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
There is a detail shop in the rear of the building. We rent to them.
It is kind of where the bocci club is on the other end of it?
I am just trying to get a sense of where we were with this. Any questions for these witnesses from the committee? You would like a suspension of the Rules, I assume? Yes.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Thank you for your patience. Thank you for coming this afternoon. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 681, an Ordinance authorizing McCormick & Schmick Seafood Restaurant, a tenant of the property One South Broad Street, to construct and maintain an electrified marquee with an icon sign over the south footway of 71 BILL NO. 681 South Penn Square; and to construct and maintain five rigid awnings at various locations over the south footway of South Penn Square and the east footway of the unit block of South Broad Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Senn. I am here to testify on Bill No. 681. This bill authorizes the McCormick & Schmick Seafood Restaurant to construct and maintain the following encroachments on and above the public footways at the southeast corner of Broad Street and South Penn Square: One, an electrified marquee with an icon sign and support bracket located over the restaurant entrance on Penn Square South footway, with an approximate length of 11 feet, 5 inches, projecting a maximum of 8 feet into the south footway of South Penn Square, with the lowest point approximately 11 feet above the footway; and two rigid awnings over the south footway of South Penn Square; three rigid awnings over the east footway of South Broad Street. Both of these project a maximum of 2 feet, 6 inches, into the public right-of-way and have a maximum vertical clearance of 11 feet above 72 BILL NO. 681 the footway. All of these encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway on both Broad Street and South Penn Square. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill.
We would also like to request a suspension of the Rules for this legislation.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? Hearing none, the clerk will please read the title of the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 673, an Ordinance amending Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Traffic Code, to provide for the towing of vehicles illegally parked on sidewalks, under certain terms and conditions.
Whoever is testifying please approach the witness table, and please 73 BILL NO. 673 identify yourself for the record and spell your last name for the court stenographer.
My name is Gihon, G-I-H-O-N, Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N. I am a traffic engineer with the Streets Department.
Both Philadelphia Traffic Code and the Philadelphia Vehicle Code prohibit parking of vehicles on sidewalks. Parking on sidewalks is also hazardous to pedestrians, who are forced to walk in the roadway, and is a barrier to disabled people who wish to use the sidewalks. The Streets Department has no 19 objections to this bill.
Thank you. Please proceed. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Marcene Nodine, M-A-R-C-E-N-E, N-O-D-I-N-E, and I am a resident of Center City Philadelphia. And I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in favor of 74 BILL NO. 673 this bill. My husband and I moved back into Center City some years ago. The draw of the city 5 was its walkability. The fact that we could get to 6 work, to the Reading Terminal Market, it a movie at 7 the Ritz, or a concert at the Academy by foot. 8 That was back when pedestrians didn't 9 have to vie with commercial interests in the form of 10 sidewalk cafes, the freedom of the press 11 distributing literature in honor boxes, and an issue 12 here today, the self-serving culture of entitlement 13 that has given motorists license to park at will on 14 city sidewalks. 15 It is hard to find a sidewalk these days that isn't blocked by a construction vehicle, truck, car, or van. Abuse of existing parking laws is epidemic in Center City. This is especially the case on narrow streets, where parking is confined to one side of the street or prohibited altogether, and in my neighborhood, where business and residential properties must share the same turf. Employees, owners, and patrons of businesses situated west of Rittenhouse Square have 75 BILL NO. 673 become serial parkers who convenience themselves by routinely using the sidewalks as their own private parking lots. The current traffic code imposes little incentive for these parking regulars to keep their vehicles off the sidewalks. Ticketing has not remedied the problem. Even if violators are caught, fines have had limited effect on behavior. Paying the ticket or taking the time to fight it must be considered the cost of doing business. The end result is that sidewalks have become obstacle courses that force walkers to use the streets as pedestrian thoroughfares. Sidewalk-parked vehicles are a particular danger to the visually impaired, the wheelchair-bound, the elderly, children walking on their own, and mothers and grandmothers walking with small children or pushing baby strollers. In addition to the safety hazard posed by illegally parked cars and trucks, these machines destroy sidewalks and curbs by cracking cement, and deface surfaces with leaking motor oil, gasoline, and transmission fluid. 76 BILL NO. 673 In short, motor vehicles do not belong on sidewalks. The city needs to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards obstructing sidewalks. Amending the current traffic code to institute the towing of sidewalk-parked vehicles is certainly a step, pardon my pun, in the right direction. The amendment reaffirms the right of pedestrians and city residents, two sorely underrepresented groups in the current war of domain over Philly sidewalks. If adopted, I hope this city will fulfill the amendments promised by acting aggressively to enforce it. Sidewalks were meant for heels, not wheels. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And may I call on you when reconvene on our discussion on an honor box bill that I introduced some time ago? I think you would be helpful to testify. 77 BILL NO. 673
Thank you. I think what we need is the definition, at least I do, of a sidewalk. Would a center island on Broad Street qualify -- that's a safe haven -- would that qualify for towing? If in fact a vehicle was on the center island on Broad Street, or here on JFK city vehicles are parked on the island, would they all be eligible for towing?
And I assume you are speaking to south of Washington Avenue?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul 78 BILL NO. 673 Loni, survey bureau manager, with the Department of Streets. And the legal status of those things does kind of fall under my bailiwick. So if it is okay with you, I would like to answer that question. The streets are broken down into something called the cartway and something called a footway. The footway is generally considered from the curb to private property. Anything between the curbs is considered the cartway, which under the City Plan is open for any type of vehicular use. Some of those center lanes are still considered within the cartway. They would not necessarily be considered a sidewalk. In South Philadelphia, they have kind of become -- have a life unto themselves, and no one is really sure what that is. But generally, anything between the curbs, whether it is raised, such as a traffic island, are still considered in the driving area or traveled way, which is commonly known as the cartway. 79 BILL NO. 673
But weren't they installed as a safe haven when you are trying to cross the street to make your way to the other side, a safety zone?
Well, they were. And when we redesigned the Avenue of the Arts, we realized that there still was that problem, that people were just ignoring that. And so that's why we put, if you notice up there, the raised islands along Broad Street, was for that safety reason.
So are you telling me that it is a cartway and would not be enforced under this legislation?
My other question to the Streets Department is, there are many locations throughout Center City that allow vehicular parking. Let me give you an example. There is a sidewalk, and then there is an area where the building is set back from the sidewalk, where people have used that to park vehicles. How do you determine in that -- as a 80 BILL NO. 673 matter of fact, if you just look around City Hall here in each direction, you will see where -- I'm not talking about City Hall apron, I am talking about buildings that have utilized the sidewalk, but don't block the sidewalk, to park vehicles. What is the determination of the sidewalk? Is it 4 feet? Is it 6 feet? Is it all the way to the property? Are those vehicles that are parked in that area, but not obstructing pedestrian traffic, are they subject to ticketing and towing?
The sidewalk is designated on the City Plan as the area from the curb to where the private property begins. I'm not sure exactly on the statutes -- perhaps Gihon could comment on that -- about driving across the footway to get to that area. But anything beyond the City Plan right-of-way line is private property, and I assume that the folks would have a right to park there. But whether they would have the right to cross the sidewalk to get to that point, except in designated area, I'm not sure; that's a traffic 81 BILL NO. 673 regulation.
This is Gihon. If you have a parking lot, you can get a permit from the Streets Department, and you need a curb cut, and we okay your parking lot, and you can drive across the sidewalk to get to your parking lot.
I am not talking about a parking lot. I am talking about a sidewalk that runs up the street. One side to the left, as an example, is the street, to the right of that sidewalk is maybe a 10-foot piece of concrete between the building's foundation, and the --
I can give you examples. On Sansom Street, between Juniper and Broad, on the east side, along the Fidelity Bank Building, every single day there are a number of huge vehicles, trucks in particular, that are there for either construction work that's going on in the building or deliveries. 82 BILL NO. 673
Right here on North Broad Street, there is a facility that utilizes the area between the sidewalk and the building as parking for maybe seven or eight, ten vehicles. Every day I see the vehicles parked there. But they don't block the sidewalk. They are between the actual sidewalk and the actual building, where it is a very wide sidewalk. My question is, even though they are not obstructing pedestrian traffic, they are still parked on the sidewalks, even though it is an extended sidewalk, or an apron that incorporates the sidewalk. If someone complained about that vehicular traffic, I think we would put the Police Department and the towing folks in a very precarious position. Because it is on the sidewalk, but it is not blocking pedestrian traffic.
Right. I think I understand your question, and it seems like a very good one. I feel that people have a misunderstanding of what exactly a sidewalk is. It 83 BILL NO. 673 is not just the concrete. But there are certain instances where the sidewalks ends, we will say, feet from the 5 curb, it may be 20 feet from the building, which 6 leaves 8 feet for someone to park in. 7 I will ask Mr. Jordan here to review 8 the traffic codes. Because I feel probably where it 9 is illegal is to actually cross the sidewalk to get 10 to that area without a curb cut. And that's, I 11 think, where we might have to look in that area. 12 But I'm not sure, and I don't want to give you an answer that's erroneous. So we will look into that and get back to you.
I have a question of Mr. Loni. Up on Erie Avenue, let's see, from J Street -- well, we will call it H Street, down Erie Avenue, this is in Juniata Park, down to M Street, per se, we have these car dealers there. And they 84 BILL NO. 673 always bring their little wares out and park -- I don't know if you have got a lot in Center City, but that obstructs walking up there. And they put their cars nicely lined up on the sidewalk, then the other ones are parked on the street without tags. It has been a real hassle to try to get the cops to ticket the ones on the sidewalk. It is definitely in the traffic code, definitely. Correct?
Let me, if I can answer that first. We did a bill, this committee, about a year or two ago that makes it a $300 fine for the sale of a vehicle on any street. So that what happened, as I understand, is for some reason the Philadelphia Traffic Court never had that violation on their ticket book. You couldn't put all the violations on the ticket book, anyway, that are on the books today. But for some reason that was left out. And I understand they are making the adjustments to this year's new ticket book. So that sale of cars -- and Mr. Dixon 85 BILL NO. 673 is shaking his head yes -- sale of cars, whether they are on the highway or on the sidewalk, would be punishable by a $300 fine. I think this goes one step further and says that that vehicle could actually be towed, if it is on the sidewalk.
Councilman Mariano, we would be glad to, especially with our new system in the Streets Department, if you feel that somewhere in your district you are not sure exactly where that sidewalk ends and the private property begins, if you would let us know, we would be glad to go out and mark that for you.
They probably encroach that on the sidewalk, they probably extend. There is a few of them. And one I know they extended the fence, probably. But you could never walk around there. And I could never walk around there. And that's the problem. But this would eliminate that, and we are hoping. Thank you.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Ma'am I notice you have your hand 86 BILL NO. 673 up. Do you have questions or testimony in relationship to this bill? AUDIENCE MEMBER: This bill I want to ask a question.
You have to come up to the witness table and direct the questions to the Chair. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
Good afternoon. I am Diane Huff, H-U-F-F, as in Frank. My question was to this bill.
My question was, like private property, does that mean city-owned property? Because I know that little street she was speaking of, narrow streets. And it is that little street, that's Watt Street, off of Broad and Cherry. Okay? It is that little street. And there we have signs that says okay, Commissioner so and so can park here, and then 87 BILL NO. 673 so and so can park there, but there is no signs anywhere else. However, normal people just follow suit and start parking on the sidewalk.
You are saying there is a sign that allows for certain government officials.
Well, it has some Commissioner's name. I don't know if it is the Police Commissioner or what?
Well, on the fence. That takes me back to the private property question. There is the sidewalk and then there is a fence. And beyond the fence perhaps starts the actual business.
Alongside the old firehouse. I know where you are talking about.
Yes. So that is there. And it is easy for just a normal person to just 88 BILL NO. 673 believe that they can park on the other sidewalks. Because that's what happens. But when you do that, you get a ticket. You know, fortunately it is not up to the $300 that you requested, but it is --
No. $300 is for sale of a vehicle on the sidewalk or highway.
But you get a ticket. But normal people don't know that, you know. So will we hold everybody accountable?
Absolutely. I understand your question. And it is noted in the record. We will have folks from the Police Department and the Parking Authority investigate those allegations. Thank you.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Anyone else here to wishes to testify? Hearing none, the clerk will please read the title of the next bill. 89 RESOLUTION NO. 41 Thank you all very much.
Before we get to Bills 358 and 359, there is a resolution on a bill that was held to date certain, Resolution 41, authorizing the Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings on the dangers and damage caused by the deterioration of retaining walls, driveways, and alleys, and the complications involved, in coordinating necessary repairs by abutting property owners, and to determine the scope of these dangerous conditions throughout the city and the cost to repair them, and further authorizing the committee to formulate a program to correct these hazardous and dangerous conditions in the writs of the city. And that is being held per the request of the sponsor. Bill No. 660, an Ordinance amending Section 11-506 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Alleys, Driveways and Retaining Walls," by providing additional methods by which the city may pay contractors the city hires to pave or repave alleys or driveways or to construct or reconstruct retaining walls pursuant to orders to abate nuisances and by providing a maximum amount that 90 BILL NO. 660 property owners may be assessed for the cost of such work, all under certain terms and conditions. This bill was continued from Tuesday, November 2.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, I believe, continued this particular bill pending any new or additional information from the Streets Department in this particular matter. I have not received any new or different additional information. And so at this point in time, when we get to the public meeting section, I would only ask that we just report the bill out of committee and get it over with.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Loni, survey bureau manager, with the Department of Streets. And the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 91 BILL NO. 660 000660. This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an Ordinance introduced by Councilman Nutter. The purpose of this Ordinance is to make certain revisions to the Philadelphia Code which allow the City to pay contractors in a form other than assessment bills for abating certain nuisances. Also, the changes would place a limit of assessment for the abutting property owners. Since driveways, alleys, and retaining walls are private property, any changes to the legislation affecting them would give the impression that this status would change. The Administration feels this is not in the best interest of the city. Therefore, this Ordinance is not supported by the Department of Streets and is not recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Just a couple, Mr. Chairman. 92 BILL NO. 660 Mr. Loni, with regard to the specifics of the bill, now, the title of this bill 4 says that it is amending Section 11-506. My reading of that naturally means that this is amending a section of the code that already exists; is that correct?
And so we are not creating a new section to the code or creating by way of this bill a new responsibility for the city; is that correct?
We are not creating any new sections in the code, no. You are right, we are not.
And will this particular section require the city to take any other action that it would not otherwise normally be required or not required to take by way of the current section of the code?
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Loni. Mr. Chairman, I am finished.
Are there any other 93 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 questions for this witness?
No other questions for this witness. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
We have two companion bills, Bills Nos. 358 and 359. Bill No. 358, an Ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Traffic 11 Code," by amending the provisions relating to 12 parking by physically handicapped persons and disabled and severely disabled veterans. And Bill No. 359, an Ordinance 15 amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by conditioning the issuance of licenses for public garages and public parking lots on the provision of accessible parking spaces in such garages and lots; and amending Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Traffic Code," by prohibiting parking in such accessible parking spaces except by persons parking vehicles lawfully bearing registration plates or parking placards issued to physically handicapped persons or severely 94 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 disabled veterans, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, and please identify yourself for the record. I am going to hold for my statements until I hear some testimony. Rick, would you prefer that I did the amendments, offered them up front? MR. RICHARD D. DICKSON, JR.: Those that were agreed to. Our testimony is based on the bill with those amendments.
Okay. All right. For the record, I am going to read into the record a proposed amendment to Bill No. 16 000359. Amend Subsection 9-601 (2)(a)(.8) as follows: "(.8), The applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following," underscore, "except that a public parking garage existing at the time this subsection became law which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants need not provide any particular number of accessible parking spaces, but need only provide at least one 95 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 accessible drop-off and pick-up location, provided that the garage accepts for parking all vehicles modified for people with disabilities, including vehicles equipped with hand controls." Second amendment amends Subsection 9-601(4)(a)(.8) as follows, "the applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following," underscored, "provided that a parking lot existing at the time this subsection became law which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants need not provide any particular number of parking spaces, but need only provide at least one accessible drop-off and pick-up location, provided that the parking lot accepts for parking all vehicles modified for people with disabilities, including vehicles equipped with hand controls." The clerk will read the proposed amendments to Bill No. 000358.
Add a new Section 2 to the bill that reads as follows, "Section 2, Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code is further amended to read as follows, Title 12 Traffic Code, Chapter 12-1100, Miscellaneous Regulations and Penalties. Subsection 96 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 12-1117, Physically Handicapped and Disabled or Severely Disabled Veteran Parking." (3), "Reserved on-street parking for physically handicapped persons and severely disabled veterans reserved on-street accessible parking spaces," is the addition. And new Section F, "On each side of each hundred block on which there is metered parking, one reserved accessible parking space shall be located as close as possible to an accessible curb ramp, marked by signs at both ends of the space showing the symbol of accessibility. Parking at each accessible space shall be regulated by an electronic meter which has no moving parts, handles, or thumb slides, which is programmed to accept at least seven different coins or tokens, and which is painted blue. No vehicle may park at such space except a motor vehicle bearing a handicapped plate, a handicapped parking placard, a severely disabled veteran's plate, or a severely disabled veteran placard, and which is being operated by or for the transportation of a physically handicapped person or severely disabled veteran. Drivers of such vehicles shall be entitled to park in an accessible space for 97 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 a period of 60 minutes in excess of the maximum time limit and without payment of any parking meter fees during that 60-minute period. Such motor vehicles shall comply with all parking prohibitions, including, but not limited to, snow emergency, street cleaning, or resident parking." And Chapter 12-2400, "Towing and immobilizing of parked or abandoned vehicles. Subsection 12-2405, Removal or Immobilization of Parked Vehicles Notice. (1), any vehicle may be removed by means of towing to the nearest official towing station or immobilized for up to 72 hours by means of applying a boot and then towed to the nearest official towing station, if not reclaimed, by or under the direction of a member of the department or its designated agent whenever any vehicle is," new, "(h) parked in a reserved accessible parking space in violation of Subsection 12-1117(3)(f)." And Chapter 12-2800, "Administrative Adjudication of Parking Locations. Subsection 12-2809, Civil Penalties and Costs, (2), any person violating the following provisions of Title 12 shall, upon a final finding of liability pursuant to 98 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 this Chapter 12-2800, be liable for payment of the civil penalty indicated, in addition to the costs and fees set forth in Subsection 12-2809(1), Code Provision 12-1117(3)(f), Violation Description Parking Reserved Accessible Space, Penalty, $300."
Thank you. Good afternoon and please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Roger Margulies, and my last name is spelled M-A-R-G-U-L-I-E-S. I am the Assistant Deputy Mayor for the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities. I am here to testify in support of the proposed bills titled 358 and 359 that affect parking regulations for people with disabilities. The Philadelphia disability community agrees there is definitely abuse of the use of disability plates and placards by persons without disabilities. As a result, the number of available parking spaces on the street becomes limited. I believe the proposed plan to install one accessible parking space on each block close to a curb cut is a good one. It will allow 99 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 citizens with disabilities to access the city's goods and services. I understand that vehicles parked illegally in these spaces will be subject to towing. And I urge the Philadelphia Parking Authority and police to strongly enforce this measure. On behalf of the members of the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities, I want to applaud the willingness of the city to purchase and install accessible parking meters. This action ensures that Philadelphians with disabilities are included and can contribute as workers and consumers. I endorse Bill No. 359, the amendment to Title 9, as it ensures that private parking lot operators have the required number of disability parking spaces mandated in the Americans With Disabilities Act, the ADA. In addition, I support the provision that police and ticketing officials should be able to ticket cars without disability plates and placards that park in disability parking places. Although drivers with placards and 100 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 disability plates currently enjoy unlimited free parking at meters, and some members of my constituency would like this practice to continue, I believe that the proposed regulation that requires people with disabilities to pay for their metered parking with an hourly rate over the posted time limitations to be fair and reasonable. However, I have one exception. It is my recommendation that vans with disability plates and placards be exempt from Title 358's requirements. This is necessary for the following reasons: Off-street parking facilities are only required to provide one accessible van parking space for every eight accessible spaces. Further, many off-street parking facilities which predate the ADA do not have high enough ceilings to accommodate vans. For these reasons, people with disabilities who drive vans have significantly fewer long-term parking options in off-street facilities. Free parking at meters for vans with disability plates would accommodate for this deficiency. 101 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 It would be helpful if the effective dates of Titles 358 and 359 could be postponed until April 2001, after accessible parking meters have been installed and are ready for use. One final recommendation. The Philadelphia Parking Authority, or other designated agency, conduct a public awareness campaign to ensure that drivers with disabilities are aware and familiar with these parking regulation changes so that no one is inconvenienced. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Margulies. When you speak to the recommendation that vans with disability plates and placards be exempt from the Bill 358, you are speaking, I assume -- because I have had some conversations with my chief of staff and Mr. Dickson, vans that have lifts; is that correct?
I am talking about vans that have lifts or vans that may have hand controls. Oftentimes people who are most 102 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 severely disabled would drive these kinds of vehicles.
Yes. I want to be clear that we are not speaking about vans in general that may have a handicapped placard or plate. I am speaking to the more modified vans that have a lift and/or hand controls. I know of a few contractors in South Philadelphia that have handicapped plates on their vans without lifts. And that's what we don't want to see abusing the parking spaces. So -- and, again, if I am wrong, correct me -- and if there is someone up at the witness table that can clear this up, I thought we meant vans that had lifts --
Okay. We don't want to open it up for just vans that have a handicapped placard or plate. 103 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 We may have a similar situation that we have with vehicles that have handicapped placard or plate. And you don't want to limit it to that.
It gets very complicated. The spirit in which I am making this recommendation is that people who have modified equipment or some kind of adaptations on their car.
I am not suggesting that what you are proposing is something that we would not be in favor of. I just want to be clear as to what the definition of the van is. And if Mr. Dickson or someone else up there would like to jump in on this conversation, I would appreciate it. Because I thought that this was something that was discussed at the last meeting, which I was not able to attend.
Yes, Councilman, it was discussed at the last meeting. And because of the difficulty in 104 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 providing an appropriate definition, some of the members representing disabled organizations were opposed to this amendment. EPVA has said at that meeting that, for this very reason, they do not think there should be a distinction made, and that all people with disabilities should be treated equally. What we said, if we are going to consider this amendment, we think it is most appropriate that only those vans that have been equipped to deal -- that either have a lift device or have steering hand-controlled adaptations to the vehicles only be considered. As it was proposed here, anybody that has a mini-van, a family van with a plate or placard is given the same privilege. And that's exactly the situation we are trying to eliminate.
Mr. Margulies, have we covered appropriately and accurately all the various classifications? I see severely disabled. I see plaque on some occasions, a license plate that 105 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 says, "Handicapped," and the logo on one side means something versus the other side. Have, in this legislation, all of the potential users of these spaces been identified properly?
Yes. The people with disabilities either have handicapped license plates issued by the State of Pennsylvania or they have placards hanging in their rear-view mirror which are issued by the Department of Transportation, also, one or the other.
Well, I am glad to hear that. I recall during the last hearing on this that we discussed the system itself for securing handicapped tags, handicapped disabled placards, et cetera, et cetera. And I think it was pretty clear that the system itself needs an overhaul. Do you have any knowledge of what is being done to clean up what I think is a process that really needs to be cleaned up? Because I see so much abuse. And I 106 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 think we all mentioned back then, many months ago, that if we really had a focus, and these license plates and placards were given to people that really needed them, that we might not be here today. Do you see any effort or is there anything that you can do, that we can do, to work to make this system out of Harrisburg work any better?
Well, the plates and placards are issued by the state. And the only recent change that's come about that I am aware of is that, when placards are issued now, the person that the placards are issued to also receives an identification card. But in terms of the state monitoring the plates and placards and so forth, I think, you know, there is more that could be done.
In speaking with one of my colleagues earlier today, it was described where a person went in for knee surgery, and got a temporary placard. That basically the person now has recuperated, is healed, is still using the placard. That, to me, sounds like a blatant violation of the intent of the placard and license plate process. 107 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
So I think beyond what we are trying to do here locally, I think that we may be, as representatives of Philadelphia, need to communicate with the state, the state representatives, state Senators. Because to me this abuse is something we just shouldn't be tolerating.
I want to comment. I am the colleague that was talking to Councilman Rizzo earlier. The gentleman I referred to was captured on Channel 10 several months ago, when we first began to deal with this issue on abuse of handicapped parking. He works for -- at the time it was, Bell Atlantic. I guess it is Verizon now, at 9th and Race. And he was observed getting out of a vehicle with a handicapped plate on, being parked on Race Street. And he had a knee operation two or three years ago. And at the time he was issued, rightfully so, a plate or placard, because he was in effect disabled, he couldn't get around. 108 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 But what happens is, he still continues to use the plate and/or placard because there is no followup examination or what-have-you. And I have talked to Senator Fumo's office about this. And we are starting to look at the state level to see if there is some readjustment of the current statutes that would eliminate that type of abuse. I think what I would like to do, before I entertain anymore questions, let the rest of the folks, I think you all have prepared testimony, hear your testimony, then we will get into the question and answer. And I apologize for breaking my own rule. Thank you. Whoever is speaking next, you all decide.
My name is Nicole Faux. I am an accessibility compliance coordinator with the Managing Director's Office. And I am here to testify on behalf of Debra Russo-Haines, who is the deputy managing director. And she is also the city's designated ADA coordinator. Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which became effective in 1992, 109 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 requires local government to ensure that its programs and services are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Title 2 applies to anything a public entity does, including provision of on-street parking. The City of Philadelphia has taken a very proactive approach to compliance with ADA requirements. In working closely with the disability community, the Managing Director's Office created an ADA transition plan for achieving access to the city's programs and services that has been recognized as a national model. The city has retrofitted numerous buildings throughout the city, revised its building code to ensure that privately owned facilities are as accessible as possible, and constructed curb cuts at almost 16,000 intersections throughout the city to provide access to the public right-of-way. Prior to these accomplishments, getting around the city was obviously much more difficult for people with disabilities than it is today. 110 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 In recognition of this, the city took it upon itself in the early 1980s to pass an Ordinance providing people with disabilities with all-day free parking at meters. Although at the time the State of Pennsylvania accommodated people with disabilities with only one hour of free parking beyond the expiration of a meter, the City of Philadelphia officials obviously felt that the barriers posed to people with disabilities in this city were great enough to warrant providing free parking all day. For years, the benefits of this ordinance were very real to people with mobility impairments. Inaccessible facilities, lack of curb cuts, and lack of accessible off-street parking necessitated this accommodation. Today, however, almost nine years beyond the effective date of the ADA, Philadelphia is significantly more accessible. The goal of the ADA is not to provide different or special services for people with disabilities, but to make existing programs as accessible as possible, and then to provide accommodations, where necessary, in order to achieve 111 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 integration. This city has spent the last nine years making its programs and facilities as accessible as possible, including access to the public right-of-way. In light of that, the appropriate accommodation with regard to metered parking is not the same as it was almost years ago. 10 In addition, the Managing Director's 11 Office has been working to support and assist the 12 Philadelphia Parking Authority in developing a plan 13 to increase accessibility at meters, which has been 14 incorporated into Bill No. 358. 27 of the ADA Accessibility 19 Guidelines. 20 In addition, two metered handicapped spaces will be provided on every city unit block. These spaces will be located at the corners adjacent to the curb cuts, identified with blue meters and appropriate signage, and will be solely for the use of vehicles with handicapped tags. 112 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Vehicles parked illegally in these spaces will be subject to towing. And we urge the city to strongly enforce this provision. We also encourage the provisions of Bill No. 358 to become effective in April 2001 to coincide with the installation of the accessible meters. For these reasons, we are in full support of Bill No. 358, which would appropriately amend the accommodation for people with disabilities parked at meters from all-day free parking, to one hour free parking beyond the expiration of the meter, in accordance with state law. This accommodation meets both the spirit and intent of the ADA by providing people who have mobility impairments with an extra hour to get back to their car.
The Managing Director's Office has also worked closely with the Philadelphia Parking Authority over the past few years to review their off-street parking facilities for ADA compliance and to recommend the necessary renovations. The Parking Authority has fully implemented these recommendations. 113 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 In order to ensure that privately owned off-street parking facilities are also in compliance with ADA requirements, we urge City Council to pass Bill No. 359. Passage of this bill should go hand in hand with Bill No. 358 to ensure that the availability of accessible long-term parking in off-street facilities coincides with the elimination of long-term parking at meters for vehicles with handicapped tags. Bill No. 359 would provide the city with the means to ensure that we do not issue a license renewal for any facility that has not made a good-faith effort to provide accessibility for people with disabilities. In order not to create a hardship for business owners, this bill would only require facilities that currently provide parking on a level, accessible route to show proof that they also have the appropriate handicapped parking spaces in order to obtain their license renewal. This bill would not go to the extent of requiring the installation of ramps or elevators, in that existing facilities do not currently provide 114 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 parking on a level-accessible route would be exempt from oversight on handicapped parking. As these business owners have had almost nine years to bring their facilities into compliance with ADA requirements, something the Parking Authority did in a matter of months, we do not see the requirements of Bill 359 as burdensome. In addition, this ordinance will ensure that the city is not in violation of the ADA by licensing inaccessible facilities or contracting to park city vehicles in inaccessible facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Dickson. I am the director of off-street parking for the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Patrick Mulligan, the deputy managing director, and I have both submitted written testimony on these bills. And I would like to summarize that in the interest of both time and so as to not to duplicate our efforts. What these bills really attempt to do is manage what is a very scare resource for any 115 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 city. As an old city, we are not going to build any new streets or we are not going to create any new curb space in order to increase the number of parking spaces that are available. What our responsibility becomes is to manage those spaces in the most effective way so as to maximize the opportunities people have to use the parking spaces we have. Since 1992, the Philadelphia Parking Authority has conducted fairly comprehensive studies on the use of on-street parking. In '92, 8 percent of the parking meters in Center City were occupied by vehicles with plates or placards for people with disabilities. In December of last year and April of this year, we conducted another study which indicated that 35 percent of all of the meters in Center City are occupied by those vehicles. In the core of Center City, it is 41 percent. The result of that is not additional access to parking for people with disabilities, but reduced access to parking for people with disabilities. 116 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Because as those spaces are occupied all day by the same vehicle, no one, including the disabled, have an opportunity to get to those spaces. The result is, over 500,000 people who would expect to find spaces during the course of a year are unable to find them because there is no 9 turnover at those spaces. In addition to that, we find that often when people are able to finally find a space, it is far from the destination that they wish to go to. The amendments that were proposed by Councilman DiCicco today attempt to address the concerns that were raised at the last hearing. At that time people felt that those who were still competing with well-bodied motorists for the same parking spaces would be unable to operate the parking meter because current meters in Philadelphia require you to turn a handle. And, in addition to that, the space may not be close to an accessible curb cut. The amendments that are being considered today would rectify those problems. 117 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 The Parking Authority will create a space designated solely for people with disabilities on each metered block in the city. Those spaces would be marked off with the appropriate signs, they would become tow-away zones so that vehicles parking in those spaces that are not credentialed to do so could be towed, and we will install parking meters that are mechanical and would operate just like a vending machine, that you don't have to turn any handles. And we have a sample of one of those meters here today for you to see.
Could you just put it up on the table, we could look. Because I haven't seen it yet, actually.
The housing for these meters would be painted blue so as to distinguish them from other meters, as well as putting the signs up that would clearly delineate what those spaces were. In addition to that, the height of 118 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 these specially reserved meters will be lowered so that they will be accessible to people who are in wheelchairs.
The current parking meter requires, once you put the coin in, you have to turn a handle. With these, you just put the coin in, and it --
It just drops straight through. It doesn't require any handle turning or thumb slides or anything like that. In addition to that, the proposal that has gone out for bidders asks them to submit a separate price for meters that would access debit cards. And that's just, you just slide that into the slot. And you could buy a card for various amounts of money, so that you wouldn't have to carry change. Which also helps deal with problems associated with manual dexterity limitations. So we think that this goes a long way toward increasing parking availability for all 119 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 motorists in the city. It reserves a number of spaces only for the people with disabilities. It still permits those people who have plates or placards to park in regular metered spaces, subject to the same time limit and one-hour grace period beyond that in order to accommodate those people that have difficulty getting to and from their destinations. One of the things that was discussed fairly thoroughly at the last hearing was that, because of the economic incentive that's created for free parking all day, we have created an incentive for people to get plates or placards where they may not otherwise normally be entitled. This reserves parking on the street for its intended purpose, which is short-term parking. It allows people who are disabled to have better access to businesses or institutions that they want to patronize, but at the same time encourages the turnover of parking spaces that's necessary in order for us to support the economic development of the city.
Thank you. 120 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Mr. Haigler, are you going to testify? Please identify yourself, and then we will go through questions. MR. OTIS HAIGLER, JR.: Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., legislative and regulatory affairs manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 000359, which if enacted will amend Chapter 9-600 of the Philadelphia Code relating to parking garages and parking lots. The Department of Licenses and Inspections is charged with the responsibility for enforcement of Chapter 9-600 related to the licensing of parking lots and parking garages, as well as granting approvals through the permit process for the establishment of these facilities. In accordance with our responsibilities, the department offers no 22 objections to the enactment of Bill 000359, and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 121 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Thank you. My question is to Mr. Dickson. How many spaces will be available under this current legislation throughout the city? You know, each block will have a handicapped metered space. Do you have any idea of the number?
So we have no way of knowing when those meters are going to be installed. And I am raising that because Mr. Margulies' testimony had asked that enactment of these two bills be postponed until April 2001. I mean, the likelihood, in my opinion, would be that we probably wouldn't make that April 2001 anyway.
We have no objection to 122 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 moving it to April. We would be prepared for the spaces that are reserved for people with disabilities to make sure that we have a sufficient number in April, even if we haven't converted all of the other meters at that time.
Okay. And I did ask the question on vans, lifts. Okay. That's it for me for the time being. Councilman Rizzo.
Do you anticipate that with the shortage of parking that you identified earlier, or someone identified earlier, that these spots will be used pretty much of the time, would you think that the business community is going to complain that, there goes another spot? They look out the window, it is empty, it is waiting for someone to utilize it. Have there been any statistics or anything that you can point to that indicates how frequently these spots are going to be used? And will there ever be a time of the day, evening, where they will not be reserved for that purpose?
You can answer, 123 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 because I have no own thoughts on it. I mean, what brought us to these was, one of the reasons, was meters are in commercial corridors, meters are installed to have turnover parking that will enable the commercial retail businesses to thrive because people will be able to pull in for an hour or two hours and then pull out. What has happened as a result of the legislation that was created by City Council back in the '80s is, there are now actually less parking spaces for people who are shopping or doing business in those commercial corridors because people can park there all day free. In fact, I think the statistics as a result of the last hearing we had back in June was somewhere between, I am being conservative by saying, 65 percent, but I think it was actually a little higher, in the core of Center City alone. 65 percent of all the metered parking spaces were occupied by vehicles with handicapped placards or plates almost all day, for eight hours or more per day. And in order to provide a reasonable accommodation for the truly handicapped folks, who 124 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 need a place to park, and hopefully cul out those folks who have been abusing the system, we feel that these two bills are the best that we can do to accommodate both sides. And I noticed one thing. Because I was out there taking photographs on Chestnut Street prior to the last bill hearing, back in June of this year. And I have actually already seen a little bit of a reduction in the number of cars that are parked out there. And I think it is like the guy from Jersey, whose tag expired in December of 1997 but had a placard in the window, Pennsylvania car that expired in May of 2000 but had a placard in the window, I think the message is getting out that the game is over. And that folks who really and truly need to have accessibility will have a better opportunity now to find a parking spot than they would have before this bill, these bills are passed and enacted.
I will address it to the Chair. What will be the difference on a 125 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 particular block once this zone is created versus the rest of the metered parking? How will this meter be treated differently than any other meter on the block?
They won't be treated differently at all, except to the extent that only people with state-issued credentials for people with disabilities would be permitted to park in this reserved spot. And if it is on Walnut Street, and it is a two-hour zone, the person parking in any of those spaces, if they had a plate or placard for people with disabilities, would be permitted to park for two hours, and pay the meter for that two hours, and they would get an additional one hour beyond that, in compliance with state law, to allow an accommodation for those people that have mobility impairments.
So this will basically be a reserved spot. But my question, which I don't think Councilman DiCicco responded to, will there ever be a time when this meter will not be reserved for those credentialed? 126 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
We would envision that they would be in effect during the same period of regulation as the rest of the block.
So what you are telling me is that the minute that that metered parking expires, that's another parking space?
On any street in the city, there are time limits, a beginning and end to the regulation where there are meters. Meters are in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on a given block. We would anticipate that this space would be governed by the same time limit regulation. So beyond that limit, there would be no need to feed the meter and would be available for public parking, actually, at that time.
My point being that at 8 o'clock, the availability of parking goes away to people with placards. Could it possibly exclude that meter? Because what you are doing, at 8 o'clock, a handicapped or disabled person --
Are you asking that the reserved parking space, the accessible parking 127 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 space, be reserved for hours a day, 7 days a week for handicapped parking? Is that what you are asking?
Without a lot of 6 thought, I am thinking that at 8 o'clock a person 7 with a disability arrives, there is no parking spot 8 because that location is no longer available because 9 it is being parked in by a person without a 10 disability. 11 Manayunk is an example. 12
Councilwoman Miller's 13 question was just in commercial. But that's where 14 meters are. They are not in residential 15 communities, or fully residential anyway; maybe 16 mixed use. 17
I am just trying to 18 figure out the sign that -- the question becomes, 19 how do we do a sign that says, you don't have to pay 20 the meter after this point, but the space is still 21 reserved at that time point? 22 I am sure there would be some way we 23 could work that out. 24
I don't think your question was do you not have to pay. I think what 128 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 your question is -- and correct me if I am wrong -- at o'clock p.m., which is the, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 4 p.m. is dedicated parking, accessible parking. 5 8:01, you are saying that space will 6 now become available for Frank DiCicco, who doesn't 7 require accessible parking. 8 You are suggesting -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that that spot should still be available strictly for -- forget the 8:00 p.m., no 11 limit. 24 hours, 7 days a week, that dedicated parking space should be for accessible parking only.
If we are trying to be considerate of -- without a lot of thought here.
Yes, that's the question. But I am not necessarily suggesting that that be the way that's dealt with. My point being, at 8:01, a disabled or handicapped person now has no place to park according to this legislation. If we are trying to accommodate disabled and handicapped people, that parking space 129 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 should possibly be looked at differently than the rest of the meters on that block.
I hadn't envisioned it that way. And, actually, I think the bill is silent on the issue.
But in certain commercial districts, the parking is in force beyond 8:00 p.m.; am I not correct?
We had envisioned that these would be in effect during whatever the prevailing regulation time was.
Right. So like Manayunk. You said Manayunk, didn't you? Well, in Manayunk I'm sure -- is it 8:00 p.m.? It ends at 8:00 p.m.? 130 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Okay. And then the businesses are still open there; that's your point.
My point being, if a person with disabilities wants to go to go to a Manayunk restaurant or a Germantown Avenue restaurant, that at 8 o'clock, or whatever time it expires, then a nondisability person can park in that spot, the disability person pulls up, there is no spot.
I would like to make a comment. I am Roger Margulies from the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities. If these meters are going to be painted blue, and are going to be at a lower height than all the other meters, if they were designated as disability parking spaces hours a day, it 24 would be very clear to the public, both the nondisabled drivers and drivers with disabilities, 131 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 that these are parking spaces for people with disabilities.
I don't think we need to amend the legislation to do it. The time limits on parking regulations are done by regulation, not by ordinance. So we could do that by way of regulation.
We can accommodate that by way of regulation. Councilwoman Miller.
Two-hour parking meaning what, you must feed the meter for two hours?
If I come out and decide to put another quarter in, or whatever, then I can continue to park there?
Technically under the law, you cannot. We do not enforce that provision of the law currently. And the reality on the street is, most people do not do it. There are some people 132 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 that do. But the turnover on parking meters that are not occupied by vehicles with plates or placards for disabilities is faster than the posted time limit, throughout the city. There are the occasional person who may do that during the course of a day. But it is sort of self-regulating because it is too much trouble to keep running in and out every two hours. And one time you are going to get caught and get a ticket, and it is just not worth it to most people. But technically under the law, that is not legal.
Right. You know, that is a problem in some commercial corridors, where business owners will come out and attempt to feed the meter every two hours and get tickets and then call us.
And the other thing is, the vendors tend to do it, at least in the vending area of Germantown and Chelten. 133 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And so that's a question that we keep asking. And we get a lot of different -- so it is illegal, but it is according to how you are enforcing it?
That is absolutely correct. And, Councilwoman, we would be happy to enforce it. We stopped enforcing it over almost years ago at the request of City Council. And we 11 would be happy to revisit that, if the Council 12 wished us to. 13
There are some places 14 where there is some enforcement. I know in my 15 district on East Passyunk. 16 I shouldn't say I don't get calls. 17 They still call; I just don't return those calls, 18 where the business owners are feeding the meter all 19 day long. 20 And they are the same people that complain that the city doesn't do anything to encourage shopping, their taxes are too high, and everything else. But when we ask them to move the car -- because one of the biggest complaints we get 134 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 in those types of communities, where parking is a premium, is that people don't shop there because they can't find a parking space. So on one hand they want us to do what we can to encourage shopping, but they don't help us on the other hand by getting their car and/or their employees' cars off the avenue and parking it in one of the local garages. They want it both ways. But it doesn't work that way.
Yes, I am finished. I will give you a call and we will set up some meetings.
Is it appropriate now to talk about the off-street parking, the parking lots?
My question is enforcement. 135 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Now, we place all these meters around town, and we have reserved parking in Parking Authority facilities and also private garages. Here is my question: A disabled person pulls up, has a cell phone, calls 911. The police come out. My point here is timing. Because the length of the process, in many cases the person that's parked in that spot will drop off their dry cleaning, and in eight minutes be gone before even the police respond. The police get there, the spot is empty; an officer looks around, you know, why am I here. But there was a reason. Eight minutes before there was a person parked at that spot that shouldn't be. Have we worked out the process with the Police Department? Who will be towing? You said that this is going to be a towable offense. Will the Parking Authority have the resources with how many of these, 900 meters, to really, realistically, make an effort? You are telling me that there is going to be an effort to tow these cars?
You started the 136 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 question by saying it related to garages.
I want to talk about the difference between a garage violation versus an on-street violation.
We certainly have the resources to tow in Center City. We are limited in areas outside of Center City, but the problem is not nearly as significant outside of Center City.
But it will be. In other words, if you start installing these meters in a corridor in Northeast Philadelphia, and after a month there is not going -- they will get a ticket. Hopefully the minimum would be the ticket. How much will the ticket be?
Under the Councilman's amendment it would be -- did you say $300?
I didn't think we 137 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 could go that high.
And what we intend to do, Councilman, is post the fine on the sign as an added incentive for people not to park there if they are not qualified to.
I wasn't aware that you could go. I thought 100 was the maximum. If 300 is the maximum --
300 is the maximum we are allowed under state statute to impose.
So that will be posed. But, again, I hesitate in voting on things that I know are never going to happen.
I tell you in the area that's most severely impacted, which is Center City, we do have the resources and are equipped to tow vehicles that are parked illegally.
Do we have a relationship with private contractors in any part of 138 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 the city that work as your representative?
If private contractors tow cars from private parking lots that are in violation of parking, if you can't deal with it, would there be any consideration of having another person relocate or impound the vehicle?
I suppose it is something we could look into. I don't know what the legal implications of that are.
Now let's go to the parking garage. Will Philadelphia Police be able to go into a private garage, Parking Authority, private sector, and issue that $300 ticket?
We did that, I think, as a result of the last hearing, we did an amendment to that effect.
Is the Police Department aware that they would be doing that in private property? And does the state allow that to occur? 139 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Does the Police Department know that they would have to enter private property to issue --
I have not had conversations with the Police Department. I don't know if the Councilman DiCicco has.
It is in the bill. If I can read Point G, "City of Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public garages for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the subsection," so on and so forth.
How would that work? Would the pecking order be your enforcement people before the police?
Generally, where there is a parking facility on a current enforcement beat, that would be added to their patrol.
And one of your tow trucks would enter the private parking lot?
There aren't provisions to tow from private facilities; it is just to 140 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 ticket.
Mr. Chairman, are you aware of that? I am sure you are aware of that. No provision to tow in private parking lots.
I don't believe that that is a provision of the bill; just ticket.
Not in the bill. I don't know if there are some liability issues about towing cars off of private properties. I think that may be an issue.
But the police currently tow, with permission from the owner, off of private property. So why would this be any different?
I am just saying that it is not currently a provision of the bill, as I understand it.
If you illegally block a dumpster in an apartment complex, the owner has pre-authorized the towing contractor in his community, because the signs are posted --
But in those cases -- I am not being argumentative -- but in those cases they are properly posted, so-and-so towing service, 141 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 illegal parking by authorization of the condo association, towing will be by such and such towing. I don't know -- again, I am not an attorney -- so I don't know if we could physically go on there, and if we would want to go on there.
I am not suggesting that the City of Philadelphia. I am suggesting, like Councilwoman Miller just said, she can't imagine why there would have to be a difference. Why couldn't we post those handicapped spots as being eligible, if the owner of the parking, the management of the parking facility, called and said, "We have a person that is parked illegally in a handicapped spot," have that vehicle removed?
I think that's a different question, Councilman DiCicco. The question initially was, I think, could the police or the Parking Authority tow from private property. Private property owners currently have the ability to contract with a private tow 142 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 operator to tow vehicles from their property. I'm not aware of any situation in which the police, and I know the Parking Authority, has not towed from private property.
But the police and Parking Authority do have the authority, will have the authority, to go write a $300 ticket.
And if it is properly posted that way, that spot or those spaces are properly posted, I think there is a disincentive, as you suggested earlier, for someone to park in that space.
But if the signage indicated that you are subject to, if you violate, fine and towing, I think that would put some additional teeth into the legislation.
That's currently an option that's available to the garage owner. If they want to post it to say, You will be towed by XYZ Towing Company, they have the prerogative to do that now under the building code.
But they would still have the prerogative if in fact they were 143 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 violating that handicapped spot?
Again, I don't want to belabor this. But I think what happens here is similar to what happens at a shopping center, Acme Market. You have areas that are dedicated to accessible handicapped parking. And if you park on there currently, you get a 75 or 100 dollar ticket I think now.
Hundred dollars is it? I wouldn't have any problem with somebody could tow someone's car. I just don't know if the city wants to enforce that, because I think we may have some serious problems on liability. But, again, not being an attorney, I just hesitate about that.
I am looking down the road on the community that has those spots reserved, when we get the phone call saying that someone has parked, even though they have gotten the ticket -- 144 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
-- in a garage, that the law is different than the law that exists out on the street.
But it is a public street versus a private garage. And I think that's --
I don't have the answer, either. I am saying, we are imposing legislation on the parking.
Can we agree that if it is the desire of this committee to vote these out, and then we can investigate that and always come back at a later date to amend it, if we have to?
I don't want to 145 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 beat it to death here.
It will take us to February before we can get back to get another hearing. So rather than do that, take it under advisement. Fair enough? Councilwoman Miller.
I have two quick questions for you around accessibility, ADA. Who monitors accessible parking in private lots? Is that up to the owners?
Do you mean who monitors whether they have the appropriate number of spaces?
Like, I see in this bill, in public lots, there are a required number of accessible spaces. Is there the same type of requirement in private lots because of ADA?
All off-street parking facilities are under the same requirements in the ADA to provide a certain number of standard handicapped parking spaces and van-accessible spaces. And it is based on the total capacity of the garage. And that's regardless of whether it 146 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 is a public or a privately owned garage.
Okay. And one other question for Rich, the Parking Authority. The bill that we talked about today in terms of towing vehicles illegally parked on sidewalks.
We are going to go back to the previous bill. I think Mr. Jordan may want to stick around for this.
Right. Bill 11 No. 673. So I assume that the Philadelphia Parking Authority or the Police Department will come out and tow the vehicles that are illegally parked on sidewalks?
That would be what the bill requests, yes. Currently we tow cars off of sidewalks if they are in established tow zones. If they are outside of the boundaries of established tow districts, we do not tow them. This bill would create sidewalk parking as a towable offense no matter where it was located.
Now, honestly, the same response that I gave to Councilman Rizzo in terms of towing out of reserved spaces. We have the facilities and the equipment to tow in Center City and parts of University City. I could not promise that in every instance we would be able to tow citywide every car that was parked on a sidewalk.
Okay. So that, I guess, the responsibility will be between the Parking Authority and the Police Department?
Okay. When someone parks in a driveway -- and I know that's different than parking it on the sidewalk -- but if they block the driveway of a private home, someone told me that you can actually call a tow truck, a towing company, and get that car towed. You know, you have to pay for it personally. Do you know if that's true or not? In fact, it was a police officer that said that.
I don't know for sure. I don't want to hazard a guess, and it might be 148 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 wrong. My understanding was that it must be towed by a city official, unless the city contracted for a specific towing responsibility, such as they have done with abandoned vehicles. But from the street, I'm just not sure. I didn't think it was possible, but it may be. That would be a question for the City Solicitor, I guess. I am not qualified to answer it.
Okay. We will ask that. Because you know that is a problem. Just like people park on sidewalks and block pedestrians, they also park in drive in front of driveways and block in cars and residents. And that's a big problem in my district. So, okay. All right. Thank you.
I was just moving the speaker in place. I didn't have any questions.
Any other questions 149 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 for these witnesses? Hearing none. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? If so, please approach the witness table. Thank you very much, Mr. Margulies. Thank you very much for your cooperation. And I really appreciate your input in helping us. Same to you Ms. Faux. And give my best to Ms. Russo.
May I ask one question? It was too good to be true that I wasn't going to ask any. One question. These used car dealers who throughout the city seem to feel that they can use the sidewalks --
Councilman Cohen, these folks were here testifying on the handicapped parking bills. We did that sidewalk bill about a half hour ago. We had spoke about that. If you have a question, I mean, I might be able to answer it it for you. But the people who were here to testify are all gone on that bill. 150 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
They do ticketing, I guess. If you have a question for Mr. Dickson, I guess you can raise it.
Well, let me just raise the question, then you handle it --
-- as you see appropriate. I was just wondering about the situation. We get many complaints about used car dealers who use the sidewalks in front of their properties as additional space for placing cars with Sale signs.
Let me try to answer that, Mr. Dickson, first. Existing legislation says that you are not, A, supposed to park your car on the sidewalk. The bill that we heard testimony on today, Bill No. 673, will go one step further and say that the police then would have the authorization to tow that vehicle, as well as ticket 151 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 that vehicle. About a year or two ago I introduced a bill, and this committee voted out favorably and it was ultimately passed, that increases the fine for sale of a car on a public highway and/or sidewalk to $300. And I believe on that same bill I believe that it also authorizes the city to tow that vehicle. The problem we had, as I found out, is that the Philadelphia Traffic Court did not have that violation as on the ticket book. So the police, when they took the time to write those violations, were only writing a $25 fine for sale of a car on a highway. And I understand from my conversations with the Administrative Judge at Traffic Court, Judge DeAngelis, that in this new set of ticket books that are being printed, it will reflect the new code and the new fine, which is $300. And hopefully the enforcement will discourage that from happening.
Now, which, if 152 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 any, of the matters you referred to would in your judgment deal with the used-car dealer who uses his immediate sidewalk?
I think both. The bill that we heard testimony on today, 673, and the previous bill, which Council passed a year or two ago, that says it is illegal to sell a car on a highway in the City of Philadelphia.
Now, again, that's, I guess, up to interpretation. One bill today says if you have a car parked on the sidewalk, you are subject to a fine and towing. So they can do that, or they can just write the $300 ticket for having a sale of a car. I understand the technicality "highway" versus "sidewalk." But I think both bills will cover one or the other.
Yes, Councilman. And we received a letter from your 153 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 office the end of last week indicating a number of locations where that's a problem. And we have people visiting them this week to tell them that that practice needs to end or we will begin enforcing the prohibition of parking on the sidewalk.
Very good. I am getting a very prompt answer to our letters. We appreciate it from the Parking Authority.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickson. Any other witnesses, please come forward, whoever they are. Bruise McElrad, Jennifer DePaul, Jessie Jane Lewis, and Laura whose last name the clerk can't remember. You can come up together, any way you would like. You can all come up. Thank you for your patience in waiting for these hearings to go on. Thank you.
I don't know 154 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 what you guys do in terms of going to the bathroom.
You need to, if you can, put that microphone a little closer to you so we can hear you. And please identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.
Please do bring it as close, say, as I have it to mind.
I commend City Council on the work that has been done to write this ordinance. It is a very good next step toward resolving this parking meter problem. We are moving towards the answer, but I don't think we are there quite yet. I am active in the voting rights campaign in our city and nationally. People with disabilities are now looking at what our elected 155 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 officials are doing for us. Will the proposed ordinance make it easier for people with disabilities to park in town? Probably not. Is the city doing anything to stop the abuse that is taking place? With the proposed ordinance, would tourists with disabilities and their families view Philadelphia as a destination city, or one to, quote, avoid at all costs? Would the ordinance make it easier for people with disabilities to live or work here? Probably not. Would it be easier to shop here? Probably not. We do take longer to do things, this is true. But it is not just the extra hour, but the extra effort. It takes me about five times as much effort to come here, down to this City Council meeting, to testify, for example, than the average person. If I had to return to my car at Logan Square to feed the meter, I would probably just bag 156 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 the whole thing. Or, here is another question. Is it a disabled person's right to shop here, or should Philadelphia just say no to the disabled? A present day Mississippi for people with disabilities, as a friend of mine recently put it. Is this an image Philadelphia wants to portray? We have to be very careful here that the rights of the people you are trying to help are not forfeited. We can't micro manage it all. Jennifer DePaul's letter to Patrick Mulligan shows reasoned thinking. It attempts to examine this issue carefully. I am assuming this is what City Hall is doing, examining carefully and to recognize that nondisabled people cannot make choices for us that we would not make for ourselves. I and others would gladly serve on a committee to help pin these ideas down further. About the abuse. In Philadelphia, many nondisabled people have been taking advantage of free parking at meters, and frequently stay all day, occupying spaces for those who really need them 157 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 and costing the city money. We all agree there is abuse of the system. Let's find away to foil the cheaters. The HP tags and placard system is not a reliable way to identify those who are truly handicapped. A city sticker, which is not automatically renewable, may be an easy solution. One might be more stringent -- one with more stringent requirements, perhaps a narrative report by a doctor with his name, address and phone and signature, and a yearly renewal period like we presently have in our motor vehicle inspections, where a sticker is also required. So what would the criteria be? How can meter-readers determine whether to give tickets or not? Before we get a sticker system in place, where would we begin? Well, the disability must be permanent, no placards. , a special seat, a scooter or wheelchair lift, plainly visible, that would be easy ones for the meter readers to 158 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 spot and would be -- and people should be allowed to park all day in those circumstances. Placards would possibly allow extending the time for one hour. Other disabled people, though, who don't use hand controls, for example, clearly need the extra accommodation. Take Roger Margulies, head of the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities. He can walk, albeit with difficulty sometimes, and he drives without hand controls. His disability is permanent. He already has the HP tags, license tags. He could simply apply for the yearly HP windshield sticker for his car. The lower meters, the reserved HP meters in spots, will not solve the problem. Although many people with disabilities cannot use conventional meters, able bodied people will be able to bend down to use the handicapped meter.
So I don't think it is an issue -- it will solve the issue. My daughter, a Masterman student, is interested in law, and recently sent her early application in to Brown University. 159 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 They required her to write an essay on something, a timely issue, that the applicant feels strongly about. She chose the issue that we are here discussing today. Here is the conclusion of her essay: We have all witnessed countless occasions where a perfectly able bodied person has parked in a handicapped spot. I have experienced times, however, when a handicapped parking space is essential or when not having to pay the meter is vital. By repealing the ordinance, it is true that those abusing the situations would be punished. But it is also true that those who really need those spots would be punished, too, and perhaps more severely. Certainly more time and thought need to be put into this before measures are taken. Thank you.
Listening to your testimony, I think a number of the issues that you 160 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 raised we have been trying to deal with for a while.
And most of the comments that you made I believe are issues that we need to address at the state level. I certainly believe, and agree with you, that a better system of issuing placards, plates, stickers, what-have-you, is in need. There is no question to that. And I have, as I said earlier, been working with Senator Fumo's office. And we are trying to see what it is we can do at the state level. But given the constraints of what we can do at the local level, I don't have a crystal ball. You may be right, we may not be creating a better environment than exists today. We may not be creating an opportunity for disabled people to have more time to shop. I don't know. I know what goes on today. I see it with my own eyes. I have walked the streets. I am throughout Center City six, seven days a week, 161 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 morning, afternoon, and evening. And I see the abuse. And what I am hoping is that by eliminating or significantly reducing the abuse, we then raise the availability of spaces for those who are truly disabled. And in Bill 358, we in that bill 9 identify the fact that there will be people who may have vehicles that have wheelchair lifts and/or hand-held devices. And those folks would still be allowed and permitted to park at a meter free all day. I believe I am correct in my interpretation -- or, no. Well, we were thinking of taking that out. But because of the issues that have been raised, we are leaving that in.
That's good. My suggestion for the stickers, it would be a city sticker.
I don't know. And I am not an attorney, and I just don't know that we can do that. I certainly would be more than interested in continuing to investigate. Should 162 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 this get voted out of committee favorably and be passed by City Council, in my mind it is not the end. I just think it is a good beginning. And I would be more than willing to continue to work with all the interested parties to figure out what we can do at the local level, as well as the state level.
Well, there are people that are following me, and I feel that I am --
Logan Circle. I parked near the fountain; by the library, by the fountain.
It is because I travel 163 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 enough times to Center City that I know that if I haven't found a spot by then, probably I won't. So I sort of -- I saw a spot open up, I just grabbed it. And luckily today I just scooted right in.
I just appreciate your testimony, and certainly can identify with some of what you said. I have a daughter who had a leg amputated. So I used to drive her around. And so I have personally encountered some of the same situations that you have, and other people have, that are trying to find an accessible space, you know, with the wheelchair in the trunk and all the other things. So I think that this bill is an important bill. And it does kind of start to address some of the issues that will ultimately hopefully get changed. So I do think it is the beginning. And I think maybe the accessible parking spaces that the Parking Authority is going to install on blocks might also help eventually. Because right now there is none. I can't think of 164 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 any on-street meters that are reserved.
Then what would prevent the person, an able bodied person with a handicapped tag, parking in those metered?
But my question, if I can interrupt, you parked near Logan Circle, you said?
I have a vehicle with sort of a star-wars-type ramp that goes out.
Under this ordinance -- and I am not certain what your vehicle looks like -- but if it was a vehicle that had an obvious lift on it -- 165 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
-- then you could park anywhere you could find a parking space, obviously, free. I know it is not just about you.
I am just citing that as an example. But also, even with that vehicle, because there are so many other people who have handicapped placards and plates -- and we know this to be a fact, although we can't just enforce it properly -- are parked properly closer to City Hall than you parked today, and they shouldn't have a handicapped placard or plate. But the point is, they are taking up, possibly taking up, valuable spaces from people who are truly in need of the space.
I am so thrilled that you are addressing, trying to address, these issues. And when you go down the street, and nowadays I am taking notice -- I wasn't always disabled -- and I am taking notice of, it is every 166 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 other space is taken up by a person who is --
As I stated earlier, recent reports, 1995, 1997 was whatever the numbers were. At that time I think recent reports are -- correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Dickson -- around the 60 percent, 65 percent percentile in the core of Center City --
41 percent in the core of Center City meaning river to river, Arch Street to South Street, I guess, is Center City. Over 40 percent of those spaces are occupied on a daily basis full time by somebody with a placard or plate, 60-something percent in Center City along Chestnut Street alone. And I am an observer, and I know what they do. I saw the car from Jersey that had a tag that expired in December of 1997. They stuck a placard on the dashboard that said, "Handicapped New 167 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Jersey Driver." And that's the end of it for eight hours. And they are taking up everyone's space, illegally.
I just had a comment with regard to concerns about people parking in these designated handicapped metered spaces who have the plates and placards illegitimately. The only benefit to parking in those spaces, if this passes, is a physical one, that it's with an accessible meter and near a curb cut. So if I as a nondisabled person have a handicapped placard that I obtained illegitimately, there would be no benefit to me parking there because I would still have to pay, just as I would --
You would still have to pay, and you would have to move it within three hours. So you are not going to park it at 8 o'clock in the morning, go to your place of employment, and leave it there until 5:00 or 6 168 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 o'clock, when you leave. And that's what's happening. There are many examples. And what brought this to my attention was the 700 block of Sansom Street, where somewhere between and of 7 the metered parking spaces on that block are 8 occupied Monday through Friday -- and I guess this 9 time of the year Monday through Sunday -- by 10 vehicles that have handicapped placards or plates. 11 And I physically observed people who 12 got out of their car, walked two, three blocks to 13 work. 14 Some of the merchants who complain 15 they are not doing business in the city because 16 taxes are too high and all these other problems, 17 they have these handicapped plates from New Jersey, 18 Delaware, wherever they are, and they run their 19 businesses. I don't think it is fair to any of us. 20 And I know you and I are agreeing on 21 that. I am just making a comment. 22 And this, we hope, will eliminate 23 some of that, thereby freeing up available on-street parking, which is what meters were created to do to get the turnover. 169 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And we are still going to provide the hour grace period for those folks who have a placard and plate.
Here is another idea. That I think the bigger issue is that we don't have enough off-street parking. And, I mean, I know you are endeavoring to find better ways to resolve that, as well. But I just think that would be -- I didn't address this in my actual testimony.
That's a very good point. And I won't get into any further debate. But we don't want to really talk about revenue. But revenue, everything affects revenue. And in that 1995 or 1997 survey, in the core of Center City -- and I described what the core was -- unpaid legal parking accounted for between and a half and million dollars in lost revenues in meters alone. Now, the Parking Authority could use that money to do a lot of things with, and maybe possibly create new off-street parking facilities. I mean, that's a significant amount of money. 170 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And, again, I don't want to reduce this to being a fining mill and a money situation. But the reality is, the majority of those people out there are really not entitled to be parking there, and they make life miserable for all of us, including loss of major revenue to the City of Philadelphia. Thank you, Ms. Lewis. Have a nice day. Sir, I think did you want to testify? Sir, would you please identify yourself. MR. BRUCE McELRATH: My name is Bruce McElrath, M-C-E-L-R-A-T-H. And I represent Disabilities Rights Advocacy Group. First of all, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present my testimony in reference to Bills 358 and 359. 359 I am definitely in favor of, because it would help to mandate and enforce the mandate of handicapped parking spaces that should be in parking lots. It would also allow the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia Parking Authority to go in and ticket those individuals that 171 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 illegally park in handicapped spaces. So I applaud you on that measure. However, Bill 358, which will basically take away free parking from persons with disabilities because of abusive parking or illegal parking by those who are not disabled, first of all, I will agree that there is a lot and widespread abusive parking with handicapped spaces. However, I don't view this as a city problem; I think it comes from the state. When you look at the placards that the Department of Transportation issues to individuals, those placards are good for five years. In the Year 2000, if I am issued a placard or my spouse is issued a placard, and my spouse is deceased in the Year 2001, that's four additional years that that able-bodied spouse has to use that handicapped placard, whether it is legal or illegal. I think one of the ways on cutting down on this abusive parking is if the Department of Transportation limited that expiration date to one year, where each person would have to reapply after 172 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 a year for that handicapped placard. I look at the 70 percent of the disabled population is unemployed. In 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act was passed. That act was not to, in essence, give the store away to persons with disabilities. But it was a piece of legislation that was put in place to kind of level the playing field for persons with disabilities to help mainstream them back into society. When I get up in the morning, I am independent. And I applaud that right of being independent. But it would take me longer to get dressed because of my disability than it would an able-bodied person. Thus, when I park at a parking meter, and I am given the privilege of being able to park there for free, what that helps me to do, or what it helps to do, is level the playing field. If an able-bodied person is at work or at various places, and would have to come out every three hours to feed a parking meter, it would be much easier for them. 173 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Because they don't have to take into consideration hills. They don't have to take into consideration maybe the lack of a curb cut. They may not would even have to take into consideration in inclement weather when there is snow, and the city cleans the streets and piles the snow up in front of a curb cut.
Or if you go to various parking lots, such as some of the parking malls, and the handicapped spaces there are filled with snow, where they have plowed the lot to clear the lot for other patrons, not taking into account that disabled people shop, too. When you look at the City of Philadelphia as being the fifth largest city in the nation, who at one time was an industrial city, and now is going into tourism, when we look at the economics that possibly making the City of Philadelphia a disability-friendly city would bring in. Disabled people spend money, as well. But they can only do that if they are afforded the opportunities as able-bodied people are. 174 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 When you look at the laws that are currently on the books, and we talk about enforcement, we all know that it is illegal for an able-bodied person to park in handicapped spot, but in essence it happens. When you call the Police Department to ask them to come and ticket that individual, that priority is so low on the list, until your call is never answered. So you still have people that are abusing the system. I think that we should all work together in trying to overcome this handicap abuse. But I don't think that people that are in desperate need of a service or an accommodation should be punished for a few of those who refuse to abide by the law. So I ask your consideration. I offer you a challenge. Fortunately, many of you do not have physical disabilities. But I ask that before you consider passing this piece of legislation, that you honestly consider, if at all possible, doing your day's work in a wheelchair, trying to accomplish your everyday 175 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 mission in a wheelchair. Each and every one of you that I face today have people in your districts that you represent that have disabilities, some through no 6 fault of their own. , and was robbed and shot four times, thus enabling me in the condition that I am in now. It never dawned on me the importance of a curb cut until I became an individual that had to utilize a wheelchair for mobility. Now that curb cut is very important to me because it gives me my independence to travel on a sidewalk safely, so that I don't have to roll in the street and possibly be hit by a car. So I ask that before you make this decision of taking free parking away from individuals that have disabilities, I ask that you strongly consider the other instances that one has to take into account, and that is the efforts that one has to put forth in a wheelchair to even go back and pay a meter; to get in and out of a car having 176 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 to fold up a wheelchair, pull it across you, put it in the back seat, put yourself in a position where you are able to drive a car, close a door. The other thing that I ask you to look upon is, fortunately, I have a pretty good income. So it doesn't matter to me if I have to pay a parking lot, or even if I have to use a parking garage to pay or dollars. I am in Center City 10 practically every day. 11 But for those people that have to 12 come to Center City that are on limited incomes, I 13 ask you to take in mind that if they are disabled 14 and they are not able to use a parking meter and 15 have to refeed a meter, and then not even so much 16 the fact of refeeding the meter, but only able to 17 park there for three hours, which would in turn make 18 them park or utilize a garage, to have to pay 15 or 19 20 dollars a day is a large amount of money for a 20 person on a fixed income. When you look at senior citizens that may drive, that may have disabilities, and they go to a doctor's office, you may have a o'clock appointment, but nobody is guaranteed that you are going to get seen by a doctor at o'clock. 177 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Sometimes it is o'clock before you can even see a doctor to come back out of that office.
4 I parked in a parking lot today -- it 5 is going to cost me about 15 or 20 dollars -- just to exercise my right to come here and give testimony at a Public Hearing. If I was on a low income, I could not afford that. Don't ask me to take public transportation or to utilize the Paratransit service. Because anybody knows that they have done better, but the service is not what it should be. You may catch a Paratransit van that may take you to your destination, but may not come back to pick you up. You may try to catch a bus in which a wheelchair lift is not working and may be passed by. So all of these obstacles that are put in people's way that have disabilities, I ask that you members give strong consideration. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else who wishes to testify? 178 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 And also, sir, I just want to comment that, as you may have heard my earlier statement to Ms. Lewis, that I will continue to work, I am sure this committee will be willing to work with me, even at the state level. And I agree on those issues. I think there should be periodic reexamination or reissuance of placards or plates or maybe a sticker system. I certainly think that that would probably eliminate more than a significant amount of the problems that we are encountering with those folks who are abusing the system. I think that's our biggest problem out there, I really do. And this may not be the best solution to it. And obviously we had a disagreement at least on one of the bills. I understood you to say you do support 359, but you have a problem with 358. I said at the onset, this is not a perfect solution to the problem. But, in my opinion, I think it gets us a little further away. And I think it really heightens the awareness to the people at PennDOT or the state who issue all these placards and plates, I mean, literally with very little investigation at all, to 179 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 my knowledge. And we can bring some of this testimony with us when we go speak to those folks at the state level.
For the record, I think it might be an interesting concept that since we all agree that the issuance and the process that's used in issuing the handicapped placards and license plates, maybe you would consider a letter, you as the Chairman and we as the members, to the Governor asking for some immediate relief for evaluation of the process. I would be more than happy to support a letter like that to Harrisburg.
I think we could do the letter. But I still think it would require an act of the state legislature to do that. And that's why I am working with Senator Fumo's office, to see if we can at least begin to make a working committee, similar we did at the city level, to address those issues and come up with something that makes more sense than what we have today.
From what I 180 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 understand, like the Parking Authority made an adjustment here today on the way that these meters would be viewed that would be placed in the district, business districts, that PennDOT also has the authority to make certain adjustments to the program as it exists. So I believe administratively many of the issues that we have concerns with would not require the legislature's involvement. So I don't think we want to limit it to the Secretary of Transportation --
I am not limiting anything. I said I am open for discussion, and I am willing to continue to work with the appropriate folks to figure out what we need to do at the state level. And if it is a letter to the Governor, fine. I think a letter to the Governor will initiate him to say, Go talk to so and so. 181 BILL NOS. 358 and 359
Maybe there are certain things internally that they can do.
Thank you. Thank you, sir, again. And the next witness, please. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. JENNIFER DePAUL: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer DePaul, and I am an advocate with the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association. To my right is Laura Schronger, the Regional Administrator for EPVA. I realize it is a late hour, and I will try to be brief with our comments. Thank you for the opportunity to present comments on the proposed amendments to Bill 19 No. " I am speaking on behalf of the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans' Association, or EPVA, a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the lives of veterans with spinal cord injury or disease by assuring quality health care, 182 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 promoting research, and advocating for civil rights and independence. Last June, EPVA submitted written comments and presented testimony to the members of the Streets Committee. At that time we recommended that Council investigate more proactive means to address the parking needs of both the disabled community and business owners in Philadelphia. Before preparing written comments for this committee, EPVA researched other cities and discovered that there are technological and creative solutions which could be examined before the city altered its existing ordinance on handicapped parking. We feel that the current version of Bill 358 contains several of these technological and creative solutions that EPVA has supported for the past six months. In fact, it is our opinion that this ordinance, with the proposed amendments, coincides with both the spirit and intent of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The primary issue at hand pertains to 183 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 the exemption for physically handicapped persons and disabled or severely disabled veterans from parking time limits and parking meter fees. The proposed ordinance provides that a motor vehicle bearing a handicapped or disabled plate or placard may park free of charge for a period of 60 minutes in excess of the maximum time limit, rather than for an unlimited period of time, on streets where parking is limited, but not prohibited, under certain terms and conditions. This position is identical to that outlined in Pennsylvania Vehicle Law. As we stated last June, EPVA supports equal access to all services provided by state and local government agencies, as outlined in Title 2 of the ADA. Since the committee's last review of this ordinance, several changes have been proposed which in EPVA's opinion are beneficial to all parties involved. The first proposed amendment involves the installation of accessible parking meters, which will be usable by persons with disabilities throughout the city. Additionally, the city will create 184 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 one reserved accessible parking space to be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to the closest accessible curb ramp on each hundred block in the City of Philadelphia on which there is metered parking. We feel that both of these amendments are examples of proactive steps which will enable people with disabilities who drive in the city to park in metered spaces, have an extra hour accommodation at no charge because of mobility limitations, and subsequently participate in their communities and be active members in society. EPVA would like to take this opportunity, however, to urge the Parking Authority to ensure that the accessible features of these parking meters are properly maintained, as mandated by federal law. This includes both the removal of snow and debris from the area surrounding these meters and also ensuring that all technological means of providing access to these meters are fully investigated. The ability of individuals with disabilities to use Smart cards and other payment 185 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 methods, such as debt cards, can significantly increase the usability of parking meters for drivers with mobility limitations.
EPVA also supports the proposed amendment to Title of the Philadelphia Code, which 7 adds provisions to require accessible parking spaces 8 in public garages and lots, under certain terms and 9 conditions. In closing, EPVA would like to stress that we have a history of supporting legislation which enables individuals with disabilities to become active participants in society. Since the passage of the ADA ten years ago, people with disabilities have proven that, with slight accommodations, such as one additional hour at a metered parking space and lowered parking meter heights, equality can be readily achieved and can also benefit all individuals at the same time. Finally, it is EPVA's position that the proposed amendments to Bill 358 are both fair and equitable, and this version of the bill 24 satisfies the concerns of all stakeholders in this issue. 186 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Thank you for the opportunity to present the views and comments of EPVA.
Thank you. Do you care to testify, ma'am? Thank you. Any questions? I thank you for your patience. I know it has been a long day. Thank you for waiting. And I also thank you for your help in developing these two pieces of legislation. And I won't repeat what I said earlier. This is only a beginning. I fully intend to investigate this from a selfish reason, because I just want to eliminate as much of the abuse that's going on out there as possible. Because I know that it is injurious to everyone else, and I am fully committed to doing that. Any other folks who wish to testify? What I am going to do now is reenter into the public record the amendments that were proposed at the last meeting back in June, I believe, so that the record is correct, and then we will move into the public meeting. 187 BILL NOS. 358 and 359 Proposed amendment to Bill No. 3 000359. Amend Subsection 9-601(2)(a)(.8)(g) as follows: "City of Philadelphia Police Officers and Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public garages for the purposes of," strike ensuring the legal use of all excessive parking space, enter "enforcing the provisions of Subsection 12-1117(4)(b) relating to improper parking and accessible parking spaces." Further amend Subsection 9-601(4)(a)(.8)(e) as follows: "City of Philadelphia Police Officers and Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public," scratch "parking," "enter parking lots for the purpose of," strike, "ensuring the legal use of all accessible parking spaces," enter "enforcing the provisions of Subsection 12-1117(4)(b) relating to the improper parking in accessible parking spaces." This completes the Public Hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 188 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Monday, December 4, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 358, 359, 673, 681, 704, 719, 720, 611, 660, 41 - - - 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 MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - 189 PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into a public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. Councilman Cohen, I think in your absence we had introduced two amendments to Bill No. 7 358 and 359. And I would ask that you make a recommendation that those amendments be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments offered previously to Bills 358 and 359 be accepted by the committee. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill Nos. 358 and 359 be adopted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The amendments are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 358 as amended.
I move that Bill 23 358 as amended be approved by this committee and reported out favorably, together with a suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council 190 PUBLIC MEETING meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 358 as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 359 as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 359 as amended be reported out with a favorable recommendation by this committee, and with a request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 359 as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be 191 PUBLIC MEETING suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The bill is approved as amended. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 673.
Mr. Chairman, I move to Bill 673 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, together with a request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 673 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen 192 PUBLIC MEETING for a motion on Bill No. 681.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 681 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and with the request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It was been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 681 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 704.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 704 be reported out with a favorable recommendation by this committee, and with a request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and 193 PUBLIC MEETING properly seconded that Bill No. 704 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. Bill No. 719 is being held at the request of the sponsor of the bill, as is Bill No. 11 720. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Resolution No. 611.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution 611 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and with the request for approval by the full Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Resolution No. 611 be reported out of this committee for approval by the full City Council. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 194 PUBLIC MEETING The resolution is approved. Resolution No. 41 is being held by the sponsor of the bill, at the request of the sponsor of the bill. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 660, retaining walls.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 660 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and with the request for suspension of Rules to permit first reading. Thank God. (Duly seconded.)
Properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 660 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. That concludes this public meeting.
My thanks to Council Members Clark and Nutter both particularly on 660.
Thank you all for your 195 PUBLIC MEETING patience in helping me get through the testimony. (Public Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) - - - 196 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, December 4, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR