Yeah. We had worked 128 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. out sort of a handshake -- did we have a letter agreement? We may have had a letter agreement, yeah. And it's certainly something we could do again, or someone else could do it; I want to emphasize that. But I think it needs to be a part of the bill 9 that there's a requirement, not just an intention.
The other question. You asked the question, and Mr. Rocco hasn't had an opportunity to answer, and I'd like for that information to be shared. What other -- in addition to the ones that you showed, what other upgrades have happened in Center City? Mr. Levy spoke to, there are very few of the 100-and-something stands in Center City that are upgraded. Mr. Rocco, can you update --
I have to disagree. Out of the 120 stands that are out there, 90 percent of them in Center City; of 129 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. those 90 percent, we have almost 50 percent that have been upgraded. Currently, we've got 44 new newsstands, and we're building 5 more. We should have approximately 48 or 49 by June 1st that will be upgraded, so...
Let me get this straight 'cause I'm trying to get an assessment of this. You're saying that 50 percent of the 100-and-so stands in downtown have been upgraded?
Councilwoman, there's not that much difference because what I was -- I said clearly that my numbers were two years old, and that was 37 out of 104 in a somewhat smaller area. So if, in those two years, they've done another 13 or 14, I mean, I commend them for that. But, again, what you've just heard is, only half of them have been upgraded. I would like to see us -- if 130 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. you're not going to have this as part of the comprehensive streetscape program, which is obviously the direction it sounds like you're considering, then you might require them to all look the same and make it a requirement. They have worked very hard to come up with a good design. Make it a requirement of every newsstand in Center City. That, I think, would achieve a uniformity as well. But 50 percent over 10 years gives us another 10 years to get it done, which I'm a little bit more impatient than that.
And, again, this bill will give us an opportunity to accelerate that pace of building more newer, modernized newsstands.
But this is a pilot. So I guess my issue to Mr. Levy's point is, if we were to grant you advertising rights, can you give us something firmer than "We're going to 131 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. upgrade 'em?" Can we talk about a time period? What do you foresee in terms of upgrading the rest of the stands?
Right now, we're doing about 7, 8, 9, somewhere in there, per year. I think we can increase that by 50 percent with this new program, with this bill.
Of the 104 that are downtown, how many are not members?
Yeah, 104 is within the boundaries of our district. If his number is 120, that would be consistent.
Okay. Of the 120, how many are members of the association?
Councilwoman, again, if I could add. Not to belabor this point. This is a voluntary association. 132 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS.
They do a very good job of persuading people. But as we all know, you can't persuade everybody to do everything. You're legislating, you have that opportunity.
Mr. Levy, I just wanted to ask one more thing 'cause when we talked about the City -- it's the Administration's position that it's though going to develop a whole street program on this. What is your interpretation of this, and how do you see -- should the newsstands be separate from that or incorporated to that? What's your perspective because of all of the work you've done in Center City?
Well, I mean, I'm not a lawyer, so I cannot offer you any opinion on legality. I think there are positives and negatives. I think this group has worked very hard to develop a uniform design 133 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. that's attractive, that happens to -- the colors happen to correspond with the colors we've used on light poles and all the rest, so there is a coherence there. And they make an argument for being carved out. I will tell you: The more you allow advertising revenue in an area or opportunities, the less value you could get from other advertising. That's the challenge. And the full value for the -- any outdoor advertising contract citywide is the value derived in Center City, 'cause that's where the highest density is, that's the highest rates paid by advertisers. So what you need to balance here is the objectives you believe you can help them achieve in terms of upgrading newsstands. But by allowing more advertising in the downtown, you do dilute the revenue stream in the highest revenue area within the city, which then helps pay for bus shelters and other 134 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. things throughout the City. It's a balancing act; there's not a right answer here, but I think that's what you need to consider.
But that's revenue primarily that goes through the City.
In your response about diluting the revenues, it would be the revenues that would go directly to the City, which may not benefit the newsstand. I mean, they have a better opportunity on their own to generate more revenue than --
Look, I'm fully in favor of each one of us making as much money as we can in life.
But my point was simply that the street-furniture contracts in this city and other cities have sought to provide amenities like bus 135 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. shelters, people are talking about bike racks and other amenities across the entire city. And they've done that by selling advertising. The real value in the advertising in this city is in the downtown and a few commercial corridors that are really high-density. So you need that revenue stream derived from commercial advertising on transit shelters or anything else in the downtown to spread those amenities far and wide across the City. My only point is: If you allow one other entity to have advertising, it benefits them, it could dilute the revenue stream the City gets to provide things citywide. There's not a right answer here; I'm not arguing one side or the other; I'm just telling you my opinion on the --
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting you were arguing; I was just kind of trying to pick your brain 136 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. and get a sense of how it may impact. What we're trying to do is create additional revenue for them. If they're a part of the comprehensive plan, it may actually reduce them. They'll get something but not as much.
