how you educate the world that Philadelphia has a street that is blocks long that you can 14 get on to drive but you can't get off for 14 blocks. I don't know how we educate the world about that.
I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't know. I mean, I don't know how you do it.
Sure. I think we're going to have to look at a lot of compromises here. It can't be all cars, it can't be all bicycles, it can't be all no-right-hand-turns. 120 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 Perhaps you can compromise and find several streets that you can make right turns on.
And I said that earlier. That may be a compromise, I'm not certain of that yet. And I don't know if that would still jeopardize the federal and state dollars that went into the reconstruction. You know, the feds don't always know what they're doing, they do make mistakes, I'm told. And with all good intentions, they give us money, but when they tie our hands and put restrictions on us, I wonder sometimes if we should even take the money, 'cause we're in here arguing a point that we probably -- if we didn't need that money, we wouldn't be arguing today, obviously, but we need their money and they put restrictions on it. Big government again.
Well, I think perhaps it's time for a little out-of-the-box thinking. We have a very bright group of City Councilpeople, and I think that they can come up with some sort of decision that makes everyone happy, both the federal government and --
I'm sorry. 121 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
I think it's time for a little out-of-the-box thinking. We have a group of very bright Councilpeople here that can put their heads together and come up with some ideas.
And I do reiterate, though, that I hope that City Council does give the Chestnut Street problem a lot of thought, because we're not just people in cars, we're pedestrians and we're cyclists, and we're senior citizens that can't acknowledge agilely run across the numbered streets and dodge cabs that are making right-hand turns.
If it were up to me, and I've told this to the SEPTA folks, I would eliminate those trains that they call buses, they're those 60-foot long jobs. I don't think those things are appropriate on Chestnut Street, or most streets, for that matter. Maybe Market Street can handle it, but I don't think they're conducive to Chestnut Street. I think they are very intimidating for people who are even walking on the sidewalk. 122 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
Well, frankly, I'm not too concerned about the buses going down Chestnut Street; I'm concerned about crossing the numbered streets when you have to dodge cabs that are making illegal right turns at break-neck speeds. I saw little old ladies leaping onto the curb the other day, getting out of the way of these illegal right turns.
But even where right turns are legal, we, as a culture -- a society, I should say -- don't respect pedestrians, and that's unfortunate. In Italy, you step out into the street and everybody stops.
But that's behavior, and that's how people react. And in Puerto Rico and in Mexico, they do the same thing and in California. It's a cultural thing, it's a behavioral thing.
Absolutely. Thank you. 123 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547
We second your nomination for secretary, by the way. The next witness, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Kevin Smith. It's the traditional spelling, S-M-I-T-H. I'm the steering committee Chair of the Delaware Valley Transit Users Group. We are strongly opposed to allowing the right turns off Chestnut. You have created a system that, by its very nature, will require extensive and strict enforcement to be effective. You have provided neither the political pressure, nor the financial resources to ensure that enforcement. In effect, you've designed the system to fail. If you think it's hard to keep cars out of the right-hand lane now, by allowing right turns, it will become impossible. Everyone understood, when the current design was first proposed -- everyone understood 124 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 this when the current design was proposed, but even we're shocked at the shameless speed at which the City is moving to undermine the remaining vestige of a transitway. The current transitway, with all of its problems and shortcomings, must be maintained and eventually extended and improved to create a real bidirectional transitway link between Penn's Landing and 30th Street Station, not dismantled and gutted. If auto traffic is the key to a successful street, then every corner of this city should be a driving Utopia. What is actually happening is that special interests are slowly and surely choking the City with cars. More capacity only attracts more cars, which creates bigger traffic jams, which cause more pollution and only contribute to making Philadelphia a dirty and unpleasant place to visit. Philadelphia should be, first and foremost, for Philadelphians. Center City can best be served by making it an attractive, clean and quiet place to live, shop, dine, and do business. Promoting auto dependency and traffic 125 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 will do none of these. Promoting efficient public transportation will do all of these. With regards to some points made earlier about the revitalization of Chestnut Street, and there are numerous examples in the City of the east end of Market Street and Old City who've had traffic their entire existence but were -- and underwent their own revitalization independent of any traffic changes, more as a result of attention by the City, amenities, sidewalks, and just active pursuing of business by business associations. There's a -- revitalization of Chestnut Street was well underway before any changes were made to it, as a part of the whole improvements and revitalization and growth of the Center City District. Regarding traffic pollution and the additional traffic caused by looping cars trying to emulate the right turn by going either too far or looping around, I think instead of making an argument for allowing right turns, I think you're making an eloquent argument for returning Chestnut Street to its transitway status and returning all west-to-east traffic back to Market Street, which 126 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 has the capacity and size to handle it. Finally, with all due respect to Paul Levy and the transitway creating a dangerous situation with buses careening down the street, I think we have years of experience that show in 7 a transitway situation with unimpeded traffic 8 flow, without having to dodge cars, buses maintain 9 their schedule and proceed at a reasonable and 10 quiet pace. I'm a frequent user of buses on 11 Chestnut Street, I'm a frequent pedestrian all 12 around Center City. Chestnut Street, before 13 opening to cars, it was not a false of security, 14 it was a real sense of security. Crossing a 15 street when you have to dodge one bus every two or 16 three minutes a block away is not an exercise; 17 it's a stroll. Trying to cross Walnut Street or 18 trying to cross Market Street is an exercise. ) 21 from his book Transportation For Livable Cities. 22 "The more an area relies on transit and walking, 23 the greater its advantage over the suburbs with 24 respect to transportation choices, convenience, 25 and cost of travel.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
I think we have one more witness, Mr. Jordan? (Witness comes forward.)
Hello. My name is John Jordan. I am a resident of Center City in the area generally known as "Washington Square West." Washington Square West lies south of Chestnut Street, and with the no right turn on Chestnut Street, it puts everything south of Chestnut Street off limits. There are only three streets leading into Center City from west of the Schuylkill: Market, Chestnut, and Spruce becoming South when it across the Schuylkill. Chestnut is the most heavily traveled since it is a one-way street all the way from Cobbs Creek Parkway, also known as 63rd Street, to Front Street at the Delaware 128 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 River. Half of Center City lies south of Chestnut Street, and it is impossible to bar access to it. The destinations on South Broad Street alone include concert halls, theaters, restaurants, hotels, banks, and offices. These venues cannot be barricaded by an inaccessibility. Other southbound streets lead, as we have heard, to hospital emergency rooms and cannot be blocked. You heard from a representative of Jefferson Hospital. Pennsylvania Hospital also feels the same way, since access to the emergency room at Pennsylvania Hospital requires turning south on Tenth Street to get to it. It can already be seen as impossible to limit vehicular traffic to only the center lane of Chestnut Street. Even now, service and delivery vehicles are often stopped in the center lane, or even in the bus lane, so that other traffic must go around them one way or the other. A street this busy cannot function with only one traffic lane. It is well and good to mark out bicycle lanes on a street that is six lanes wide, such as 129 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 11th Street from Bainbridge to Washington Avenue. And even south of Washington Avenue to Reed Street, it is that wide, but it is wider than most other streets, including Chestnut Street. But on Philadelphia's narrow streets, vehicles, buses, and bicycles must coexist. If no-right-hand-turns on Chestnut Street makes sense, logic demands that you also say no-right-hand-turns on Walnut Street, and that would really paralyze Center City. Banning turns to the south off Chestnut Street is a planner's theory, a traffic engineer's proposal, a bicyclist's dream, but it cannot withstand the bright light of practical necessity. The detours, such as Councilman DiCicco has alluded to, necessary to go south are complex and impractical. There are some shorter ways to get your three blocks, but as you pointed out, only if you know what they are. If you were left to follow the signs, you would be going many blocks out of your way. And this adds unnecessary traffic to the detoured streets. The public will view these restrictions 130 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 000547 as impracticable and unworkable, and they will be widely ignored, creating conflict with the police if they try to enforce them. These regulations in a city as congested with narrow streets as Philadelphia must be changed. Thank you.
Thank you, John. Your testimony was excellent, and I appreciate it. And coming from a resident, it was very helpful. Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
I'm sorry you. Have to please step up and identify yourself again for the record.
Hi. I'm Sue MacNamara, the Director of the Bicycle Coalition. I just have some testimony that was handed to me by a business owner from Center City who couldn't be here to testify, but he wanted to get his testimony in. How do I do that? That's Michael McGettigan's, do you have that?
Council President Anna C. Verna is here. We're going to recess the public hearing on the resolution on the retaining walls temporarily. We'll go into our public meeting so we can handle the business of voting the bills out and then go back into the public hearing on the resolution. Okay. We're going to get to your retaining walls. In about five minutes, we'll be there. Okay, thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 000506.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000506 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the City Council meeting tomorrow. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000506 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our 132 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 000510.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 000510 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000510 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 000511. 133 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000511 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules.
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000511 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 000513.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000513 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, together with a request for a suspension of rules to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000513 be reported out of this committee with a favorable 134 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000538 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, together with a request for a suspension of rules to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000538 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. 135 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 000542 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000542 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 000584 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000584 be reported out of this committee with a favorable 136 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 000582 the be reported out with a favorable recommendation together with a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000582 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 137 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 000589 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000589 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000604 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000604 be reported out of this committee with a favorable 138 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000605 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000605 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 139 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000606 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, together with a request for a suspension of rules to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000606 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. Bill 000512 has been withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. Bill No. 000508 and 000547 are being held till the call of the Chair. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. - - -
We now will go back into the public hearing on Resolution No. 140 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 000041. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify on Resolution 41? Please approach the witness table. Thank you. Sir, you can come up now if you'd like. Are you going to testify? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: No. 9
Okay, thank you. Thank you for waiting. If Councilman Nutter is listening, the witnesses are about ready to testify on your Resolution 41.
Basically, we want to know why you haven't produced by yesterday a full, worked-out, thorough plan documenting every alley, retaining wall, or driveway that needs to be fixed with a specific program of when you are going to fix it. Councilman Nutter, did I explain your position?
We're really not 141 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 looking for all the finest details, but we would like to feel that there is a specific program that has been worked out and that progress is being made. If there are funding requirements, that proposals be made with respect to the funding requirements. But we think the situation is desperate. In addition to my role as a Councilman-at-large, I'm the Democratic leader of the 17th Ward; that's the ward in Northwest Philadelphia, which encompasses East Germantown and West Oak Lane, and I can tell you that every time we have a political meeting or any kind of community meeting, or if the community development corporations are meeting or the community associations, questions keep coming up about the urgent need before the total value of the property collapses and maybe the retaining wall is collapsing too. When is there going to be some help to the people in the City of Philadelphia? And I think they're justified in asking for that help. And we need your cooperation badly to come forth with a specific program. 142 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 I understand from Councilman Nutter that there have been frequent meetings and discussions, but that thus far, the progress has been what's been lacking.
One minute. We have to read the title of the resolution first.
And then in the record, put my comments after the title of the resolution having been read.
Yes. Resolution No. 12 000041, authorizing the Council's Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings on the dangers and damage caused by the deterioration of retaining walls, driveways, and alleys, and the complications involved in coordinating necessary repairs by abutting property owners; and to determine the scope of these dangerous conditions throughout the City and the cost to repair them; and further authorizing the committee to formulate a program to correct these hazardous and dangerous conditions in neighborhoods throughout the City. I believe that Councilmember Cohen has already made a statement, which will be a part of the record. 143 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon and good evening. My name is Debra Russo. I'm here on behalf of the Managing Director's Office. We do not have any formal testimony prepared. What I do have is some statements with respect to this particular issue. Alleyways, retaining walls, and common driveways are private property. They are subject to all the rules and regulations of joint ownership. The City of Philadelphia does not own these particular structures. With that being said, at this point in time, there is no viable funding source for a program. It's my understanding that the Streets Department was charged to come up with some type of a plan in which to address these issues, but I think the important fact to keep in mind is that there is not a viable funding source, save grants.
Thank you. Miss Russo, I understand at the beginning of your statement, it's my recollection 144 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 that at the public hearing a few months ago, we asked the Streets Department -- the committee asked the Streets Department and passed a resolution to the effect that we wanted the Department to come up with a plan and a program. I do not believe that we asked for at that time the specifics of funding. I believe that we asked that there be a survey of the areas that are affected, detailed information derived about them, estimates on costs associated with it, and what kind of plan or program could be put into place to try to solve these problems.
Neither the Department or any other particular agency of the government would necessarily be requested or required to determine what the funding source is. That is usually a decision left to the elected officials in both the legislative body and the executive branch. Do you have a dispute about that?
The Streets Department does have that information, and Paul Lonie could speak to those issues. 145 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Paul Lonie with the Department of Streets, and the Streets Department would like to answer any questions dealing with their involvement in this program. However, at this time, we are presenting no formal testimony because we feel that perhaps it would be premature to do so. We have developed a lot of systems and a lot of ways of dealing with some of the issues that Councilman Nutter had requested that we deal with. We feel we have certain steps that we can take to remedy this situation. But as of this point, we're -- the key to the situation is the fundability of it and how expansive the program will be, depending on that funding.
Well, Mr. Lonie, I appreciate that. I do not wish to be in a chicken-and-egg situation where either the Department or even the Managing Director's Office makes a the determination that while we might be 146 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 able to come up with a program, if we cannot identify a funding source or sources, we therefore then cannot have a program, when none of the details of even a proposed or hypothetical program have been shared with the body who asked for the information. So my problem here is, it's laid out to us that since there's no funding source, we don't think we have a program.
Well, no, sir. We have a system in place that if we did identify a funding source, it would go into effect immediately.
The system would involve a revolving fund type of operation. The problem with the retaining walls that have always stopped are not retaining walls in specific but with driveways and alleys and retaining walls is that contractors have been reluctant to bid on these projects because there was no funding up front for 147 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 them. The City could not promise any cash for the work that they had done. The only thing we could promise under the current laws were assessment bills against the abutting property owners.
This would put the contractors in the business of trying to collect these bills. One of the ways that we could do something like this is, if we could identify the funding source, then what we would have the ability to do is allow the contractors to get in there and do their work, repair the situation, move on. And then we, as a City agency, would send the bills directly to the property owners, collect that money back and replenish the fund. I have spoken with the Revenue Department, and they're in agreement with this plan. I have spoken with many other agencies, including the Law Department, and they're in agreement with some parts of this plan, or with all of the plan. I have spoken with the Managing Director's Office and, again, they see no problem with that plan, if the funding can be actually 148 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 found. I have, as part of my charge, looked into some of these funding sources and have had a difficult time coming up with anything viable. Part of the program would involve community development, working with the community, educating the community on their respective rights and responsibilities as far as these things go. We're trying our best to work within a system that's difficult, but we feel that we do have some preliminary programs that are ready to go if a funding source can be found. Councilman Cohen was looking before for the scope of the program. One of the beauties of the preliminary program would be that it doesn't need to be done all at once. We can do this for whatever funding we have. We have a program, we feel, could be in place to utilize that money as far as it would take us.
Well, let me ask this question. Miss Russo, you said that particular areas that we're talking about are private property?
And, that was Miss 149 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 Russo. Can we have a microphone please? Why don't we just leave them on.
Yeah, yeah. One of the -- I think that one -- as I said, the Streets Department does have what they think could be a plan that would work. It would be like a resolving plan.
I asked you a question. I asked you, did you say earlier that the areas that we're talking about are private property.
And, therefore, there's nothing we can do about it. Is that what you said?
I said that the areas that 150 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 we're talking about were private property, and that that was an impediment to many of the funding sources.
Fine. Are you aware recently that a number of buildings throughout the City had fallen down?
I'm not really sure of the number. I know that the City's right now involved in looking at demolishing those properties.
I'm not -- it's a combination of the various factors probably of HUD, private property owners, et cetera.
Some of them were, but I'm not sure as to what we're doing with the actual -- 151 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 like, I'm not sure if we're liening the properties, I'm not sure of those aspects of the program.
I know that the City's tearing down the properties. What I'm not --
Because it's -- from what I'm -- my understanding is it's because they're imminently dangerous.
They present a danger to the health, safety, and welfare out in 152 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 the community.
From my understanding, from talking to the Streets Department on this issue, there are some retaining walls that are in a state of disrepair; I think we're looking at 90 of them, okay. The cost for repairing them, I think, will be approximately $9 million, okay. Alleys and driveways, from what I understand, are looked at separately because the costs are so much different.
I didn't ask you about the cost; I asked about ownership.
You said that we tear down privately owned buildings that are dangerous. 153 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
But we can't do anything about dangerous condemned retaining walls, alleys, and driveways. Is that your testimony?
No. I know what they are from pictures that have been presented to me by the Streets Department, but I've never actually seen one.
You've never 154 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 personally seen a damaged or a condemned retaining wall.
But your testimony is that the vacant building that's falling down, we can do something about that, but the driveway in the back or retaining wall that's falling down, it's also private property, it represents a danger to City workers, private citizens, an individuals and children, we can't do anything about that. That's your testimony today?
Yes, that's my testimony because it's my understanding that --
Well, it's my understanding that the Department of L&I is in charges of demolitions in the City and that when a property is demolished, the costs are then assessed against the property owner.
From what my understanding is -- 155 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
Do you think it's less dangerous in the back than it is out in the front?
I think that L&I has a funding line for demolitions and I don't know of any funding line for retaining walls. And that could be --
Because it was my understanding, from talking to our budget office, that dollars could not be allocated because this was private property.
Well, why couldn't it be allocated for the demolitions?
I don't know that answer. I don't know why L&I has a line item for demolitions.
I'm not talking 156 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 about L&I. You're apparently making a legal judgment and a distinction between private property in the back and private property that's a building that's falling down. I want you to explain into this record what the difference is and what the distinctions are.
Isn't that what you're here for? You're here to give us information, right?
Okay, my information with respect to imminently dangerous buildings is that those buildings are I.D.'d as imminently dangerous and on the verge of collapse.
Well, I know of retaining walls that have been condemned by the Board of Health. Is that less dangerous than what L&I does?
I don't know. (To Mr. Lonie) Is that -- what do you 157 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 do -- what does the Streets Department do when something's falling down?
The Streets Department, when a retaining wall has been condemned by the Board of Health, who has the power to do that, the Streets Department does not. In the past, we would go out and hire a contractor to come in and fix it and assess the abutting property owners. However, it was considered proper back in the 1980s to change that so that a lot of -- you needed 51 percent of the people on the block who were affected to agree to do that. That was a lot of times --
Do we ask for 51 percent of the neighbors on the block to decide whether we're going to tear a building down?
Miss Russo? 158 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
There is notice given to the property owner and then so much time passes.
And then L&I could then -- or they contract to demolish the building.
So tell me what the program is going to be to deal with the number of damaged, deteriorated, and condemned retaining walls and driveways and alleys in the City of Philadelphia that represent a serious threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people, similar to what we're doing to make sure that buildings don't fall on people. Tell me what you're going to do the day that a City trash vehicle goes crashing over a wall or a wall fails and you got a 9,000-pound 159 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 truck running over it and someone is injured or killed, tell me what you're going to do that day. When that wall is on a list of hundreds that are being condemned or observed to be in deteriorated decision condition, you tell me what the game plan is at that point.
The Streets Department -- and Paul Lonie could speak better to this -- is exploring some legislative changes whereby we might, might -- and I'm not sure if we're going to do this or not, but might be able to cap the assessment for the contractor for a retaining wall for some number. One of the concerns is -- the difference is --
Oh, so now we're talking about some of the elements of a program. Is that what you're putting on the record now?
The Streets Department has looked -- and Paul Lonie could speak to this, they looked at various possibilities of things to do.
One of the impediments with respect to contractors doing the work was that in 160 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 the past, the only way they could be paid is through assessment billings.
And one of the programs that might be possibly looked into by the Streets Department was if there was a way to get some initial funding, this is just exploring possibilities.
Whereby if you could get some initial funding and thereby -- and more or less like they prime the pump, have like a revolving loan.
That was one of the things that we looked at, just to look at it to see if it was possible to do that.
Right. Well, Miss Russo, that's a lot better idea than your first idea, which was, they're private property and there's nothing we can do about it. I like the second idea much better than the first one. What I would like you to do, since you've not had the experience, is to go out to the 161 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 5200 blocks of Berks and Euclid, out in the Wynnefield section, and what I'd like you to do is to then come back to me and tell me what you think we should do about that wall and what I should tell my constituents out there who cannot use their driveway, who cannot walk without fear of danger that the retaining wall is going to fall down on them, and then you tell me whether you think it's dangerous enough or not for us to do something about it.
Now, this is what you're going to find. 5200 to 5254 Berks and 5203 to 5243 Euclid, this is a 450-foot plus or minus wall long, 0 to 12 inches high, 12 feet high, stone retaining wall, it has a 15-foot wide driveway above to the north behind Berks property and a 12-foot wide driveway below to the south behind the Euclid properties. At about the center of the wall is a major collapse. The entire wall, from top to bottom, for a length of about 20 feet, is collapsed into the driveway below. Stone and 162 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 concrete building materials are lying in the driveway, as much of the underlying dirt that supports the upper driveway. The upper driveway has about a 20-foot by 10-foot hole, with much of the remaining concrete surface in the vicinity of the collapse being unsupported. This thing is dangerous. Now, I'd like you to go out and take a look at it as your first of potentially many retaining wall experience, and I'd like you to tell me what we're going to do about it, 'cause I'd like an answer. Oh, by the way, this retaining wall, it was condemned by the Board of Health in 1975. So while we've been sitting around, not doing anything about it, it's been deteriorating, costs have been growing, and it's been a danger to that community for a quarter of a century. It's unacceptable. And if you have any others that you'd like to go to, I've got a list of a couple hundred of them. So that's why I'd like to hear about more what we can do, what we're thinking about doing, what we might possibly do over the next 163 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 couple years as opposed to what we can't do. I'm much more interested in the first than I am in the second. Do you have some other elements that you might want to share with us?
Yes. We understand a lot of the concerns. The Streets Department fields them. Again, we get the calls just as often as you do. Where we've been frustrated with the individuals -- and, again, it's not necessarily the responsibility of the Streets Department, but the Streets Department would do anything that we could to help to locate whatever funding source the elected officials of the City of Philadelphia say should be used for this project. We think, with a few adjustments, that we have a system that we're ready to put into place, that could remedy a lot of the situations. The only thing that's lacking is the money to do it. We do not have that ability. Under our charter, we cannot use Streets Department money -- and, again, this is in private property, so other 164 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 funding sources must be looked at. It's difficult, it's been looked at for 30 years to do something like that, no one's been successful, and no one would be happier than I if someone would be successful and find that.
