COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, December 4, 2000 1:20 p.m. - - - BILL NOS. - 000358, 000359, 000673, 000681, 000704, 000719, 000720, 000660 RESOLUTION NOS. - 000611, 000041 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL 000719, 000720 (Held)--------------------- RESOLUTION 000611 David Burns, Sr. Research Specialist, 3M------- Randy Flamm, Government Transportation Safety Specialist, 3M------------------------------ 4 Gihon Jordan, Traffic Engineer, Department of Streets------------------------------------- 5 BILL 000704 Nancy Senn, Engineering Supervisor, Department of Streets---------------------------------- 68 Ronald A. Tini, Resident----------------------- 69 BILL 000681 Nancy Senn, Engineering Supervisor, Department of Streets---------------------------------- 71 BILL 000673 Gihon Jordan, Traffic Engineer, Department of Streets------------------------------------- 73 Marcene Nodine, Resident----------------------- 73 Paul Loni, Survey Bureau Manager, Department of Streets------------------------------------- 77 Diane Huff, Resident--------------------------- 86 RESOLUTION 41 (Held)--------------------------- 89 BILL 660 Paul Loni, Survey Bureau Manager, Department of Streets------------------------------------- 90 BILLS 358, 359 Richard D. Dickson, Jr., Director of On-Street Parking, Philadelphia Parking Authority----- 94 Roger Margulies, Assistant Deputy Mayor, Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities-------------------------------- 98 Nicole Faux, Accessibility Compliance Coordinator, Managing Director's Office----- 108 Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager, Department of Licenses and Inspections----------------------------- 120 Jessie Jane Lewis, Resident-------------------- 153 Bruce McElrath, Representative, Disabilities Rights Advocacy Group----------------------- 170 Jennifer DePaul, Advocate, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association------------------------ 181 - - - PUBLIC MEETING--------------------------------- 188 - - - 3 BILL NOS. 719 and 720
Good afternoon. My name is Frank DiCicco. I am the Chair of this Committee on Streets and Services. We have a quorum. To my far right is Councilman Wilson Goode, Jr., Councilman Mariano, to my far left is Councilman Rizzo, and to my immediate left is Councilman Darrell Clarke. We are going to just go out of order. But, actually, it actually will work in everyone's best interest that we take those cases we suspect there will be little, if any, testimony on first, so we can get through the calendar a lot quicker. We find that that works much better than just going down the list. Also in attendance is Councilman Michael Nutter. The clerk will please read the title of the first resolution.
Bill No. 000719 and Bill 20 No. 000720 are being held at the request of the sponsor. The first resolution that we will be hearing is Resolution No. 000611, a resolution 24 authorizing City Council's Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings to examine a proposal for 4 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 the placement of fluorescent yellow-green reflective signs to improve motorists, pedestrians, school, and bicycle safety at nonmotorized crossings throughout the City of Philadelphia. Will Mr. Burns, Mr. Flamm, and Mr. Jordan please take their seats at the table.
Thank you. Good afternoon, and please identify yourself for the record. And would you spell your name for the stenographer, please.
David Burns, it is B-U-R-N-S, and I am a senior research specialist for the 3M Traffic Control Materials Laboratories in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Excuse me, sir. You need to pull the microphone a little bit closer to you and speak directly into it. Thank you. Start over again, please.
My name is David Burns, B-U-R-N-S, and I am a senior research specialist for the 3M Traffic Control Materials Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Randy Flamm with 3M, F-L-A-M-M. I am a government transportation 5 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 safety specialist.
I am Gihon Jordan, G-I-H-O-N, Jordan as in Michael, traffic engineer with the Streets Department.
Please proceed with your testimony. Excuse me, one minute. Councilman Kenney is also in attendance. The Councilman is the chief sponsor of the resolution. Did you care to make an opening statement, Councilman, or --
I had nothing prepared, Mr. Chairman. But I just want to thank you. First I want to apologize for being late. I was rushing around, and I didn't make it back in time, obviously. I appreciate the committee's giving us the time to discuss this issue. I think that the issue of pedestrian safety and vehicular safety in the city I think is certainly paramount on the minds of the Chair and the members of the committee and the rest of the Council. I believe that this may be an 6 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 opportunity for us to really make a significant contribution to the safety of pedestrians, school children, and to people driving around our city as a result of looking at this not new technology, but new technology at least for this particular city and region. I think it is very impressive. As a matter of fact, up on Roosevelt Boulevard, Northeast Philadelphia, signs were installed at my request recently. And I think it has been a tremendous difference in being able to see those signs, acknowledge what they are there to represent and what they are there to warn against. And they are very, very reflective, especially at night and in the rain. And I think that some of the items that have been brought here today would indicate a real difference, noticeable difference, in what we use now and what I am suggesting to the Streets Department that we begin using. Additionally, I know, Mr. Chairman, yourself and other District Council Members have been dealing with this issue of flashing lights at schools. And we know the expense of those -- I think about $1500 or more per light -- and that it 7 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 has been everybody wants one. And, you know, you can't always provide them for every school, and you need to pick and choose. And this is, I think, maybe as effective or more effective, as their testimony will indicate, than those flashing lights. And we may be able to provide, at least initially, for every school intersection, every school crossing in the city. So with that, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to have these individuals testify. And hopefully we will be able to get a good presentation and see how effective this can be. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Sorry, sir. Please continue with your testimony.
I am here to provide some basically technical information to talk about fluorescence and fluorescent signing, and especially the role that it has been shown to play in improving pedestrian safety. Before you, each one of you have a 8 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 small handout. I am going to go over some of these points that are on this handout. It is there, basically, for reference. Then I will be able to answer any questions that you might have. S. Federal Highway Administration added the first new traffic safety color in 30 years, and this was fluorescent yellow-green. And this was done after evaluations by more than 60 transportation organizations state and local. As with any kind of new technology and high-advisability signing -- fluorescent signing is fairly new -- there are always a lot of questions. And I am going to try to just hit upon some of those things so you can see what fluorescence is, what it provides, and its relationship to safety. Fluorescent materials have been around for a long time. And there is a lot of basic science and chemistry that goes into it. But the real bottom line is that fluorescence is a physical characteristic of material that greatly increases its daytime brightness. And we see examples of that in a 9 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 variety of different places. I notice that the police in Philadelphia will have fluorescent yellow-green markings on their clothing. That extra daytime brightness results in much higher advisability and conspicuity of those people. Brightness is kind of an interesting area. If you look on the second page here, the human visual system actually doesn't operate strictly on brightness alone, but it actually operates on something called contrast, or brightness contrast. And that's the relationship between the brightness of an object versus the brightness of its surroundings. A situation where you have the two match, the object and the surroundings are the same type of brightness, is classically what you would find in camouflage. The object is no longer visible or detectable because it blends in with its surroundings. High-visibility materials, the brightness of the object is significantly higher than the background, which results in it being very 10 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 easy to detect, very highly visible we call it. And in terms of the traffic sign on the roadway, it is very conspicuous. Actually, the feeling that it attracts your attention and very easy for a driver to locate on the road. We have a little diagram here with five dots on it in front of you, which is really an example of what contrast provides. The dot in the middle of each of those is exactly the same. And what you can see is that the same brightness target in a variety of different surroundings, the actual advisability or distinctness of that target is affected. In terms of traffic signing, and signing on the roadway, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to actually control the surroundings. You have such a wide range of brightness and colors in the surrounding. So the thing that you can control is to provide the brightest type of target, the brightest type of traffic sign that you can. So that it always is significantly brighter than its background, which results in it always being significantly more visible and easier to find. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 So fluorescence is a basic property of some coloring systems that make them brighter. The brightness, relative to the surroundings, makes fluorescent signs highly visible. But the real question is, what is the relationship between high-visibility fluorescent signs and pedestrian safety. So the sole objective, or the sole purpose, of a warning sign is to communicate information to the driver. And it is necessary that an effective sign is capable of communicating its information at the greatest possible distance in order to allow the driver time to react and make the proper decision, and then operate his vehicle appropriately.
And an effective sign also is capable of providing adequate warning under the brightest range of driving conditions, daytime, nighttime, good weather, and bad weather. So it is important that signs operate effectively hours a day, 7 22 days a week. 23 And, in reality, it is probably even 24 more important that traffic signs provide high warning and guidance under poor visibility 12 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 conditions, because that's when the drivers' need for advanced warning is greatest. So what effect do fluorescent signs have? In order to look at this a little bit, we can talk about in terms of, at the bottom of , the traffic safety pyramid. What it is, is that this is a schematic used to, in the traffic safety area, to talk about the role of different behaviors. The overall objective, of course, is to reduce deaths, both pedestrian deaths and also injuries. What you can see is that at the top of this pyramid is the number of deaths. For every death, there is a much larger number of injuries. For every injury, there is also a much larger number of collisions. And what leads to collisions are conflicts or near-misses. And you have probably experienced those, where you have to hit your brakes suddenly or swerve out of the way. And really at the root of this whole thing is driver behavior. So, really, the way to reduce the number of near-misses, which reduces the number of 13 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 collisions, reduces the number of injuries, reduces the number of deaths, is to promote safer driver behavior. And so the real measure of effectiveness of any traffic sign is how it affects the driver behavior. And in pedestrian situations, it is how it affects the driver behavior at crosswalks when there is actually a pedestrian there. As I said, fluorescent yellow-green was evaluated by more than 60 state and local agencies before it was allowed by the Federal Highway Administration. And it is specifically reserved for pedestrian, school zone, and nonmotorized vehicle crossings. And this is because the unprotected roadway user is a particularly vulnerable class of road users. What I would like to do is just, on the top of , is talk just a little bit about some of the studies that were done, some of the traffic engineering studies that have been done, and that form the basis for the Federal Highway Administration's recommendation that it be allowed. 14 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 The first study was a pilot study commissioned by the Federal Highway people. , in 1993. And what they did is, it was what's called a Before and After Study. , area. And they looked at the driver behavior with the ordinary yellow signs in place, then they replaced those with fluorescent yellow-green signs. They waited a month, to allow any kind of novelty or newness effect to dissipate, and they went back and looked at the driver behavior again. The types of driver behavior that you are looking for and that are indicative of safety are such things as drivers slowing for pedestrians at the crosswalk, also a reduction in the number of conflicts or near-misses, where a pedestrian is beginning to cross the road and the driver doesn't see them, has to either slam on their brakes suddenly or the pedestrian has to dart out of the way. They followed up the study after one 15 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 month, then they came back two months later to do an additional followup. And what they found was that with fluorescent yellow-green signs in place, there was a significant increase in the number and percentage of drivers slowing for pedestrians in the crosswalks and a significant decrease in the conflicts, the near-miss collisions, between pedestrians and vehicles. And they found that not only was it an effect one month later, but they actually found a stronger effect three months later, when the motorists had begun to associate the fluorescent yellow-green, the high advisability signs, with pedestrian sites. There is a large number of yellow signs out there.
And as I said, the pedestrians, and in school zones mostly children, are a significantly different type of situation. Sometimes there is somebody there, sometimes there isn't. And when there is, and then there is a collision, it almost certainly results in the injury, if not death, of the pedestrian. The FHWA recommended further 16 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 research. And a number of other states took them up on that, conducting similar kinds of safety-related research. New York Department of Transportation conducted a similar study around the State University of New York in Cortland and also Cornell University. Once again, they found significant increase in safer driver behavior at these sites. Studies were also undertaken in Milwaukee, Oregon, at school zone sites. There again, they found that there was a significant increase in safer driver behavior. They were slowing more for pedestrians in the crosswalk. One of the interesting things about the Milwaukee, Oregon, study was that at one of the sites, they actually had crossing guards there in both the before and the after period. The before period, at the Roswell site, they only had about 7 to 10 percent of the drivers who would actually slow for the crossing guards and the pedestrians in the before period. After they put up fluorescent yellow-green signs, those percentages went up to about 70 to 90 percent. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 Identical situation, just the fluorescent signs provide a longer detection distance, greater warning value. The last study, study in Lubbock, Texas, which again had identified ten different school zone sites that had been problem sites over the years. And one of the more significant findings in Lubbock was that there actually was an increase in -- after they put up the fluorescent yellow-green signs, there was actually a decrease in the number of people jaywalking and an increase in the number of pedestrians who actually were crossing at the marked crosswalks. In most all of these situations, as well, as part of the FHWA research, they conducted surveys of the local populations to get their impression of their feeling of safety and their recommendations as to whether or not they should use this new high-visibility signing color. They surveyed and sent surveys out to local community leaders, to the School Boards, to the schools, the police. And almost overwhelmingly the 18 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 recommendation of the public was that they should consider using these signs because of the high visibility it afforded the pedestrian problem, you might say. I guess the only other thing I would like to point out, on is the listing of the cities and states that have adopted fluorescent yellow-green as the standard for pedestrian, school zone, and nonmotorized vehicle crossings. And by "standard," what that implies is that when they put up a pedestrian sign, a pedestrian-related sign, it is fluorescent yellow-green. Let's see. I guess most of these jurisdictions had not participated in the original Federal Highway studies. And it is interesting to note that the number of cities and states that have moved to adopt fluorescent yellow-green standards in such a short time. As I say, it was only June of 1998 that these types of signs were allowed to be used in general use on public roadways. And, let's see. I guess, finally, talk just for a moment about the warranty and the 19 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 durability of these materials. 3M's product is warranted for a minimum service life of ten years. And, in reality, in Pennsylvania, in an environment like this, although it is only warranted for ten years, you could anticipate a significantly longer service life, probably minimum of to years, in most 9 situations. 10 If there are any other questions, I 11 would be more than happy to answer them. 12
Yes. You mentioned 13 10-year warranty, possibly 13 to 15 years. 14 How does that compare to the life 15 expectancy of the current signage that is used in Philadelphia today, the yellow and black?
The ordinary yellow. The ordinary yellow, the life expectancy is probably on the order of seven to eight, maybe nine years in real mild conditions.
Some difference? There is some. You have a little bit longer life span than the typical sign that's out there today?
Right. And, in reality, the engineer grade 20 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 products are generally not warrantied for performance at all.
Okay. Councilman Cohen was just here. He is also a member of the committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very clearly you are a representative of 3M and you are here selling a product to us.
What I would like to talk about, I have had a lot of experience with this product coming from the utility industry. So I know it. It does a good job. But my concern is the way we do business in the city right now. We have sign shop at G and Ramona that manufactures the signage for the use around the city, Speed Limit signs, Stop signs, et cetera, et cetera. When you would sell us the material, what our people still be involved in manufacturing 21 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 the sign, or would we buy the material already adhered to the metal stock? In other words, would we be buying the complete sign from you?
No. What we sell, the products that are provided by retroreflective sheeting manufacturers are indeed rolled goods that are applied to the sign stock and the image screened onto the surface.
My point being, what would change in the way we manufacture? I guess I have to ask our people from the Streets Department. What would change? What would change in the process of the finished product?
Let me ask the same question in a different form. We have a sign shop, as Councilman Rizzo stated. We would buy the material from you. The material, would that be able to be applied to existing sign or materials that we use for signs that are yellow and black today?
Thank you. 22 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 Mr. Jordan, do you want to respond?
I understand that 3M has the patents on this technology?
Actually, what we have -- let's see. All major sheeting manufacturers make fluorescent yellow-green and fluorescent orange for work zone signing materials. What we bring to this is the long-term durability of these products. Most -- and maybe you have some experience in terms of personal safety garments -- most fluorescent color materials fade and bleach out in a fairly short period of time, losing both their color and their brightness, their effectiveness. And what our product provides is maintaining its high visibility and color properties for years and years and years and years. And that's basically the basis for the type of warranty that 3M is providing, is that fluorescent colors have had kind of a bad reputation over the years. If anybody has ever played golf, and 23 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 nice little fluorescent yellow-green golf balls, you find them in the fairway, the top side is white and the bottom side is still fluorescent yellow-green because they faded due to exposure. What 3M's kind of position on this is the terms of durability and performance. And that's why we warrant not only that the sign will be effective, but also its nighttime retroreflective brightness properties, its fluorescent properties, and also its color stability.
The introduction of this new color to the scheme of things, from what I can tell personally, it's new, it's drawing a lot of attention. After a year or so, have you done any studies or do you have any data on how long the introduction of this new color -- my point being, what would be the difference if we used a reflective yellow, rather than this particular color? And how long do you think that this 24 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 will make a difference before it just gets accepted just like another color?
Going back to, kind of, the basic properties of fluorescent materials, is as long as these signs maintain their high daytime luminance, or high daytime brightness, they will always be significantly more visible to the driver and easier to detect. One of the issues, I think what you are kind of talking about, is this concept of novelty. It is new now, won't it wear away in a while. There are two aspects of that. One is, the human visual system is actually wired, you can think of it as hard wired, to respond to brightness and luminance. All the little lights on these microphones are highly visible, and yet they are not as bright as the sunlight is outside. It is a matter of contrast in the photometric or the properties of the material. So, no, nobody will actually -- they won't become less visible. Okay? And there's actually a study that's just been conducted down in 25 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 the University of Iowa. And Iowa is one of the states that actually has a full statewide standard on fluorescent yellow-green signs. And what they were looking at is that novelty effect, and doesn't it wear away. And what they found is that, no, it doesn't actually wear away. And that the people who have had experience with it more in their community actually are looking at them, and at even further distances. Okay? So it is not a matter they will just kind of fade into the background. They will always provide a high signal, visual signal. The other part of novelty is that indeed they are new and they are different. And the general motoring public, unless they are informed that this is the new pedestrian signing color, they see this color initially and they're not sure what it is. As they gain more experience with it, they see that every one of these signs has a pedestrian symbol, it is at a school, and they begin to associate the sign color, the high visibility yellow-green, with schools and pedestrians. And that kind of novelty, in terms of RESOLUTION NO. 000611 not knowing what it means, will go away. But that's what you want it to do. Because you want them to associate this special kind of unique color with a specific meaning. We have Stop signs. Stop signs are used everywhere. We all know that they are red. That indicates something very special, it is a prohibited prohibition. You have to stop. When you have fluorescent yellow-green signs at pedestrian, school zones, people will realize this is a pedestrian crossing. There's a high probability that there may be a school child or a pedestrian crossing here, so I better maybe be a little bit more aware.
Just to finish up, the color of signage has pretty much an indicator. If you really understand the colors, like red, blue, on the interstates, I never realized how colors really mean something about a particular roadway. In the State of Pennsylvania, the color of yellow is an indicator of a particular caution, I believe, yellow. And is the state law -- and I assume 27 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 it is because I see this material out in some of the suburban areas, and it was referred earlier on Route 1. Is all of the legislation state approvals -- I saw the map of all the locations -- but if a decision was made to move forward, is Philadelphia able to start utilizing these with no 9 conflict in any existing state law?
Yes. PennDOT has approved the use of the color. It is not a state standard; it is an optional color. What you see in other jurisdictions is the recognition that standard yellow is not meeting the needs of the motoring public or the pedestrians. And so they have chosen to go above what are generally termed "minimum standards." And so they will use that. And it is state approved. You can go ahead and use it.
So when you say it is an option, the option is only to replace the yellow, no other color?
Correct. It is only for use on about 12 different signs, all relating to 28 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 nonmotorized crossings. So you would not be able to use it, say, for a curve warning symbol; it would only be for pedestrian, school safety, and for bicycles.
If I can make a quick comment. Yellow is the color that's designated for general warning. So it indicates whether there is a change in the road alignment, a T-intersection, a curve, that kind of thing. Yellow-green is specifically reserved for signing related to pedestrian and nonmotorized vehicle interactions.
But not according to the State of Pennsylvania. You just indicated that yellow-green would be an alternative to yellow. But I didn't hear anything about yellow-green having a specific category.
Yes. Yellow-green is 29 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 only approved for approximately signs, all relating to nonmotorized crossings. It is not for general usage.
And just as the final, maybe, clarification on that, the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway Administration, provides kind of, I guess, the general guidance, or it is kind of the reference manual. And in most cases states adopt that manual by legislation, or have adopted. So a change in the national standard is automatically adopted as a change in their own manual. And so the change that the Federal Highway Administration did in June of 1998 was say that fluorescent yellow-green is allowable as an 30 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 option for these sign categories that relate specifically to pedestrians.
Thank you. Before I go on, I just want to recognize Councilwoman Miller, who is a member of this committee, is also present. And with that, question by Councilman Clarke. Councilwoman Miller.
Good afternoon. I know I was a little late getting here. But did you talk about any data that you have collected as a result of the signs being on Route 1, particularly around safety? How long have they been on Route 1?
They have been on Route 1 approximately two to three months, I believe. And, to my knowledge, there have not been any studies done relating to traffic safety once they have been up. Mr. Jordan might have a better answer. 31 RESOLUTION NO. 000611
Gihon Jordan, traffic engineer, Streets Department. We put them up on Route 1 a few months back. We had collected no prior data. The study that we will try to do is look at police crash statistics in the future. This will need to be a over time longitudinal study. We will have to look at a couple of years before and wait a couple of years after, and see if crashes actually go down.
Okay. Crashes, this is more, though, around nonmotorized safety, pedestrian-type safety?
I did notice them on Route 1. And when I saw them, immediately I said, "Oh, these are great. You can really see." I don't go in that direction a lot, but sometimes I do on the weekends, like going back 32 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 and forth to Franklin Mills Mall and places like that. So that's where I saw them. And I would just like to say that if you need a couple other locations -- I am very serious. If you need a couple of other locations where you want to try them out, I do have a couple of places that I would really like you to put some up, particularly where we have had several people get hit by cars, too often. So I just wanted to let you know that. And how long do you plan on keeping them up in terms of the study, so we can see really whether there is a good impact here?
And as Chair of the Streets and Services Committee, I would exercise my prerogative and say, my list goes in first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 33 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 In your earlier testimony you made mention of the number of near-misses. How do you calculate near-misses?
Well, it is a matter of doing behavioral studies. And so the way it is typically done is, they would go out, and the researchers would have an area that -- let's see. The best way to put it is, every city has places which are black spots, which are those high number of collisions over a period of years, and so you have a quantified number of collisions and injuries and deaths. And you go out and you actually watch the driver behavior. And what you find is that for every -- the idea is that for every near-miss, eventually if you have enough near-misses, there will be a collision at some point. And so it is really, the conflicts, or near-misses, are really just behavioral studies. And what they have found is that there is a high correlation between number of collisions or crashes at a site and near-miss accidents by somebody simply sitting there and 34 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 watching over an extended period of time.
So somebody actually sat there at an intersection and watched.
Let me get to the nuts and bolts. Can you calculate what the cost associated with placing of the fluorescent sheet over, say, 100 signs, 200 signs? Have you done a calculation on that, what that would be?
Yes. It should be in the handouts. But it is approximately about 33 percent more to do what we are proposing, as opposed to what's currently being done.
Per sign. That cost is obviously offset by the added durability of the sign, fully warranted for ten years, with an expected service life well beyond that. That calculation is made on those 35 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 sheets there, which we will show you both an average service life per year, the actual cost of an installed sign, and also an amortization over a 30-year period of how much money you would probably most likely spend if you kept to those timetables.
I got information from the Streets Department that they estimated about $4 a sign additional.
Councilman Clarke, in that same line of question, maybe Mr. Jordan can answer this: Assuming that the Administration or the Streets Department is supportive of this, this material and the changing of our signs, would that be done as on a replacement basis? Any decision made yet on that?
No decision has been made on that. We are concerned about whether we can afford it. 36 RESOLUTION NO. 000611
As we normally are. That's the question. I mean, bottom line, I am just trying to get a sense from a budgetary standpoint. Everybody in here agrees we would obviously love to have these signs. These really look great.
I think some of the tangible things that are harder to define; that is, if we reduce the number of accidents in particular intersections throughout the city, what does that do to insurance rates in the city, what does it do to medical costs of people who need to be tended to, all those kinds of things. That really multiply our negatives of not doing it may in the end wind up --
Councilman, are you telling me, if we put these up, my insurance will go down?
No. I wish I could tell you that. What I am hoping is that if these 37 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 signs can modify the behavior of drivers, which then reduces the number of accidents both to pedestrians and car-on-car accidents, perhaps there are overall long-term benefits that we may not be able to see for a few years, but hopefully will not be long-term negatives that make our situation worse.
And this goes back to a few hearings we had a couple of years ago about traffic-calming devices, and how do we attain some of those traffic-calming issues throughout the city. So it all fits in, I guess, to that. Councilman Clarke has been kind enough to yield to several of us. Let's go back to Councilman Clarke.
We are all one big family. A little different direction. With respect to signage or lights that are governed by the state, and particularly talk about traffic lights, because you know in the past there have been certain locations that I have been trying to get traffic lights, and I have been told by your particular department that state regs, PennDOT says you can't have this, you can't have that. 38 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 And my question is, does PennDOT pay for these traffic lights, or any of the things that they tell us that we cannot have as a city?
There are warrants for installing all traffic control devices. And, for the most part, the warrants actually make a good deal of sense. And research holds up on that.
It depends on how it is gotten. Sometimes we spend 100 percent city dollars and sometimes we spend virtually 100 percent federal and state dollars. So it depends on the project.
But didn't you allude that you could get federal money for this?
There is federal money available through the Delaware Valley Planning Organization to fund these types of programs.
That's kind of where I was going. In terms of, because this is, I guess you could consider this a traffic control device.
There is a specific set-aside in IST legislation for safety improvement 39 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 programs. It is about percent of the money that comes into the region. And certainly the City of Philadelphia would be eligible for that money.
Okay. So I guess 6 the Streets Department, we would expect, if people 7 felt comfortable with this, as I clearly think they 8 will, that we would probably go after an IST grant? 9
Let me follow up on that same line of question. I guess it would go to you, Mr. Jordan. If we adopt this resolution, and we are not able to, for whatever reason, replace all of the city signs, there is not a program to do that in its entirety, and given the fact that the Streets Department has had, obviously, some time to look at this resolution and they are familiar with what's being presented to us, would you happen to know whether the Streets Department would at least be in a position to, when they are replacing signs that were either damaged, destroyed, or stolen, or installing new signs, that they would adopt this material, as opposed to the standard? 40 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 Kind of like, as things become old and replaced and what-have-you, would we at least be willing to do that? Do you happen to know if the Streets Department is at least willing to entertain that?
I am Gihon Jordan. I am a district traffic engineer at the Streets Department. And I sit on various local, state, and national pedestrian committees. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today before you. And I thank you for caring about pedestrian safety and traffic safety for all Philadelphians and our visitors. The Streets Department is generally supportive of fluorescent yellow-green signs. Fluorescent yellow-green is a new color adopted by the U.S. DOT in the Uniform Traffic Control Devices 41 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 Manual, and by PennDOT. Opthalmologist researchers say that fluorescent yellow-green is the most conspicuous color to the human aye. Notably, fluorescent yellow-green is assigned specifically and only for pedestrian and bicycle signage; such as, pedestrian, bike crossings, and school-related signs. As any of you who have recently traveled Roosevelt Boulevard know, the new fluorescent yellow-green signs have significantly higher visibility. More noticeable school crossing signs will be helpful for children going to school. Children also play in school grounds at other times of day, and parents will be happy to have the modern signs in place. One point I feel I must emphasize, however, is that fluorescent yellow-green sheeting is substantially more expensive than the material currently used. In fact, the sheeting is eight times our current price. As such, the Streets Department cannot currently, and it is not currently in a 42 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 position to, act aggressively on implementing fluorescent yellow-green school sign program. However, the department is working towards exploring options for increasing the use of these signs. I hope this information has been helpful for your consideration on the matter. And thank you for inviting me.
Other than the costs of the material -- again, I didn't realize in the beginning that you were representing the Streets Department. I apologize. So I will ask you now. The people that run that facility, are they prepared to manufacture these signs in-house utilizing the material without a significant modification in the way they do business?
Yes, they are. They made the signs you see on Roosevelt Boulevard. They make the signs you see at Bethune School.
And the other point -- and I think it was addressed, I can't 43 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 remember who -- but I think part of our problem with signage throughout the city is the fact that many of them don't even last seven years. When you ride around, you see knock-downs. And unfortunately that's just part of living in a big city. But I just wanted to make the point that some of the signs that we have, you know, you see a brand-new Stop sign being put up on a Monday, and Wednesday it has been involved in a vehicular incident and it is history. And unfortunately I don't think we will have much of an opportunity to cash in on any warranties that might apply to the material. But, again, coming from a utility background and work area protection, I believe has utilized this material for a long time. And it has been very, very effective. Is this the same color that is used by Suburban Fire?
Any others questions? Councilman Kenney. 44 RESOLUTION NO. 000611
Could you talk a little bit about the durability of the sign. In addition to maintaining its fluorescence, my understanding is it may be easier to clean also in the event of graffiti? If a truck knocks it down or if kids pull it off, certainly that's something we deal with all the time. But I was wondering, I understood this product to be easier cleaned?
There is a film available that if you spray paint it, if you put magic marker on it, you can put a piece of masking tape or scotch tape over it and it will lift that off. And then with a very environmentally safe cleaner, you can wipe off whatever overspray residue is on that, and you would have a sign that would be in like new condition.
What is also important, and Councilman Clarke was just talking to me about this now, that what is warranted is the fluorescence; correct? The maintenance of the fluorescence is warranted for ten years. So that if for some reason or another 45 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 the fluorescence element or quality of the sign were to be lost in a ten-year period, the sign would be replaced?
Yes. What's warranted is -- the warranty consists of quantitative measures of both daytime fluorescence, color, color appearance, and retroreflectivity. And in terms of the warranted performance level, this ten-year warranty is a minimum of 7 percent of the initial properties.
I am trying to hypothetically figure out, would the Streets Department engineer say, "We feel that on a certain stretch of roadway we have lost the fluorescence," and you guys would come to some conclusion? How do you measure it in the event --
You could measure it instrumentally. There is equipment available to make that measurement. And, frankly, one of the easiest things is to have a piece of sheeting, and over the course of this period, although quantitatively we are talking about minimum of 70 percent retention, visually, that level is not -- I guess it is not 46 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 very easily discernible, the difference between that level and new.
My point was, there is technology and machinery to calculate --
The warranty would only apply to the 3M material. The labor replacing the material, would you pay for the sign shop to have to take the sign down and replace it with a new one? Explain to me exactly what you say, "warranty," what are you warranting?
In Dave's handout, at the bottom of , lists the four things we are actually warranted. The first seven years of that ten-year period, 3M, if it is determined that there is a problem that is our fault, we will come out, and at no cost to the City of Philadelphia, install a brand new sign. We would contract out the labor. We would go out, take the old sign down, and we would put up a brand new sign. The following three years, in that 47 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 ten-year period Years 8, 9, and 10, we would give you the equivalent amount of material needed to replace that sign into like-new appearance.
I think the Streets Department might have to review that warranty. I don't know if our work force, that would be appropriate, for an outside contractor to deal with that replacement of the sign, since we have our own work force that does that within the government, within the city. That's an issue.
I understand your concern. That is our standard, basic warranty of the product.
At the very least you would supply the sign, and then the Streets Department would install it?
Yes. If that was the case, where it became a labor issue, I'm sure that the warranty could be worked out to everybody's satisfaction. The thing to remember as well is that, there is no warranty on the products you are currently using, and so you are taking 100 percent 48 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 of the economic risk. Whereas, with the proposed product, 3M maintains the economic risk for a ten-year period.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to follow up on earlier testimony. You indicated that, based on the longevity of the fluorescent signs, there would -- and I don't know if you said it was a one-for-one in terms of offset of costs associated with the nonfluorescent sign and the continued replacement of that. And from a dollar perspective, you are saying that that would offset the additional costs for the fluorescent signs?
Yes. Just the offset and the extra cost is, if you look at the breakdown, the largest cost is the installation cost of the sign. That is the same regardless of what product you use. 49 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 So the longer you can stretch out the longevity of the sign, obviously the lower per year that sign costs you. We are looking at to years, 6 versus 10 to 15 years. 7
And my question 8 to Mr. Jordan, does the Streets Department concur?
You are thinking about an intersection somewhere. The question was, assuming that the information that's being provided today by 3M, that this will lengthen the life of a sign may be twofold, the costs associated with having to replace the traditional signs would be lessened by the basis of us putting these fluorescent signs up. So if they are saying 15 years, and say we have to do it every 7 years with the traditional sign, based on the costs of installation and labor, that's where the bulk of the cost comes from. 50 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 If we don't have to do that, that would move than offset the additional costs associated with the purchasing of the fluorescent film. And that's what I am trying to get. And the statement was that that is the case by 3M. And I am just asking does the Streets Department concur with that assumption?
It seems like a logical assumption. If we don't have to go out and put the sign up another time, that's less work for me, that's less work for the troops at G and Ramona.
I guess my question should be, have you done an analysis on that?
Can the Streets Department look at the numbers associated with where they got that information from? It is important to find out. If you are concurring with what they are alleging in their testimony, then it could be very important to me and probably other members of the committee.
We will look into it and 51 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 get back to you as soon as we can.
And at your convenience we can certainly provide you with the data that's done by PennDOT and other state agencies specifically addressing that question, as well as the FHWA.
Just to continue, a sign that I maybe think is being left out of the mix is that we are putting a lot of electrified School Crossing signs. And I am trying to picture -- and I think they are white with black letters, and then they have the yellow flashing lights. That doesn't seem consistent with what we are hearing here today. Why they are white with black letters, where this seems like it would be a very appropriate application for those electrified School Crossing zones.
For the types of signs you are talking about, with the flashers on them, are Speed Limit signs, which is a regulatory sign, which in the manual is required to be white with 52 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 black lettering. And it tells you that you have to maintain some certain speed. What the fluorescent yellow-green signs are doing is providing the specific information why you should maintain this speed, which is because there are pedestrians present. So you can kind of think of it as an overall communication system.
My last thought is that, the data that I think that I would like to see is that I am having a real problem on the life of a conventional sign. I mean, I have signs in my neighborhood that were put up when I was a kid, and they are still there, and they still look very effective after 35, 40 years, after being installed. And I have seen some signs where the ultraviolet ray of the sun, and after investigation found out, that there was a problem with the manufacturing process, the type of paint that was used. But I question, really, the life expectancy of a conventional sign. 53 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 You are telling me how many years, Streets Department, the life expectancy?
I mean, I am having a problem with life expectancy of a painted sign seven, eight years.
It is actually a retroreflective film. And the actual service life of the material would depend upon a variety of factors, which includes where is it located geographically and also, somewhat, the local environment.
I am talking about here in the City of Philadelphia. 54 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 Someone threw out a number. The sign that we presently use, whatever that is, how long will it last after the day it is installed? Depending, I guess, the direction of the sun and all of that. But a ballpark.
Well, typically the engineer grade signs like that, our experience has been that they are in the seven to maximum ten-year range in environments like this. The real comparison that you want to make, maybe, is that, if you are getting that long with your ordinary engineer grade signs, then you will get that much longer, again, with the fluorescent yellow-green sign.
My point is that I really think we need some data from the people that manage the sign shop to get a real number. Again, no disrespect. You are here selling us a product. And but we really need to have some real numbers to compare the life expectancy of a sign that we already have, versus the one that we would be installing.
Councilwoman Miller and then Councilman Kenney. 55 RESOLUTION NO. 000611
Thank you. Well, I don't think that they replace signs every seven years. It sure doesn't look like it. But, in any event, my concern would be -- you know, I am really pro for these signs. But my concern would be the time that it would take to replace them once we get to that point. I know we have to get there, but I am being real optimistic in figuring that we will get there eventually. And I am just concerned that other sign production for the Streets Department will be slowed down while we are out here trying to do fluorescent yellow-green and whatever. So I just want to put that on the record. That, we have a problem now getting signs, we have a problem replacing street signs. And so I wouldn't want to see in a few years, if this project here gets implemented, that, again, the list would just grow, the wait would be longer and longer to get the signs and things that we need for everyday life here in Philadelphia, like street signs and all kinds of things, while we are out there trying to do new 56 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 fluorescent signs. So you don't have to respond. I just wanted to put it on the record.
Thank you. Mr. Burns, could you give us a little bit of background on your training and how long you have been involved in this type of technical area, and what, you know...
I have been involved in fluorescent signs for the last 13, years. I am 14 an organic chemist by training, an organic photo chemist. And frankly what I do is, I do research and development on durability of materials, in trying to increase the actual service life of the plastic films and that which are used to produce traffic signs.
So you are not a 57 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 brush salesman going door to door?
I mean, there's some background there. In your estimation, of course you are not perfect. But when you estimate that the durable life of the type of sign we are using now from an acuity standpoint -- not necessarily that the sign still exists after 40 years, but the performance and acuity value of the sign -- when you say that you believe it is anywhere between seven to ten years, that's based on your experience and your research and your background?
It is actually based on my research in terms of the materials. But I have also conducted and published several studies in the technical literature on the visibility of sign materials. And I sit on a variety of technical committees on safety signing, including in the ANSI committee, deals with safety signing for the workplace, and also some ASTM committees.
Let me shift gears for a minute to the issue of flashing school 58 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 signs. And I have raised it in my opening statement. And District Councilpeople, it is one of those no-good-deed-goes-unpunished categories. Where you have the ability to designate the installation of such flashing signs because everyone wants their children safe to and from school. But, again, limited resources require you to make tough decisions. And sometimes those tough decisions make some people happy and anger four or five other different school groups. Is there any statistical information or research information about the effectiveness of flashing school signs, and whether or not they are as effective as they are costly? And, I mean, is there any available information?
Yes. There are a number of studies by different Departments of Transportation -- and a lot of these studies are published in the traffic engineering literature -- which basically shows that specifically regarding the question of flashing lights above School Zone speed signs, that they tend 59 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 not to be effective, that there is really no 3 significant influence on traffic speed. The main influencer on traffic speed around school zones is literally the speed of the roads leading in there.
I mean, I think the real effectiveness, as I understand it, the flashing school district signs have is when there is a traffic cop ready to run you down to give you a ticket. I mean, if you talk to numbers of crossing guards, for example, they are at their wits ends sometimes because of the flashing signs there. And very few, if anybody, abides by the 15-miles-an-hour speed limit in a school zone. Unless, of course, you are in a suburban community, where you see during dismissal and morning hours where a police officer will, you are going through that district at 35 or 40 miles an hour, you are going to get a major ticket. And that's a way to modify people's behavior, too; however, it is a personnel-prohibitive type of thing. I think part of what, I think, the 60 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 members of the committee are beginning to understand, and something that I believe is the real benefit of the sign, is that the visual contact with it triggers an informational response in the driver's brain that -- now, if the guy is a lunatic, and he is not going to slow down for anything, none of this is going to make a difference to that guy who is driving around in a stolen car, with no tags, and he don't care anyway. But for the average person, who really -- on cell phones -- and I know Councilman DiCicco has a bill about cell phones and carriages. But all of the things that are distracting to us driving, this visual aid helps trigger information in our brain that may help us to slow down or at least be more aware of what's going on around us in that intersection. Is that correct? Is that what fluorescence does?
That's exactly what fluorescence does, it attracts your attention. One of the aspects, if you think about it in terms of technology, is that one of the things people want to do is increase the safer 61 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 driver behavior in school zones and at pedestrian crossings. And so what they will do is, they will put up a speed sign to tell people to reduce the speed. And if that's not effective, they will take the approach that, well, maybe they didn't see the sign. So you put up flashers on it for the real basic reason that you are trying to increase the visibility or the conspicuity of that sign. And before we started to have durable fluorescent materials that were cost effective to use long-term, you know, that was the technological answer, maybe. And although flashing lights do have some benefits in certain situations, what you have now is, you can actually make the entire signing system highly visible, and that's what attracts their attention. So it is two different approaches, trying to get to the same objective. And, frankly, the signs overall, because of the cost of installation and maintenance of flashing lights, the passive types of signing 62 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 tends to be more cost effective.
It is also very hard to explain to people, for example, on the issue of Stop lights versus Stop signs. There was a period of time, I guess during the '60s and '70s, in our country where in major cities the issue of a Stop light or a mechanized light after a tragic accident for a young kid created community outrage, protests, and then the installation of Stop lights. When, in fact, a Stop sign is probably a more effective level or reducer of speed. Because even if you do the South Philly slide, as we call it, through the Stop sign, your foot is generally on the brake, as opposed to on the gas, when the light turns yellow and you speed up to beat the light. But when you try to explain that to people in the community, they think you are trying to take something away from them that they earned through this community protest issue. When, in fact, the Stop sign for some intersections is probably much more effective and 63 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 much safer than a red light, green light, yellow light installation. It is a tough mental jump for people.
Part of that comes down to, you know, you have four parts to traffic engineering. You have engineering, or traffic safety, engineering lights and signs and that; you have education, to try to educate the drivers either what fluorescent yellow-greens means or that at a yellow light, you actually put your foot on the brake, rather than on the accelerator; you also have enforcement, which is the police and the ticketing; and you have encouragement, encouraging people to take responsibility for the safety. And so you have got all four of these types of things that need to work together in a kind of a concerted program or concerted effort.
Excuse me. To follow up on your comment regarding flashing warning signs versus fluorescent yellow-green. The thing to remember is that the flashing warning signs are only effective for a 64 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 couple of hours a day, when those lights are actually on, when the children are there actively crossing. As we all know, children do not just go to school and hang out at the school during those specific hours. They are there hours a day in 8 some cases, on the weekends, on holidays and at 9 night, when those signs are not designed to be 10 effective. 11 The fluorescent yellow-green signs 12 are designed to be effective 24 hours a day. 13
Thank you. One other 14 question. 15 Is the 3M material more resistant to 16 graffiti, by any chance, than the other material, or 17 does that enter into this at all? I'm sorry; he 18 said it before. 19
There are films that are 20 available that work very well on either one. 21 The added cost that would be involved 22 would not make it useful on the base product that 23 you are currently using. 24
I think it would 65 RESOLUTION NO. 000611 be a good point, Mr. Chairman, that the Streets Department communicate the cleaning technique to the anti-graffiti people. Because I know they are responsible for trying to clean these signs, the signage, rather than take it down, attached to its pole. So I think that would be a good communication, to make sure that we have the maintenance people on track also, in the event of graffiti.
We have made great strides in the anti-graffiti area in the last couple of years.
Just a curiosity question. I recall that there was a prohibition of using 3M reflective material for vehicular advertising, buses. I notice our police cars have it. And maybe there is an exemption, or the policy has changed. Is there any present prohibition of using this material on vehicles like buses and things like that for advertising purposes? 66 RESOLUTION NO. 000611
I guess we have never seen it used on vehicles for advertising purposes. We have, in several places -- Plano, Texas, is one of them -- has actually put it on their fire vehicles to increase the visibility and conspicuity of those. But we haven't seen it on commercial vehicles, principally because commercial vehicles, the advertising area, is a short-term graphics. So it is on for a while, then the advertisement changes.
I don't know if it is a 3M product, but most of our police cars, if you even watch our evening news here, you will see the minute the light from the camera, you can't see the car, but you can see the reflective material on the police vehicle. I know tractor-trailers now have to outline the entire length of the trailer they are towing because of the obvious. But I was just wondering about the use of the material for other than signage.
Your vehicles are marked with 3M reflective material. 67 RESOLUTION NO. 000611
Any other questions for these witnesses? Mr. Burns, did you ever think about maybe now you might want to think about designing a machine for voting that would have this color included in the where the stylists are? I think you may be on to something.
I think it is a good idea. Anyway, thank you for your testimony. Any other questions for these witnesses from anyone else? Hearing none.
And if we can provide any more information or there are any other questions or references to some of these studies, safety studies, please feel free to contact us, and we will provide 68 BILL NO. 704 those references.
Thank you. Thank you again. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 704, An Ordinance authorizing Jean Tini, owner of the property 2401 Snyder Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19145, to construct and maintain a one-story building addition partially encroaching onto and over the south side of the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way of McKean Parkway north of Snyder Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Senn. I am an engineering supervisor from the Streets Department, and I am here to testify on Bill No. 000704. This bill authorizes Jean Tini to construct a one-story building addition to her property at 2401 Snyder Avenue, the corner of which encroaches a maximum of approximately 6 feet onto 69 BILL NO. 704 and over the south side of the unimproved portion of the public right-of-way of McKean Parkway north of Snyder Avenue. The building encroachment leaves adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway on the public right-of-way; therefore, the Streets Department has no objections to the passage of this bill.
Hi, Mr. Tini. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Mr. Tini, I have just gotten a chance to look at this. Is that the northwest corner of 24th and McKean? I am trying to --
Yes. Actually, there is an old right-of-way, McKean Parkway, that comes in there. But the address is 2401 Snyder Avenue. And the portion that encroaches is actually on McKean Parkway.
There is an autobody shop or a detailing shop? 70 BILL NO. 681