There's no doubt. It's not a comprehensive plan, and if they're not part of it, they don't get the revenue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of quick questions. These renditions of newsstands, how many are there? Or is there one uniform?
And what is 7 the difference between the 20 and the 23? 8
Well, if you want 9 magazine wings, that's an added cost. If 10 you want a curved roof, that's another 11 added cost. If you want a lottery 12 window, that's another added cost. 13 So there are -- 14
How much revenue annually do you anticipate gaining through this advertisement? What is the projection?
Well, it's difficult to pin it down exactly, 138 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. Councilman, but we're looking at approximately $150,000 --
-- in the first year. Again, to be distributed equitably amongst all of the members.
And this would be in addition to any other revenues derived product sales, the newspapers and other things?
So is it unreasonable to say that you -- you know, if we were to say that within a 24-month period that we would expect the balance of the facilities to be done that this would not be an unreasonable expectation if we consider that it's a low-end capitalization of an advertisement unit LCD, high-yield by way of potential profit, thus being able to finance new structures in a first year, more or less two or three. So would it be unreasonable to 139 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. impose that condition, as Mr. Levy pointed out, upon the approval of a bill 4 such as this? Would that be a hardship? And if so, why?
First of all, the plan itself calls for to at least purchase one out of the first year's revenues outright for one vendor that can't afford it for themselves, to purchase it outright. In other words, take the revenues and purchase the stand for $25,000.
Let me clarify. That's for your entire association, 150,000?
So what I wanted to know is, what is the per-member revenue per year, roughly?
$7,000. So within a three-year period, we should 140 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. have their --
Again, we're only talking about the members; we're not addressing the issue of the non-members. And I think that's where Mr. Levy was going. And I think I'm in agreement with that -- I don't know about the rest of the committee -- that if we're going to do something here, we need to figure out how we can make this pretty much mandatory for every newsstand, especially those in Center City.
Well, that's the spirit of my questions, Mr. Chairman, that we, as a city, and the visitors and the shoppers in Center City should derive something from this too other than by tax 141 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. dollars. But by way of esthetics, we're talking about conflicting views by way what is pretty and what is acceptable. But one thing that is not acceptable is what has been pointed out by way of the condition of some of the stands that are rusted and have been allowed to be graffiti bulletin boards. So my support obviously would be for something that ties it into the construction of new structures over some set period of time.
It almost -- it sounds to me, Joe and Mr. Beller and John, I think we're almost going back to where we were a dozen or so years ago, where we were trying to have a uniform look to all the newsstands; am I right? I mean, it's pretty much where we're going, right?
It seems to 142 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. me, at $7,000 per year per member, that you have the ability to dedicate some of this revenue stream directly from the association or otherwise to help people get financing who are otherwise not creditworthy 'cause the money comes through you guys first the way you're going to do your general thing. So you could put together a program that would pay for and finance these things, and it would cost, you know, maybe 2,000 a month, including interest and principal -- I mean 2,000 a year, including interest and principal, for people to get these, and they'd have $5,000 extra income that would pay it off on, say, a 10-year amortization, according to my iPhone. And so, you know, there's a real possibility to get this done. And, obviously, if we make it a requirement, more people are perhaps, you know, going to have to be drawn into being a part of the association because they can get 143 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. financing through your purpose or another purpose. The only suggestion I would make to the chairman, and I will -- obviously, I'm happy with any way you resolve this situation, is that perhaps it would make sense to just have a requirement in a certain number of years, whether it's three or four or five, that you will not receive a new license that year unless you have a certain kind of newsstand. Thank you.
Councilman Jones and I had a sidebar about that issue. There are a number of recommendations -- thank you, Paul and others -- as it relates to this bill. And I know that one of my colleagues has some concern about a portion of the signage, which is something I think we can deal with. So what I'm going to do is, we're going to hold this -- with the 144 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. permission of this committee is to hold this bill. We're going to go back and work out some specifics on the timeline for uniformity; I don't know if it's one years, two years, three years, whatever it is. I think the tighter we make it, the better off we are, but there are, obviously, financial considerations that need to be addressed. You guys, the members of the association, shouldn't be treated any differently than the others. If we're going to put the burden on you to comply and make these newsstands the more modern newsstand that we see today, it should be for everyone. And then the other issue is for you all to talk to Paul. And if you can work something out, fine; if you can't, that's fine. But I think working with the Center City District on the removal of graffiti and maintenance is very important.
Mr. Chairman, one 145 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. of the things that plays right into that dovetails with the concerns that you're talking about is that the advertisers themselves want the upgrade because you can't put the kind of things that we're talking about that we've described that the bill allows, you can't put them on the old stands.
So there's that added incentive. And the revenue will help, and the fact that the revenue would increase as newsstands come on line, so to speak. So there would be that push, and we may be able to arrange financing through even the advertisers.
So a realistic time 146 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. limit because the --
Going back in time again. The last time we went around with this, the advertisers were going to front the money, if not pay for it completely.
And then you, the association, would pay off the debt, as they went.
Well, my feeling is, Councilman, that if you were to proceed with this bill, we would have new newsstands out on the street, the remaining 30 or 40, within a period of three or four years. We're doing very well as it is now without this.
But if we were going 147 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. to add an enhancement to this --
Well, we're going to define that in the legislation so that there's no way it falls through the cracks and somebody could escape.
Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot of good testimony today from people on both sides of the issue. I think we understand where you intend to go with this. And, personally, I would be comfortable -- I would prefer to pass it out of committee and then let you work on the changes with amendments so that -- because we've heard fully from everybody and --
Thank you, Councilman. (Committee members confer off the record.)
We'll vote this bill out, and then we'll work on the 148 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - NEWSSTANDS LEGIS. amendments. And we all need to get together on this discussion. If you need to use my office at some point, whatever is convenient for all of you, we should work on it. And we'll also take under consideration some of the issues that were raised by SCRUB as well, all right?
Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Abernathy, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 080645, an ordinance amending Chapter 12-1100 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous Regulations and Penalties," by adding a new section 21 prohibiting the use of handheld mobile telephone by a person operating a motor vehicle or other vehicle on a City street, under certain terms and conditions. 149 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. LT. HEALY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee on Streets and Services. My name is Francis Healy and I'm special advisor to Commissioner Ramsey, and I'm here to testify on his behalf regarding Bill 080645. The first and foremost, the Commissioner would like to extend his gratitude for allowing the Police Department to voice opinion on this very important piece of legislation. With that being said, let me say at the outset that the Police Commissioner and the Philadelphia Police Department fully supports the amendments offered by Councilmembers Green, 150 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Greenlee, as well as Councilman Rizzo. There is no debate: Cellphones and driving do not mix certain. While distracted drivers have always created certain dangers, now drivers can surf the Internet, send and receive e-mails or faxes, communicate via a cellular device, and even watch television, all activities requiring cognitive engagement. From my own experience as a police officer, I've witnessed drivers using cellphones serve from lane to lane, run red lights and stop signs, and pass school buses, completely oblivious to the tragedies they could have created I also have actually all seen drivers so involved in an argument on a cellphone that they hadn't realized they had come to a complete stop in their running lane. I'm certain we've all seen the same scenarios over and over again, but there are even reports that equate the dangers of drunk driving to that of driving while on a cellphone. 151 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES In a study in 2006, a study published by the Journal of Human Factors in Ergonomics Societies, researchers from the University of Utah found drivers that talking on a cellphone are more likely to crash due to being distracted by a conversation than by being under the influence of alcohol. 08 percent blood alcohol level, which is legally drunk. Forty participants were used, 19 of them were men, 15 were women. They 20 followed a simulated pace car that would 21 brake intermittently. The average age of 22 the participants was about 25 years old, 23 and 87 reported percent they had used 24 cellphones while driving in the past, and 25 all of them were social drinkers at one 152 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES point (indiscernible). Researchers found that the drivers on the cellphone drove more slowly, brake more slowly, took longer to recover speed loss following a braking episode, and were more likely to crash. In fact, in the study, three participants actually collided with the pace car while chatting on a cellphone. In essence, the conversation itself distracted the drivers from the road conditions. In contrast, drivers in the alcoholic condition, which was the number 3 scenario, exhibited more aggressive driving, following closer to the car immediately in front of them, necessitating braking with greater force. As a result, the study concluded that the data suggests the impairments associated with cellphones and driving may be just as profound as those associated with driving drunk. Indeed, drivers who use cellphones are more likely to jeopardize 153 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES public safety simply due to the fact that more people are talking on their cellphones than actually while driving drunk. So it's obviously that the time has come to legislatively address the issue of driving while talking or texting on a cell phone. It is a safety issue plain and simple. For that reason, the Philadelphia Police Department fully supports this amendment and applauds the efforts of the Councilmembers in sponsoring this legislation. But I must admit the Philadelphia Police Department supports this legislation, but I note that the Law Department has opined in the past that it may be preempted by State law.
While I'm not aware if there's any similar laws in the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, I understand that there have been several bills introduced in Harrisburg similar to the one presented to date that would 154 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES restrict such use. So even if this ordinance is preempted by State law, its passage can still send a strong message to Harrisburg that the time has come to legislatively address the issue of driving while talking or texting on a cellphone. If the leaders in Philadelphia can see the inherent dangers and come together to legislate change for the safety of its citizens, maybe now our state representatives will finally come together and do the same. This concludes my testimony.
Thank you, Lt. Healy. I just had a question. I understand the Law Department is not here, 'cause I did a similar bill several years ago, and we never got it out of committee because we were convinced by the then-Law Department that it would be superseded by the state, by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 155 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES If this bill passes, comes and out of this committee, will the Police Department begin enforcement? LT. HEALY: We would consult with the Law Department whether or not enforcement would be appropriate. Whether or not we can enforce it or not, like I said, at this point, really, it's not the most relevant aspect of this. What it really does is send a message. There's pending legislation in Harrisburg, I believe, and once -- what happens is, there's no legislation directly on point that covers this in Harrisburg. So you could argue theoretically maybe both sides of the fence. The Law Department, they speak for the City on legal matters, and I would defer to their judgment on that matter. But without having a specific law on the state records, it's a little vague sometimes. So once that's 156 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES clarified at the state level, it would absolutely be preempted. But until that point comes, I think this legislation sends a strong message that needs to be done now.
Yeah, and I agree. I'm in full support of it. I've been using hands-free devices pretty much after the first cellphone I got, and that's what caused me to do the legislation years ago. And I think there may have been another county in the Commonwealth that did pass legislation that would have prohibited it. And I think, again, because the State superseded us, I don't know if they ever -- LT. HEALY: I believe there's a town, Hilltop Township, I believe, after a tragedy that occurred.
So I don't know if there was ever any enforcement up there or if anyone on the other side challenged the legality of the bill. 157 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES And, again, I just wanted that for the record. I support this and I'll vote it out of committee and I'll vote in favor of it. I'm just curious as to where we go from there. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lieutenant, thank you for your testimony. And certainly, not surprisingly, since we're one of the sponsors of the bill, I agree totally with what you say about it. But just on the point Councilman DiCicco raised -- and I know he had raised this bill earlier, you know, in previously years. And we do have a opinion from the Law Department that says this is enforceable. They say, as I think most lawyers say, it certainly could be challenged, but they think there is a defense for this bill. You know, I won't go into the whole reading of it. 158 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES But we feel confident that -- you know, we also know, just as was threatened in the previous bill, somebody's going to sue. Well, somebody sues on lots of things. But we think, obviously, it's a public-safety issue, and what you said earlier, this is certainly worth pursuing. And, you know, I appreciate that Councilman DiCicco brought this up a couple years ago. You know, I wish he had gotten this opinion a couple years ago; then we wouldn't be here right now. But it is -- I think it is certainly defensible. And for the safety of the people, we need to go forward as hard and quickly as we can. LT. HEALY: I have to agree. And there's a lot of issues that have come up, and Mayor Nutter is taking them aggressively; firearms being one of them.
Mm-hmm. LT. HEALY: Just because there's preemptions that exist, it doesn't mean 159 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES they're not worth fighting against.
And, again, in the Law Department, they give a hard reason why they think it can be defended. So, again, you know, the lawyers disagree; there's five lawyers, there's seven opinions. But in this case, we think we have a -- certainly a strong enough argument to pursue it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. I will distribute in a second the memo from the Law Department on this issue, and we can enter it as a part of the record. But I want to make these points. There is a specific section of the Vehicle Code which says that local 160 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES localities can use such temporary or experimental regulations as may be necessary to cover emergencies and special conditions that exist in the locality. As a consequence, we are proposing some legislative findings, which my staff will distribute shortly, which cover that. In particular, Philadelphia has been named one of the most walkable cities in the United States. And this is not a violation of the State Motor Vehicle Code that we are implementing. What we're doing here is putting in place a City ordinance that protects pedestrians, protects bicyclists, roller-bladers, skateboarders, everybody out on the streets of the City of Philadelphia. Also, specifically, the Law Department says that driving with a mobile phone is not addressed at all in the Vehicle Code and, therefore, there would not be preemption at this time 161 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES because it's not specifically mentioned. However, if they do propose -- if they do pass a statewide ban, obviously then, there would be a clear preemption of the Code. Also, the City is allowed to adopt ordinances under 61-09 of the Vehicle Code that are reasonable exercises of police powers; and moreover, explicitly allows the adoption of experimental regulations to cover special conditions. The City has broad latitude to determine that particular circumstance in Philadelphia such as cellphone use while driving or protection of pedestrians that warrants special protection of the public against the dangers cellphone use creates. So the conclusion ultimately is, there is very little case law on this, and they think there are many grounds on which they can defend this legislation. Thank you.
Thank you. 162 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Miss Cunningham.
Miss Cunningham, please pull the microphone a little bit closer and speak directly into it. Thank you.
My name is Rebecca Cunningham. I'm here to testify for the bill for usage of cellphones while driving. I am actually a survivor of texting and driving. I was coming home from Fairmount on September 16, 2007, and I had my friend's cellphone, and I texted her boyfriend to let her know that I had her cellphone and I would bring it to her. And I was not paying attention and went over two lanes and hit one of the lane posts straight on. I was told many times by many doctors that I'm lucky to be alive. Unfortunately, others have not been so 163 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES lucky, and I think that that's why this bill should be passed. I had two surgeries to repair my ankle. I had a broken wrist. I had bruises on my ribs. I had cuts and bruises all over my face and my arms. And I needed hardware placed into my ankle, and then I needed a bone graft this past February. I'm in full support of this. I haven't used a cellphone while driving since. I think it is very dangerous and it takes all of your attention off the road, and you need all of your attention to be able to drive because chances are, the person next to you isn't paying attention at all. And you need to be on point at all times.
Hello. My name 164 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES is Thomas Minehart, and I'm a resident of Philadelphia. First, I'd like to thank Councilman Greenlee and Councilman Green for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank them for the opportunity to speak on the legislation's behalf. As a resident in Philadelphia, I feel like this bill is a pragmatic solution to a problem that has only grown with the demand of cellphone technology. Simply put, cellphone use while driving is not safe. It creates a distraction and can result in careless driving. I'm no exception to this notion. Like everyone else in this room, I have driven while talking on my cellphone. In doing so, I admit that I have made lackadaisical mistakes. Luckily, I've never been in an extent due to driving while on talking on my cellphone. However, I cannot deny the fact that it has hindered my ability to drive attentively. 165 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Philadelphia, like all major cities, presents a unique problem in regards to cellphone use while driving. Driving in a major metropolitan city such as ours presents more obstacles than driving elsewhere: Pedestrians, bicyclists, delivery trucks idling in loading zones, and congested eight-lane highway are only some of the examples that present the necessity for attentive driving. I know this firsthand, as I was raised in Reading, Pennsylvania, where I -- such obstacles are not nearly as dramatic. I have no specific incident to advocate on this bill's behalf, I have no 18 emotional ties to the bill. Thankfully, none of my friends or family members have been killed or injured as a result of cellphone use while driving. Instead, I'm here before you as an average, everyday citizen merely speaking on behalf of this progressive legislative that addresses a problem. 166 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES It's a simple solution that will encourage safer driving. Accordingly, my hope is that the Councilwomen and men of Philadelphia find a practicality in this bill when considering their vote. Again, I thank Councilman Greenlee and Councilman Green for the opportunity to speak.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you, Lieutenant. Mr. Gambescia. (Witness comes forward.)
Hi. My name Stephen Gambescia. I'm on faculty at 167 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Drexel University. I'm an associate professor of health services administration. And I'm presenting testimony today in support of this bill -- not in terms of Drexel in general but in terms of my experience in practice and health-policy issues. I want to thank the sponsors of the bill for giving me an opportunity to testify in support of this. I've read the bill, and I'm going to present four points that would support this. I will not read all of the testimony that I have, but I have handed that out, in the interest of your time, and I know some of this information has been covered. First of all, we've already heard, number one, that it's just common sense that if you're using a cellphone, it's problematic while you're driving, and it puts a risk to you as a driver and to others. The second one is that national highway safety organizations and highway 168 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES safety researchers have come out very strongly when they take a look at the epidemiological data and also behavioral data, which I'll explain a little bit, and have said that you really cannot use cellphones while driving; they're very distracting the. The third one is that the City of Philadelphia really does have the right to pass this type of legislation, that the state legislature does not have carte- blanche authority to preempt when it comes to a public health and safety issue. And the fourth one, I think, is very interesting, is that the principles of protecting public health and safety do not need to meet this test of beyond reasonable doubt, that it's prudent that we can do things in public health and safety when the testimony is more likely to happen or something that's common sense in terms of that. The first one, commonsensical data. If you take a look at AAA and other 169 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. " In fact, they even say, "Don't even use a hands-free cell phone," and I'll talk about that a little bit So I'm not going to reiterate all of that information; it's very available. It's just common sense. When we got our driver's license, we probably all remember that; that's an exciting time. Remember the civic mantra? "This is not a right; it's a privilege. " But the corollary responsibility we have -- that, again, common sense -- is that when we get behind the wheel of a car, that we are of sound mind, body, and all of our senses. Common sense tells us that when you're talking on a cellphone, it's going to drain your senses and distract you. The epidemiological studies. I know the officer here talked a little bit 170 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES about those. Some of those studies are going to come at a basic level from survey data. So there's survey data with large numbers of people that say, What do you when you're driving? And, yes, there are other things that people do that are distracting -- maybe change the radio, eat, drink, put makeup on. Certainly that happens But what's coming up clearly is that cellphone usage is rising to the top. In 2007, that data showed us it was number three. In 2008, it's now number two. So that sort of information is rising. Now, more direct epidemiological information that we're talking a look at. The National Highway and Safety Administration equipped 100 cars with video cameras and sensors. They followed 240 people who were driving those vehicles. Two million miles they went, something like 42,000 hours, and they reviewed all of these tapes. And they identified an actual crash. They also 171 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES took a look at near-crashes and what they call critical incidents. Again, I have the statistics there. Their conclusion is: The number-one issue is using a cellphone while driving. And it's even problematic if it's a hands-free cellphone as well.
Another phenomenon -- and we just heard from the young lady here that talked about this that -- I didn't have a chance to take a look at her age, but what we know is that teens are not only talking on the phone incessantly, they're also text- messaging people. And as more teens become older and go into the driving population, we're going to see this more and more. Older people tend not to use cellphones; some of them do obviously. But see, as that (indiscernible) moves through of teens, then we're going to see that population. So I think it's important that we get a hand on this right away. 172 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Here's a really interesting study. Carnegie Mellon University took a look at brain scans of individuals, and they subjected them to listening to a cellphone, hands-free or otherwise. And the conclusion that they just came out with is that when they did this comparative brain scan data, they showed that the cellphone usage was the same as somebody being intoxicated. " So it's very problematic. And, again, that's the sort of epidemiological data that we have there. We know that since 2002, in the State of Pennsylvania, when an officer comes upon a crash, he or she now has to document, was a cellphone being used? Very similar to what you do -- were you wearing your seat belt? In 2000, you as legislators, public officials, were faced with this early on. I know this bill has come up before, and the reason why nobody was 173 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES going to act on it is because there wasn't enough information available. One of the reasons was that they didn't have to document that. So now in Pennsylvania, they have to. So now, when we compare 2002 data with 2005 data in the State of Pennsylvania, we see this dramatic increase in not only the crashes but also the injuries and also the fatalities. The State of New Jersey has similar data, and I presented that in the written testimony. So let me shift then to the third point, which has to do with the issue of preemption. You may hear detractors and you may hear testimony today that says, No, you cannot do this. And understandably, I understand this concept that you don't want this patchwork of legislation coming up. It's very confusing, and can you enforce it, and I understand that However, the issue of preemption 174 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES that the detractors bring up is very selective. When you can say that the higher government can preempt the lower government if it has a compelling reason. However, if you take a look at public health and safety legislation -- and I think Councilman Green was sort of alluding to this in terms of the Law Department -- what you have is that local authorities historically have been able to claim compelling reasons to protect public health and safety. Why? Because you're in the best position to see how you can protect public health and safety. So preemption is not simply state over local, but local can supersede the state. The other thing -- and this is sort of editorial -- is that I would say as in the short run, the legislation that we have in this state is stalled. In the long run -- again, a little bit editorial here -- is I'm not very optimistic that we're going to see the General Assembly do 175 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES anything in this area. They haven't had a real strong track record over the years when it comes to health and safety. What is a real opportunity here is you, as public officials, if you pass this bill and a couple of other municipalities, then maybe that will go a long way to stimulate them to pass something at the state level.
And I want to segué into the final comment here, because I think they go hand in hand, which is: Let's not just wait for the carnage to build up and for us to come back as public health researchers to show you year after year after year that more people were injured and more people have died, because I think that's a fallacy when it comes to a public health principle. The public health principle isn't guided on that we have this litmus test of beyond a reasonable doubt. What it really says is we can act to be prudent and act if we have something that is likely to 176 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES occur. And I think sometimes even in public health, we don't make that statement So I think the municipality of Philadelphia has, first, every right to pass a ban on the use of handheld phones to reduce driver distractions. I think this is common sense, I think it's good public health policy, and I believe that we have compelling reason to show that you can pass a bill like this So thank you for allowing me an opportunity to present here. Again, I have more information in written testimony, but at least wanted to get some starting points off.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to echo your comments about the initiative set forth by my colleagues to try to strike a candle in the darkness. 177 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES But if we, as a local jurisdiction, wait around for the Commonwealth to send help to save us, we need to put a sign on the gates of Philadelphia that says "Abandon all hope" if we judge it by the gun legislation that we begged them based on the issue of public safety. We've had to take local initiatives that, in fact, were struck down by court, but we made the moral point of saying that this is an issue near and dear to us. By way of your research, by way of the component about being intoxicated, this dealt with reaction time, the idea of being distracted was similar to being intoxicated based on reaction time, red light, green light, other hazards that may be coming from other vehicles; is that what the basis of this is?
Well, the Carnegie Mellon study gave brain scans of individuals. And what they did is, when 178 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES they -- the stimulus is the handheld phone, and see the changes in the brain scan. And then they compared that with somebody who was intoxicated and compared that with somebody who wasn't -- you know, did a scan of someone who didn't have any stimulus to them. So they're not actually in the car in that particular study.
No, I mean, the comparison is in reaction time. You're as much distracted by the second martini as you may be by the second call that comes on the phone. So that distraction taken away from many obstacles, that's the comparison.
Right. I don't know whether we can -- and, again, the science of it, I don't know whether we could say it's the reaction time as much as the way the brain is. I think you could make that leap from the brain scan to the reaction time, but they didn't actually monitor that as what they were 179 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES looking at.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I don't have a written copy of your testimony; do you have any extra written copies? (Copy of Mr. Gambescia's testimony handed to Councilman Green.) Thank you. So I want to thank you for your testimony. And I just would like you to state for the record your expertise in the area of public health.
Sure. Again, I'm associate professor of health service administration, College of Nursing and Health Professions, at Drexel University.
And specifically, my area has been in health 180 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES promotion. This area is called "unintentional injury"; that's how we would categorize that. And specifically in health policy.
Okay. So it is your testimony today that passage of this bill will protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Philadelphia?
Okay. Thank you very much. Those are my only questions.
Thank you. Mr. Gambescia, I'm not sure if you have the answer to this, and I'll be very brief. Other cities have imposed bans on cellphone use within their city as opposed to their state. What -- how do they notify people of that? I mean, if I'm driving -- if I'm not a Philadelphian and I'm coming from other points, coming 181 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES from the south, driving through Philly on I-95 via the expressway, and on my cellphone, and this law passes and we're able to enforce it, and I'm subject to a ticket, do they have notification of the boundaries of these cities coming in? Do you know of anything?
And this has to do with -- and, again, you know, being very objective here. The problem when you have this patchwork issue. I'm not aware of any flashing signs, although New Jersey does -- I have seen the signs, the data, but I understand the concept of your question.
In terms of municipalities, they're just using sort of mainstream media to get the word out, but I guess you could say that about 182 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES almost any kind of driving regulation, that you go into a municipality. Some of the things we can sort of take for granted; you know, I know there may be a school zone somewhere, but we don't see it as we switch the municipalities about all the other regulations that we have in terms of driving.
But their signage is up. I mean, "no left turn on this street" or "no right turn" or what the speed limit is, "yield."
I'm just trying to figure out, does that open up some more opportunities for challenges for people who are saying, "I didn't know it was" --
Yeah. Well, I guess what you have with driving is -- and, again, it's -- 183 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES
-- if other cities have done something 'cause I'm sure they've encountered the same problems.
What they've done is just made it -- obviously started with the nucleus of the people, and then it spreads and what you have you. I think what we've maybe done -- I know it's statewide of how that word has spread very quickly when we knew that New Jersey was doing it.
Okay. Well, New Jersey, again, it's the entire state. So literally, when you cross over into New Jersey, there's signs talking about "buckle up," 'cause that's a law in Jersey and also about cellphone use. Councilman Greenlee.
Yeah, very 184 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES quickly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And you raise a good point. We can certainly look into what some of the other cities have done, you know, after this bill goes through committee. And, you know, maybe you can't put up a sign every place somebody enters the City, but maybe at some of the key points, you know, some sign like that. You know, it's certainly something we can look into, maybe work with the Police Department, the Streets Department, that kind of thing.
Yeah, I just forgot to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to please allow the memo from the Law Department to be a part of the record and also the PowerPoint presentation that's been distributed to committee members become part of the record.
So noted. 185 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Any other questions from this committee? (No further questions.)
Is there a Mr. Arnold here? Thank you, Mr. Gambescia. Mr. Arnold, would you please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Mr. Arnold, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. My name is Bill Arnold, and I'm a self-employed insurance agent living and working in Philadelphia. I have been using a handheld for over ten years without incidents, and I invite any Councilmember or their aide to come and sit in my car while I do my work during the day to see exactly what I'm 186 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES talking about.
A real-world situation, not something for somebody that wanted to get results from a study because they want to get some more government money. It is important to both me and my customers that I pick up as many calls as possible without callbacks. This is also true, for example, if my wife or the school nurse calls me. It's very simple: You just pick it up and say, "Hi, dear. I'm over here." It's not hard to do. I've been doing it for over ten years. I haven't had any tickets in the last three years, and I don't have a -- I don't have a -- an accident that was chargeable. The accidents that I get into are from people that are just not on cellphones mostly, that are, you know, run into me. And they're frequently uninsured 187 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES So I think this whole thing has been overblown, the dangers of it. So somebody got to speak up in the world of reality, so I figured I'd come here today and do that for you. Yes, there are many times when I have to pull my car over for a conversation that requires careful listening or thinking and speaking, but a simple "Could you come over in 12 minutes?" type call can be handled while 13 driving. 14 A hands-free phone can be a 15 potential danger too, as you heard. This bill, as it's now constructed, will not solve that problem. Educating people is the key. I do support a bill against text-messaging. I saw an 18th District police officer driving the other day and he had something in his lap, and I thought that was dangerous, but I didn't get a chance to tell the lieutenant about it, as he apparently went out the door. 188 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES I spend several hours a day in my car as a businessman. I can tell you, I'm far more worried about the loss of business in this bill than I am about the risk of being hit by another driver. We have to weigh the small risk versus the larger loss of convenience and business. I'm sure many other small businessmen feel the same way. This is not the best moment to be cutting commercial lines of communication. Thank you. And do you have any questions for me?
I'd like to yield to my colleagues first, and then I'll --
Yeah, very quickly. 189 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES You know, I guess the easiest way to say it, Mr. Arnold, is that we strongly disagree with each other. But you talk about reality. Did you hear Miss Cunningham? That was pretty reality, wasn't it? And a few weeks ago, she would have come in here with even more reality; she was on crutches and a boot.
Okay. But she also talked about her not paying attention when she's on the cellphone; talked about that too. And also, did you hear Lieutenant Healy's testimony? Now, I think police are about as much out there in reality as anybody I can think of. And he said he has seen and he has many instances about where this is a problem. I'm glad you've gone through ten years doing that, I'm glad you're here in one piece. But, sir, reality is, just 190 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES walk out in the street and you see people on their cellphones --
-- that are not paying attention. And I just can't believe that it costs that much in your business or anybody's business. When the phone rings, you pull over to the side as soon as you can, and you answer the darn phone. A few years ago, you didn't have to worry about that 'cause you didn't have a cellphone, and the world kept on ticking. So it will keep on ticking with this.
And you can still use a hands-free device, exactly. So, again, I don't want to get in a big debate, but we just disagree.
This is just a start; the hands-free comes later, as the 191 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES good doctor or whatever told you.
Just very quickly for the record, and it's a part of the PowerPoint presentation. PennDOT tracks crashes that are caused by cellphones. Between 2002 and 2005, the number of cellphones -- cellphone use causing accidents increased by percent, and fatalities of crashes 16 that were caused by cellphones increased 17 by 57 percent, which is consistent with 18 the testimony we heard from the gentleman 19 from Drexel. You did mention that you have been in a number of accidents?
When you're out in 192 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES the City, they're going to hit you, so you can't avoid it.
None of which were your fault. Were you on the cellphone during any of those accidents?
Nobody was on the cellphone. You can watch the cellphone drivers. They frequently drive slow, as he testified, the gentleman over here testified. They drive slow, and you can watch out for them especially if they have a handheld cellphone. You can watch them and you can just, you know, keep your distance.
Councilman 193 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Jones.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things: Do you live in Philly?
I'm glad it's not the 4th District. I just wanted to establish that. But the other reality: What kind of business are you in?
Insurance debit agent. When I first came to government, one of the sad tasks I had to do was look at a traffic study on Ridge Avenue as to the number of people who had been struck by vehicles, some of them in 194 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES hit-and-runs. In that process, I learned a lot about what the devastating loss is to an individual based on vehicular homicide or losing a life. And for you to compare your business profits with the potential of losing a life just doesn't seem like an apples-to-apples comparison to me, and that's a reality I think you need to kind of examine. Go to one of those funerals, go to one of those people that wished they could have not texted because they took a human life, and see what the reality is post-homicide. And I'm saying to you, for you to lose a couple of dollars and us to lose some tax revenue is well worth that cost to me. And if there was any doubt to where we are going to be on this vote, you have solidified it with your testimony, at least in my mind. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, 195 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - DRIVING W/CELLPHONES Councilman. Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 090013, an ordinance amending Section 12-918 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking for Car-Sharing Organizations," by adding locations, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 090014, an ordinance amending the provisions of Section 12-918 of the Philadelphia Code, which regulates the provision of on-street parking restricted to vehicles 196 3/24/09 - STREETS/SVCS. - CAR-SHARING PARKING owned by car-sharing organizations. (Witnesses come forward.)
Is there anyone here from the Parking Authority? (No response.)