Mr. Lonie, all I'm saying to you is -- and this is what the request was of the committee a few months ago -- give us some concrete ideas, whether they fit together like a glove or not at the moment you give them to us is secondary to the fact that there is a plan and a proposal and a few ideas that, as I said earlier, then City Council would have some opportunity to try to figure out the intricacies and the details along with the Administration and the Law Department, Controller's Office, and anyone else who cares about this. But until we have a document, until someone can see a flow chart, until you have the ability to say to people, This is what we're thinking about, and put those ideas down in a concrete fashion, we will never have anything. And that's all we asked for. We said look at the financing, come up with a program, and give us a 165 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 plan. I'm not saying that that's the plan that's going to be implemented and I'm not saying that it's written in stone or anything else. But something every day beats nothing. Today we have nothing, and all we're asking for is something. Now, Miss Russo?
It's my recollection that you're an attorney; is that correct.
Okay. You're with the Managing Director's office, right?
The information that I read to you about the Berks Euclid retaining wall, that's from a public document produced internally by the government, that I am sure that if something happens out there, as an attorney, you would not like to have that particular document in discovery, right?
It's a known 166 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 danger.
And we've know about it for a long time. We've done nothing.
But legally, under the political subdivision tort claims, the City's not responsible for that. I hear what you're saying --
Just, you know, you'll lay back on that and you'll spend a whole lot of time in court in argument about it. All I'm saying is, we know about these things. We have some obligation to do something. And if you want to rest on, Well, the law says X, that's great. I don't have that luxury. I've got 40 to 50 households on a block. I cannot sit around and have nothing happen while people are out there in danger. That's my problem, I don't want it to be the rest of the City's problem. 167 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 And it's not just myself. We've got maps and charts and all kinds of stuff, these situations exist all over the City. I'm not saying they're going to be resolved overnight, it's too expensive, we know that. We're not irresponsible. But you have to start somewhere. When do you think you'll have a program put together without all of the i's dotted and the t's crossed but something that we as a legislative body and as elected officials would have an opportunity to sit down, look at, go over the details, debate it back and forth, and try to and come up with a game plan that makes some sense for the citizens of this city, when?
Is that definitively a month, is it probably a month, is it maybe a month? Give me a date by which you believe that you would have a document that we could sit around and have a discussion about.
A month. I mean, we could explore various -- if you're looking for a paper trail of possibilities, I would say a month.
So you think in a 168 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 month, we'll have a document?
No, I think in a month. One of the issues I think that we really wanted to explore was, we wanted to make sure that if we were coming up with a plan, that it was legal, and that's one of the things that we had, you know, some legal framework to stand on. And I think that in a month, we'll be able to look at a couple of the options and present them, to see if they're viable.
Mr. Lonie, earlier I heard you said you had a plan all ready to go. What is that plan?
The Streets Department has 169 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 a tentative plan that I believe the Streets Department, as a political entity of the Administration, needs a little more administrative tweaking before we're ready to release it. And I think the Administration would like to look at that plan a little further.
Well, Miss Russo, from the Managing Director's Office, had said that that would be ready within a month.
So it's not the Streets Department, you mean, it's outside the Streets Department that the plan --
The Streets Department feels that it's prepared to answer the questions as in the time frame indicated, but we realize that we are an administrative division of -- or an operating division of the Administration and we feel that all of the administrative possibilities need to be looked at.
Do you have any clue as to the kind of problems that there are?
No. I think you'd have to 170 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 talk to the Administration about that.
Because, you know, this problem has existed for years, and I don't want to be rude, but I don't really think it's the business of the Streets Department to start a presentation by saying, "This is private property and, therefore, we don't have any responsibility."
I don't know whether it was you, Mr. Lonie, or another witness who basically said that, 'cause this is a problem of Philadelphians.
I understand, Councilman. That was not a statement of the Streets Department.
And the City has the responsibility, like Councilman Nutter before talked about legal responsibility. Any -- if anybody falls or trips in any manner or in any of these driveways, particularly where the City in the past has issued a notice, and the City has in many of these cases issued notices as to the dangerous conditions that exist, any lawyer worth 171 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 his salt would immediately include the City of Philadelphia as the defendant in the case. And the charge of negligence against the City would be very simple to prove, that knowing the condition existed that was dangerous and the City couldn't deny it because it had sent a notice out, the City did nothing to require a correction to be made. Now, that's from a legal end. We don't want to get into that, we want to avoid those cases, and what we want to do is to keep people from leaving the City for fear that their property values are going downhill, we want to have mothers at peace that their kids playing in the driveway in the back are not going to be hurt by a falling retaining wall. It seems to me that saving properties that are not yet in the blighted condition or totally should be a priority ahead of taking care of blighted neighborhoods, because if you don't take care of them, of those that are still stable, they're going to, you know, add to the supply of blighted neighborhoods and be far more expensive to take care of at a later time. So number one is saving neighborhoods that are worth saving and maintaining and 172 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 continuing to stabilize. And I think there's got to be a real sense of urgency on that score in the Streets Department.
Well, I agree, Councilman. In the Streets Department, that sense of urgency is there. And -- but how money is allocated and spent, that's not something the Streets Department would get involved in.
I agree with you on that; I don't think it is a Streets Department, except that I think that it's appropriate that you look to see if you already have money appropriated that could be used for this purpose, and then we could discuss priorities within the Streets Department as to how you spend your appropriations. But outside of money already in your budget, that's a matter of the total Administration, the Mayor's Office, and the City Council.
The Mayor has one and the Council has seventeen, but his one may or may not be greater than our seventeen, depending on our ability to override.
That's true, Councilman. We have looked extensively within our own budget and we have found, checking --
And we appreciate your saying, Mr. Lonie, that you do understand it's a very serious problem and that you are anxious to be able to move forward with that.
Yes, we are. And we've worked very hard over the past few months, since April, when we were charged with this, to develop tentative plans how to deal with this. And, again, I think it's incumbent on this body to look to the Law Department and say what funds are available and what are not.
Well, we would like to know, for example, when we deal with funds, what are we talking about, what is the estimate as to the need, how much money is needed for how many things so that we could pick the hundred worse case, you know, situations and deal with them, 174 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 say.
Right. In the tentative plan, one of the things that we wanted to look at what was, we wanted to make it flexible enough because we knew that we can't take care of this problem all at once, no matter what we did, it's just too big. So we wanted to make it flexible enough so that if we had a limited amount of money, we could do a limited amount of driveways or alleys or walls or whatever. And the tentative program is flexible enough that whatever money we have, we can spend it in the most appropriate manner. If Council, whatever, somehow magically comes up with $9 million for retaining walls, we'll fix them all. If Council doesn't, then we'll fix one this year, one next year, or one whenever we can. We believe we have a program, as was charged, to take care of that type of situation if the funding was found. We could be ready whenever this program could be put into place.
Well, are you able to tell us now or within a short time what money 175 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 exists in the Streets Department budget, which you could use for this purpose?
-- in the opinion of the Law Department, no money in the Streets Department can be used for anything outside its designated rights-of-way. These alleys, driveways, and retaining walls, none of them, fall within the inventory of the Streets Department; so, therefore, our operational funds are not available for this project. And, again, as an attorney, I am going by what the Law Department tells me and I have no reason to doubt that. So I think we -- that's one of the real stumbling blocks of this is to identify. I've identified in this tentative program some funding sources, but it's been very frustrating because it's difficult.
Well, what if there were, say, a fund of $100,000, or let's say of $1 million, would you be in a position to make a specific proposal as to how it would be spent? 176 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
For example, the question is, I've been told over the years the reason the City stopped enforcing these notices that they'd send out about dangerous conditions was that the City couldn't get a contractor to bid because of the City's very bad payment policies, because the City didn't pay contractors.
And the second question was, the City limited many contractors because of certain bonding requirements that were too expensive for contractors to pay.
Now, have you overcome those problems? If we identify the million dollars, say, that could be used for this purpose, what would that buy us in terms of doing this kind of work?
Right. If the funding identified as legal by the Law Department and we could use it, then it would eliminate the main problem, because the problem was that we didn't pay the bill; it's that we gave the contractor 177 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 assessment bills and he had to go out and collect it from 80 individual people. They didn't want to do that anymore. If we identified this million dollars, then that's a big part of the program and we could pay the contractor in advance and then send out the bills to the individual property owners so that they would pay their fair share of the assessment. But in that, we wouldn't necessarily have to put in 100 or 200 percent overage that the contractors put in on things like that to collect the bills.
Well, have you proposed ideas such as going back to the old way but telling the contractor that if the citizens don't make the payment, the homeowners don't make the payment, the City will? And then the City will take the enforcement action so that the contractor doesn't have to do that?
Well, that's one thing we could look into a little more. We haven't looked so much in that simply because, again, we could not identify any funds to pay the contractors with. 178 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
Well, I just think there's so many ways. If the City acted in a responsible fashion rather than, so often like what we talk about when we think of landlords that don't fulfill their property duties, like the slum landlords, a common phrase, if the City stopped acting like a slum landlord in these situations and really rolled up its sleeve, I think they would offer us in Council a number of potential approaches.
And we could have an analysis of which approach we should use based upon which approach might produce more per dollar.
Well, we could -- you know, that is true, and part of our charge is to identify some of these different sources and we feel tentatively we have done that. But it's not our charge in the Streets Department to go to a funding agency and say, Give us money. That's for the elected officials to make an intelligent determination of where the City's money should go. That's not our responsibility. 179 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
Suppose we said, assume that the City is going to have a million dollars available, how would the Streets Department propose dealing with this problem?
Well, if that was available, the Streets Department would propose that --
The same old way you propose. You would advertise, you would pay double or triple the amount of money you have to pay because you have no alternative method of doing that.
That's not correct. How we would do it if we didn't have that, we would bundle the driveways or the alleys or the walls into whatever funding source we had, and we would say to a contractor, You're not just doing one thing, you're doing 10, 15 driveways, if the funding was available. At that point in time, we'd also say to the contractor, We're going to pay you with cash so don't put any overage on us, because it's not like the old days. We would at that point in time take on the responsibility of some of that bill- 180 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 collecting, but the Water Revenue Bureau has said that they're willing to handle some of that for us. We -- after the contractor was finished, we would measure exactly what he paid the district surveyor, as is outlined in the existing code, would go out and measure the driveway, form the bills, transmit the bills to the Water Revenue Bureau. They would send them out, the people would pay. Eventually, the money would go back into this revolving fund tentatively.
And you would do that system to do what kind of work? You mentioned the Water Revenue Bureau.
They're just simply the best -- we've identified them as the best funding agency to send out the billings and help us collect it. They have the best accounting system in the City.
So the City would try to get payment from the individual homeowners.
As is their responsibility under current law. 181 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
Mm-hmm. All right, that's the first specific proposal I have heard. Would it be a bill, which could be paid over time?
We tentatively would propose that it would be amortized over a four-year period. We feel that the average bill 9 would be at that point in time maybe $100 a year over 4 years. We feel pretty much everybody could afford that, tentatively.
Well, this is the first time I've heard that kind of a specific proposal. That's encouraging for me to hear that.
Well, again, that's just some tentative thinking in the Streets Department right now.
And you say that in a month or so, you expect that the City Administration, for which you cannot speak, you would hope that they would be ready with something?
And you would be ready with this kind of funding arrangement? Have 182 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 you gone through the different steps necessary to get approval for this kind of funding arrangement that you've described?
Well, no, this type of collect -- the current laws, as they exist, allow us to use that type of collection.
So would -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Thank you. 183 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041 In line with a comment made by Councilman Cohen earlier about the issue the notice when there is a danger and what the City's liability may or may not be, and as the Councilman said, we don't necessarily want to get into a big legal discussion about this, but I think it's also important for the record that whether the City has provided notice in some of these situations, another component of the Streets Department, the Sanitation Division, will take it upon itself, and I think, making the right decision, to reroute our City sanitation vehicles from a driveway or a retaining wall that they've determined to be dangerous for themselves. Forget about whether it's been condemned or not or whether anyone's sent a notice or not. They made a determination that they're not sending their personnel and our equipment in those areas, and reroute the trash pickup to the front. That is the most blatant sign that there is some kind of danger, and the City workers at least are taking it upon themselves to not put themselves in a dangerous situation. It is an admission of a danger right then and there. 184 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
Lawyers would call that very strong evidence of an admission by the City that the condition was dangerous.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
This concludes the public hearing on the Streets and Services Committee on Resolution No. 41. We're going into the public meeting. At the request of the sponsor of the resolution, we will recess the meeting on the Resolution 41 until November 21st at 10 a.m., on November the 21st, the year 2000. Thank you for your testimony.
Is that the report will be available to this committee. 185 10/24/00 STREETS/SERVICES - RES. 000041
A written report that we can actually hold in our hands and review? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
I didn't -- a report will be available to this committee on November the 21st, at o'clock a.m. 8
Thank you. (Adjourned at 5:25 p.m.) - - - 186 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, October 24, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES BILL NO.'s 000506, 000508, 000510, 000511, 000512, 000513, 000538, 000542, 000547, 000582, 000584, 000589, 000604, 000605, 000606 RESOLUTION NO. 000041 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter