COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:50 a.m. - - - BILLS 030214, 030247, 030249, 030250, 030333, 030336, 030337, 030338, 030341, 030343, 030344, 030345, 030346, 030347, 030348, 030349, 030350, 030351, 030352, 030374, 030375, 030376, 030378, 030380, 030381, 030384, 030385, 030387, 030388, 030390, 030391, 030393, 030394, 030396, 030398. RESOLUTION 030401. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030385 PAGE CHARLES DENNY, Dept. of Streets ............ MARLENE MOSLEY ............................. BILL 030338 CHARLES DENNY, Dept. of Streets ............ HELMIT KRANTZ (ph) ......................... 6 DAVID ARBICOFF (ph) ........................ FRED MAURER ................................ BILL 030387 CHARLES DENNY, Dept. of Streets ............ 29 BILL 030394 CHARLES DENNY, Dept. of Streets ............ 40 AARON FINESTONE, Office of Councilman O'Neill 42 BILL 030250 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ...................... 43 AARON FINESTONE, Office of Councilman O'Neill 44 BILL 030333 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ...................... 46 Bill 030337 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ...................... 47 BILL 030249 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 49 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Commission ..... 50 AARON FINESTONE, Office of Councilman O'Neill 51 BILL 030347 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 52 CARL PRIMAVERA .............................. 52 BILL 030391 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 54 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Commission ..... 54 CARL PRIMAVERA .............................. 55 BILL 030350 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 57 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Commission ..... 57 BILL 030352 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 59 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Commission ..... 59 BILL 030376 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 60 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Commission ..... 61 RICHARD DEMARCO, ESQ. ....................... 61 BILL 030381 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 62 MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning Commission ..... 62 3 I N D E X (continued) BILL 030393 PAUL LONIE, Department of Streets ........... 65 BILL 030374 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 66 BILL 030388 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 71 BILL 030384 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 73 BILL 030214 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 74 BILL 030343 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 76 BILL 030344 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 78 BILL 030396 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 79 BILL 030378 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 81 BRIAN HERON, Coleman Properties ............. 82 BILL 030349 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 84 BILL 030345 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 85 BILL 030375 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 88 BILL 030390 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 89 BILL 030398 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 91 BILL 030341 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 95 BILL 030351 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 96 BILL 030346 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Department of Streets ........ 99 4 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030385
Good morning, everyone. My name is Councilman Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Streets and Services Committee. Presently, there are two members of the Committee. We do not yet have a quorum, but for the purpose of moving this proceeding along, we will begin to take testimony. And I'm sure by the time we get to the actual meeting for any votes that may be necessary, we will have a quorum. Councilmembers Donna Reed Miller and Councilmember Wilson Goode, Jr., are present. The Clerk will read the title of the first Bill.
Bill No. 03380 will be held today by request of the sponsor of the Bill. Resolution No. 030401, Resolution also naming the 1800 block of Webster Street as Marian Anderson Place. No one is testifying on this Resolution, however, Blanche Burton-Lyles, President of the Marian Anderson Historical Society has submitted a letter of support for the report. The first Bill today will be Bill 25 030385, an ordinance regulating the direction of the 5 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030385 movement of traffic on Haddington Lane, from 59th Street to Felton Street.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Charles Denny. I am the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill 030338. The Streets Department has objections to Bill. We've issued a work order to post this section of Haddington Street as a one-way westbound street. We recommend the Bill be held for at least six months to allow the neighborhood to observe the one-way operation and comment at hearing at if they wish. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. Denny, I think you were referencing Bill 303385. You said 338. You meant to say 030385, I presume.
We will go through 6 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030385 all of your bills, but I understand that there are a number of people here who are witnesses and will come up as a panel. Constance White, Arlene Mosley, Amy Simons, Mary Donald, Yvonne Collins, Georgia Neil, Delores Pallard, Johnny Laddie, and Peggy Burrell. One of you will be testifying? Please proceed. The record notes that you're all in attendance, by the way. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Marlene Mosley, and I am from the 1700 block of Redfield Street. We've noticed through the years -- I've been a resident there for 35 years, and we've noticed through the years all of the mishaps as well as accidents that has occurred on Haddington Lane due to the fact of the narrowing of the street. Now, the street, we have parking on both sides and it's a two-way highway with parking on both sides and the street is so small that it's difficult sometimes for one car to go one way. So we are requesting that a one-way sign be put up from 59th Street to Felton Street. 7 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030338
Councilman Nutter, by the way, is not able to be here this morning, but Julie, his able assistance, did give me the information and this Committee will certainly give this our full consideration and our support as well.
Mr. Denny, come back to the witness table, please, and proceed with your testimony on the other bills. The Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030338, an ordinance authorizing the installation of two left turn green arrow traffic signals at the intersection of Rising Sun Avenue and Adams Avenue.
Good morning again. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Again, my name is Charles Denny, and I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No. 25 030338. 8 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030338 The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code requires PennDOT to develop regulations governing traffic control devices in accordance with Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These regulations apply to all public highways in Pennsylvania, and the City Solicitors rule the Streets department is legally obligated to comply with the Vehicle Code and related PennDOT regulations. The State requires that left turn signal be warranted by an engineering study of traffic conditions, police crash records, traffic volumes, capacity analysis, speed and sight distance. The study concluded as a result of the request that the present day conditions at this location do not satisfy State warrants for a left turn signal. The warrant for a left turn signal was analyzed and the following is a description of the analysis with respect to traffic conditions at Adams and Rising Sun Avenue. The following criteria is required to justify a left turn signal: The volume of vehicles making left turns greater than twice the number of cycles in an hour for two hours; 120 vehicles per 9 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030387 hour in this particular case. And the conflict factor exceeding 65,000 for the same two hours. This is the number of vehicles in hour's time opposing traffic and right-turning vehicles times the number of vehicles turning left comes up with the conflict factor. At Adams and Rising Sun, the peak left turn volume is 106 vehicles per hour. This is less 2 per cycle that is required; therefore, condition 1 is not met. Condition 2: Five correctable crashes left turn in a 12-month period. The crash record for 2000 and 2001 record shows none in 2001, and three reportable correctable crashes in 2000 for the east-west left turn movement. This does not exceed the criteria listed above. Capacity of the intersection does not deteriorate to an unacceptable level. The additional left turn phases causes the capacity intersection to drop below the level of traffic volume using the intersection for a 60-second cycle. For the intersection to work the cycle length would have to be increased to 80 seconds. This will require that the adjacent signals which are now working in coordination with Adams and Rising Sun 10 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030387 also be changed to a 60-second cycle. This will result in increased delay for motorists at all four intersections and a significant delay increase for pedestrians waiting to cross at these four intersections. As the cycle length increases, the number of pedestrians crossing against the traffic signal also increases. Adding left turn phases do not necessarily improve pedestrian safety. Inadequate sight distance. The addition of left turn lanes in the east-west direction improves the sight distance at this intersection. The improved sight distance will result in safer operations. At Adams and Rising Sun we are dealing with a situation which prevailing traffic conditions fall short of the minimum required by the Federal Highway Manual and by the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code for the installation of a left turn signal. The addition of a left turn signal would also not help the operation of this intersection and would increase delay for pedestrians waiting to cross. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. And if there's any questions.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? 11 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030333 Let the record note that Councilman Frank Rizzo is now in attendance. We do have a quorum. Councilman Rizzo.
I understand the engineering criteria for crashes versus five -- I don't even know how many we had at that particular location. But driving through that intersection, I've experienced the dangerous conditions that exist there. Forget the warrants and all that for a minute, all the other things that you use to make decisions. Just a practical approach, if you put the left turn signal at that intersection, would it make it a better intersection?
The intersection was recently improved by PennDOT and widened to allow two through lanes on Adams Avenue in both directions, plus a left turn lane. It was also widened to have two through lanes in each direction on Rising Sun Avenue plus bike lanes on Rising Sun Avenue. The addition of the left turn lanes 12 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030391 improved the sight distance for vehicles east and west on Adams Avenue. The reason for the project was, it was a congested intersection before due to the narrowness of the street and there was a jog in the street. That jog was straightened out and the road was widened and congestion has gone away at that particular intersection due to the project.
Is there any short of a left turn signal that could additionally improve there? Because I think going west, that all funnels into one lane and there's a lot of confusion because it was a right turn lane put there for some reason to go into a business location. It just seems as though even with the improvements it's still a bad situation there. Is there anything additionally that the professionals could recommend to be done there that hasn't been done?
Not at this point. The problem with going down the hill towards the creek is that there's a railroad bridge there that's narrow. And the traffic has to merge into -- the through traffic on Adams Avenue westbound has to 13 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030381 merge into a single lane. And that has to be done past the intersection. Basically, you line up or cue up in the intersection, approaching the intersections two lanes and after you pass through the intersection, traffic in the right lane needs to merge over so there's a through lane.
So what you're telling me, engineering-wise professionally that this is the best we're going to get there?
Good morning, Mr. Denny. I had basically the same questions that Councilman Rizzo had. I go in that area all the time, and it's just really, really congested. Can you tell me what is a correctable crash, a reportable correctable crash?
In this particular case, it's a left turn accident, either the vehicle making a left is either not yielding the right-of-way or is not clearing through the intersection and being struck by an opposing vehicle. 14 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030388
I didn't quite get -- you said that there has been some widening or some corrections made that would make traffic flow smoother that area? You weren't talking into the mike and I really couldn't hear you.
There was a jog in the intersection before and it didn't line up. The roadways were widened to line up the -- so you have two through lanes in each direction that go through the intersection and they also widen to allow for a left turn lane off the Adams Avenue.
I haven't been there lately. So now there is a whole lane just for left turns?
Could this issue be revisited if that widening and left turn lane does not help with the congestion there at that corner?
The project is just finishing. It started last year and is finishing up this year. We can look at it again in a year and see conditions and how it operated over the next year, yes. 15 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
This is not my Bill. It's Councilwoman Tasco's Bill, but I do go to that particular intersection quite often. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? I understand there are three individuals here testifying today, Mr. Helmet Krantz (ph), Mr. David Arbicoff (ph), and is Fred Maurer here. Please approach the witness table.
Plead identify for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Helmit W. Krantz commonly called Bill Krantz. I live on 645 Pearl Street, about four blocks away from the intersection in question. I'm using this intersection every day, often several times. The just completed road work there at a cost of over a million dollars has not brought noticeable relief. And to negotiate is now just as difficult as it has been for years. Drivers who must take a left turn have hardly any other choice but to move to the center of the intersection and execute the left turn as the light turns red. As the identical maneuver is done from several 16 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 approaches, a dangerous traffic stalling scenario exists. In an effort to reach my destination, which requires a left turn, I and so do many other drivers drive straight through the intersection, then enter the parking lot at Adams Rising Sun Mall, and from there, I proceed north on Rising Sun Avenue. The Hechinger parking lot is being used and abused in the same manner. As far as I know, a maneuver like this is unlawful, however; nevertheless, as drivers resort to this method, a lot more left turns are being made there as can be observed directly at the intersection. Also, with traffic freely flowing, there would be many more left turns per hour as opposed to congested condition where left turns sometimes are limited to one or two between light changes. Traffic lights such as arrows that enable drivers to make a legal left turn would bring badly-needed relief to this intersection that's been troublesome for years. Now that there is a change for improvement, a million dollars have been spent, yet we are looking at a costly job that misses the essential most important 17 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 final touch. Unless the proper traffic signals will be installed, this will stay the intersection from hell. Thank you.
I'm David Arbicoff. I'm a 10-year resident of Longcrest. I reside at 5901 Bingham Street. I use that intersection frequently on a day-to-day basis four or five times per day going to and from work. I would strongly ask the support of Councilmembers and Council Chairman for the passage of Bill 030338 that shows the need for left turn signals at this intersection of Rising Sun and Adams. Within the last year, major work was completed to widen the intersection, but the traffic flow is still too heavy and dangerous. The installation of the left turn signals would elevate some of the dangers and second-guessing of aggressive drivers that are trying to beat the traffic light. Also, the intersection timing of the lights is too short for pedestrian to cross the intersection due to no control of left turn signals. Again, I urge Council to support the passage of this Bill. 18 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
Fred Maurer. I will give a copy for the Clerk. My name is Fred Maurer, a resident and user in this intersection before PennDOT modified it. I can testify that PennDOT did not do what they promised to the community for public safety. When PennDOT manager Tim Stevenson had a public meeting with the Friends to discuss the situation on Rising Sun and Adams Avenue intersection traffic, we were told that left turns were causing accidents and the solution was to widen the intersection for a holding space and give left turns protection by an arrow. Manager Stevenson also told Lawncrest Civic Association that sidewalks would be pushed back four or five feet, turn lanes added, and bike lanes included. He estimated the holding time was 60 seconds and will be reduced to 20 seconds. PennDOT construction removed existing street side poles and widened highway into four lane truncated section that now dead-ends into two lanes of the historic Stone Arch Bridge. The new system is focused for an overhead two lane controls for through traffic that ignores the side lanes and 19 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 other users. Instead of facilitating left turns or even right turns, the new system of lanes and signals and signs are more hazardous. We might as well eliminate all turns than to continue as present. We did not find significant benefits after PennDOT construction. The Rising Sun Project on Adams Avenue section now seems waisted because it did not fulfill public promises nor our expectations of public safety. This project was designed by PennDOT contractors and their construction contractors and used State funds. PennDOT now tells us that the signal responsibility is the responsibility of the Streets Department and not theirs. My understanding is that PennDOT and the Streets Department mutually responsible for safety on highways and must act responsibly. The Streets Department Commissioner has adequate authority to resolve these issues but has kept silent. This ordinance is needed because the Streets Department and PennDOT has abandoned us. If the arrows were needed to justify the project before, then we still need them now. No evidence was given to deny our local observations. I believe the arrow signal 20 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 signs are essential and should be implemented. I also believe PennDOT has worsened public safety in the whole Adams Avenue section and they need to make corrective actions through enhanced public safety for all users, especially for Tacony Creek Park users. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. Mr. Denny. I'm not familiar with the intersection. I'm sure I've passed it, but I don't pay attention to actually what's going there. Is there a traffic signal at that location today?
So t this legislation would require, and correct me if I'm wrong, would be the changing of the green fixture and change it from a full green to a plastic whatever it is that you put in there that has an arrow? I'm looking for a better term.
It would require changing the signal heads on the overhead master arms. 21 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
Not the entire -- just the glass insert or plastic insert?
What's out there now is a three-section head, green, yellow, red. What would be required, the first step would be five-section head which would be green, yellow, red for through traffic, and then there would be green arrow and a yellow arrow for left-turning traffic.
I apologize if I'm repeating or asking a question that you've already spoken to in your testimony. The Streets Department doesn't recommend this, but do you see any negative impact as a result of the green arrow?
It would increase congestion unless we go to a longer cycle length. We'd have to go to a longer cycle length because if we put the left turn arrow in, we wouldn't have enough time for pedestrians to cross the street.
If we go t a long cycle, we would be installing 80-second cycle in an area which is all 60-second cycles.
What effect would 22 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 that have, if any, on both pedestrian and vehicular traffic?
For vehicle traffic, it would -- vehicles would be driving up and down both roadways traveling through on 60-second cycles and then they would reach an 80 and would have delay. For pedestrians, it requires additional delay for te pedestrian. Right now they're waiting 30 seconds for the start of their green --
To start crossing over. It would add an additional seconds to -- 14
Additional wait to cross the 17 street, yes. And as we increase cycle lengths, 18 pedestrians increase crossing against the red. 19
What is the cost of 20 the changing of the current fixture to the five signals?
The cost is not a factor. It's probably a half-day's time for a crew to put in a left turn signal.
Councilman Rizzo. 23 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
When pedestrians see these walk signals, couldn't they be utilized at that intersection to give that time that you need to get across the street?
To increase the time, you need to increase the cycle length. The pedestrian signals, the man indication is on probably from 7 to 10 sections which indicates that you can start crossing the street. Then it would go to a flashing hand, which means if you started crossing, you can finish crossing; but if you haven't started, you shouldn't start.
We do put out educational plaques where we put in pedestrian signals on the poles. 24 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
I'm kidding. I wouldn't want anybody to know I didn't know that.
The signal is timed so that when the flashing hand starts, there's sufficient time to cross the street to the far edge of the travel lane.
So, again, you see no 9 way to engineer that intersection that could make it better? You've been through that intersection. It's a nightmare. And I can understand people taking the time to come down here to try to make it better for everyone. I know you guys, if you really work at it, there's something you can do that PennDOT agrees with. I ask -- maybe the Chairman explain, even if when pass this piece of legislation, does that mean -- will you do it or won't you do it even if we tell you to do it legislatively?
Left turn signals require about 12 seconds to install which takes in a 60-second cycle, that's 20 percent of the cycle that 25 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 you take away from all of the traffic for a minority of the movement. Again, the largest movement is 106 vehicles making the left.
But the problem -- again, let's forget the engineering hat. Let's put it into the practical right now. If you know that intersection, which I do, all the timing goes out the window because there's grid lock there at peak time especially. Whatever calculator you're using to calculate, it all goes out the window because nothing moves. It's kind of like you fend for yourself there. You have to get aggressive to get through that intersection.
The project and the construction and the widening was designed to reduce the congestion that was occurring there. What was occurring there was you had two through lanes and the left lane also involved turning traffic turning left so that was backing up the lane. So essentially in many cases you had one through lane. With any signal, generally two vehicles per cycle can make a left turn. They can enter the intersection on the green and when the yellow and the all red come up they can make their left turn 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 and clear the intersection before cross traffic starts moving.
Well, I'm going to vote and see where the chips fall. I'm going to vote yes when I get the opportunity to do that and I guess then we'll figure out what the answer will be. Will it be that you'll do it or you won't. But I know that there was resistance in other areas about left turn signals. And I can tell you that left turn signals have been installed after we got the same pitch th at it's not good, there weren't enough crashes in the intersection. But I can tell you, after the left turn was installed, the arrow, it made the biggest difference in the world at that intersection. And I had people actually come up and say -- not to me, to the District Councilperson, thank you for getting that situation. It's not the entire answer, but it has made -- and I'm not telling you the intersection because you might go take it away. But I'm going to vote for it and let's see what happens here.
Just a point. Left turn signals are used a lot more heavily in the suburbs than in the city. And if you drive in the suburbs, 27 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 you'll notice that the congestion out there is a lot worse than it is in the city because of the left turn signal. Left turn signals do cause significant congestion.
But they at least give you an opportunity to safely make the turn. Let's say that there's -- it's a given, but it's at least ordinarily congestion. It's safer congestion where people have an opportunity two or three at a time to make the turn, not just give it hell when the first chance that you get to make the left. So maybe you have to give up something, and congestion could be part of it.
Well, when the number of left turners is less than two per cycle, you don't gain that much by installing a left turn signal.
But you do. You stop the traffic coming the other direction to give you an opportunity to make the turn without being frightened to death that you're going get --
That traffic stops every cycle at the end of the phase. And it's at that point the left turners can make their left.
You're supposed to 28 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 make a left on a red.
If you enter the intersection legally, you can exit the intersection legally.
We want a camera there. I think now -- I'd just like to see it experimented with there at that location. It might be helpful that we look at it as a test. I'm sure you're allowed to test things. But I would like to see it go forward, and I'm going to vote have it go forward because, again, of my experience with Streets Department, professional engineers saying, no, it's not going to work, and then all of a sudden miraculously the left turn arrow appears and it appears to work after I sat through an hour of testimony telling me how it wouldn't work.
The one intersection you're talking about, I'm familiar with. It works in the one direction, but in the other direction it is causing congestion. It's causing back-up to the next signal. It's causing people to go through local streets to avoid the intersection, and that's one of the problems when you install a left signal, you increase congestion and then you increase people 29 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 using other routes, other routes that we don't want. The Streets Department would like to keen the major traffic on the major roadways and not on the minor roadways.
I understand. I just wish you wouldn't give up on trying to make this work. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill 030387, a Bill 18 authorizing the installation of stop signs on Second Street at the intersection of Poplar Street.
Good morning again, Mr. Chairman and Member of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Charles Denny, and I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill 030378. 30 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code requires PennDOT to develop regulations governing the traffic control devices in accordance with Federal Highway Administration Manual and Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These regulations apply to all public highways in Pennsylvania, and the City Solicitors ule rule that the Streets Department is legally obligated to comply with the Vehicle Code and related PennDOT regulations. Federal and State criteria require an all-way stop be warranted by an engineering study of traffic conditions, police accident records, traffic volume speed, sight distance. The study conducted as a result of the request concluded that present conditions at this condition does not satisfy the federal and state warrants for an all-way. The warrants for an all-way stop control analyzed and the following is a description of the conditions at Second and Poplar Street. Second Street is a major signalized arterial. The placement of a stop control is inappropriate, particularly with overhead signals on Second Street at Brown Street which is 450 feet to the south. Drivers who are coming to the south on 31 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 Second Street which has signal control from Erie Avenue will see the signal at Brown easier than the stop signs at Poplar Street if they were placed there. This will lead to an increase in the number of rear end crashes at Second and Poplar. When installing additional traffic controls at any intersection, the result should be a safer intersection. Installing stop controls against Second Street at Poplar will not accomplish that goal. The Street Department, therefore, can comply with the request. The Streets Department is redesigned Second Street from Poplar Street to Fairmount Avenue. The design includes bump-outs at each of the three intersection. This provides shorter pedestrian crossing, and also allows for the better placement of traffic signals. The design also includes back-in angle parking. Backing into a parking space is safer than backing out of the parking space. The redesign is to provide a safer operation on Second Street from Poplar Street to Fairmount Avenue. At Second and Poplar we're dealing with a situation which prevailing traffic conditions indicate that the establishing of an 32 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 all-way stop control would lead to a safety problem. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Denny. On the redesign area from Poplar to Brown, that's my district, obviously. I'm somewhat familiar with that. When do we anticipate that?
They're looking to let the contract in sometime this year, so work would start next year. It could start maybe in the winter for some work.
And I understand from your testimony, which I find interesting, that people will see that the traffic signal delays at Brown Street as they're traveling south and pay more attention to that or I guess that becomes more obvious than a stop sign which could result in rear end accidents. In addition to grids placed on the street, whatever the -- the warning signals, whatever --
Yeah, the rumble strips. The rumble strips, correct me if I'm wrong, are in place to basically slow the traffic once it passes over Poplar Street? 33 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
It was there to alert drivers they should slow down. It doesn't actually cause them to slow down, but the noise makes them react and slow down.
The problem that I see, because I was down there about a week or so ago, it still doesn't resolve the problem of people speeding past Second and Poplar. And that neighborhood, as you know or may not know, has been repopulating over the last several years. In the last two years, there are a number businesses that have opened up, in particular restaurant businesses. Standard Tap which is on the northeast corner of Second and Poplar, a very, very popular place, if you will. People coming and going. And I've been there few times and I've parked on Second Street just a little north of that. And I can tell you, it is frightening getting out of your car to cross Second Street. It's almost like comparable to getting off on a highway. And that's not an exaggeration. And I understand the warrants and all the other issues we have to deal with. But no one is slowing down. And I am fearful that as the neighborhood continues to grow and with hopefully 34 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 the approval of the development of former the Schmitz Brewery site, which we're going to hopefully bring in literally thousands of people into that community along the Second Street corridor, we really need to do something because there is no 7 device from Girard Avenue down to Brown. And we had a similar situation on Third Street when I first came to Council from Spring Garden Street down to Girard. At one time, there was no signals and then we put one in at Third and Brown, and then three was eventually one put in Third and George, I think it was, which has really helped slow that traffic down. This is the only alternative that I can see. I'm not an engineer. I don't pretend tend to be one, but nothing seems to working, unless we put a police officer there full time. And that's not going to happen. I'm going to move on this Bill. And again, I will admit that it may not be the best solution to the problem, but something needs to be done. And I will welcome any other suggestions from the department. Because I don't know if you've ever been there. It is bad. I don't know what the distance from Girard Avenue to Poplar Street is, but 35 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 it's got to be three-quarters of a mile.
And if I remember correctly, 5,280 is a mile, something like that. So it's a little under a half a mile. And people have a tendency to accelerate. So I don't want to work against the Department on this stuff, especially at this intersection, but I want to work with you and I don't know of the streetscape improvements will change the behavior of drivers from Girard to Poplar. I certainly agree it will do something from Poplar to Brown. That's why we're making that considerable capital improvement investment there. Let me ask you another question when it comes to speed. Is it the Police Department or is it Streets Department's responsibility -- or who would control the installation of -- did you ever see those flashing signs telling you how fast you're going to a fixture that's placed out there with a lighted monitor letting you know the speed that you're traveling? Does the Street Department put them out there or is that the Police Department?
I don't believe either the 36 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 Police or the Streets Department at the moment are putting those devices out there that flash and tell you how fast you're going. That is used by Police Departments in suburban communities. There's also, I believe, University of Penn Police put out and do so, but it isn't Philadelphia Police.
We do not have a device. There was talk about getting those devices for the Roosevelt Boulevard, not necessarily for other streets.
That's interesting. I thought we had some of our own.
And those devices can't be used to enforce speed. They can only be used to notify the driver --
It's also making people more aware. I'm certain that sometimes when the device is removed that people begin to speed up again, but you're always cautious of that, I think, 37 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 especially if there's someone who used that corridor on a daily basis.
Basically the Streets Department posts the speed regulation then the Police Department then enforces it.
I was going to ask that same exact question. You talked about the suburbs, and I've noticed that a speed sign that -- I believe it was Walnut Street when I went through there the other day. And I think it's a very effective tool. And I noticed that even in some of the interchanges, turnpike, et cetera, they are permanently installed to let you know the speed that you're coming into the easy pass lane. I think that that would be something that we should really have in the Streets Department inventory. A, I think that you should check -- you probably have -- to make sure that all the speed limit signs are in place that need to be. And even if there are some additional should be installed, I think the Motor Vehicle Code requires them to be a quarter of a mile a part? 38 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
So I would hope they're all in place. But I would encourage the Streets Department to work with the Police Department to get some of those trailers, the portable unit, especially like on Kelly Drive, West River Drive. I think it would be a very effective way of -- it's a message to the driver that you're exceeding the speed limit. So I'd like Councilman DiCicco's idea that we invest in some of those and figure out a way of who actually decides where they go and who moves them around. We have vehicles that have trailer hitches that could take them for a few days into different communities that are like this one, and I think it would be something that we should really be doing. So could we suggest that you speak with your Commissioner about the possibility of securing some of those radar devices.
Mr. Denny, one more final comment on this intersection and the Second Street corridor. When you did your study for this proposed legislation, was there any consideration 39 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214 given as to whether something, a device, whether it be a traffic signal or stop sign, could have been placed somewhere between Girard Avenue and Poplar? Do you know if there was any consideration for that?
We are looking for that, but unfortunately there's no location at the moment between those two that has any significant amount of cross traffic.
I understand that because there's vacant land primarily on both sides. But the fact of the matter is that people who are driving, the acceleration really begins at Girard Avenue traveling south, notwithstanding the fact that three are no residents or any businesses or any activity on either side of it until you get to Poplar Street. And if there was some way in which we can do something midway or three-quarters of the way, whatever it is, between Poplar and Girard avenue, I would have no problem withdrawing this Bill because think that may accomplish what we're trying to do.
Well, we are looking for some solution out there on Second Street. We have not found it, but we're looking for it. 40 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030214
I appreciate if you could keep my office advised as what your findings are. Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Anyone else here to testify for or against this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030394, an ordinance authorizing the installation of all-way stop signs at the intersection of Cabell Road and Lester Road.
Good morning again. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No. 030394. I'm going to skip the next two paragraphs because they're pretty much the same. The warrants for an all-way stop control were analyzed and the following is a description of the analysis with respect to traffic conditions Cabell and Lester Road: Warrant relates where a traffic is warranted but for some reason cannot be immediately 41 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030343 installed. An all-way stop control can be established temporarily pending a traffic signal installation. Conditions do not satisfy the State's warrants for a traffic signal here, therefore, Warrant is not satisfied. Warrant relates to accident experience. Police accident records of five or more reportable crashes within a 12-month period correctable by an all-way stop installation satisfy Warrant 2. According to police crash records from January 1994 to December 2002, there were three cashes reported at this location. This record makes this intersection one of the safest in the City, therefore, Warrant 2 is not satisfied. Warrant 3 relates to vehicles and pedestrian volumes. It requires that the total vehicle volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages at lest 500 vehicles an hour for any 8 hours of the average day. The combined vehicle and pedestrian volume from the minor street, Cabell Road, averages at least 200 vehicles and pedestrians per hour for the same 8 hours. Actual counts of vehicles during the a.m. averaged 182 vehicles per hour entering the intersection from all 42 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030344 approaches. This is 36 percent of the 500 required. Also during the same hours, the average of 34 vehicles and pedestrian totaling 40 units per hour entered the intersection from Cabell Road. This is 20 percent of the 200 required satisfied. Therefore, Warrant 2 is not satisfied. At Cabell and Lester Roads, we are not dealing with a borderline situation but rather one in which prevailing traffic conditions fall short of the minimum required by the Federal Highway Manual and the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code for the installation of an all-way stop control. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. And if you have any questions...
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I'm Aaron Finestone from Councilman O'Neill's office. The Councilman supports the Bill. We've had numerous requests from the residents of the neighborhood. They're very concerned about the safety situation and they're requesting the all-way stop sign.
Thank you. 43 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030396 Any witnesses for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030250, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales," by revising and expanding an existing area in which sidewalk sales are prohibited so as to prohibit sidewalk sales on both sides of Comly Road, as extended from Caroline Road to Roosevelt Boulevard, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco, Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on 030250 which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales on both sides of Comly Road between Academy Road and 44 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 Roosevelt Boulevard. The Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 030250 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this Bill should Council vote for its passage and the Mayor signs it into law. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
I'm Aaron Finestone from Councilman O'Neill's office. Councilman O'Neill supports this Bill. Presently, there's no sidewalk sales on approximately half the distance of Comly Road from Academy to the Boulevard. The no sale zone ends at Caroline Road, and we wish to extend that from Caroline Road to Roosevelt Boulevard.
Thank you. Mr. Haigler, what is the current fee for a sidewalk sale license?
It escapes me right at this present time. I believe -- I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood around $250, I believe. 45 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378
And is there any regulation as to -- how do we regulate that in terms of the distance between the curb and the property line when we -- you know where I'm going. There's a Bill for sidewalk cafes in the L&I Committee.
I know, but sidewalk sale vendors do take up part of the public right-of-way which is a sidewalk.
We do charge a fee, an annual fee, for a license to be able to vend in areas that are not restricted areas. Is there any consideration or is there any requirement that a certain amount of space be allowed for the pedestrian to be able to walk between the property line and the curb?
Yes, there is. There are regulations that have been promulgated for sidewalk sales. You kind of caught me off guard. I don't 46 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 have specifics --
If you can have that information, that will be helpful at that time.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill NO. 030333, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Sales," by prohibiting sidewalk vending on portions of Baltimore Avenue.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco, Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 030333 which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales on the north side of Baltimore Avenue from 5600 to the 5700 blocks. 47 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 The Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 030333 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this Bill should Council vote for its passage and the Mayor signs it into law. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill 030337, an ordinance 18 amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Sidewalk Sales, and vending in residential areas by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales and vending in the area bordered by and including Olney Avenue, Cheltenham Avenue, Broad Street, and Fifth Street both sides.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am Otis 48 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 030337 which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales in the area bounded by Olney Avenue, Cheltenham Avenue, Broad Street, and Fifth Street, with the exception of the south side of Maderia Avenue from the southeast corner of Broad Street to a point 75 feet east of the southeast corner of Broad Street. The Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 030337. It is prepared to enforce the provisions of this Bill should Council vote for its passage and the Mayor signs it into law. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
For the record, there is an amendment that will be introduced by Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller on this Bill 030337. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here 49 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 wishes to testify for or against the Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030249, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 253 of the area lying generally northwardly from the intersection of Unruh Avenue and Oakley Street by striking from the City Plan a portion of Kerper Street and Kerper Place; by placing on the City Plan certain portions of rights-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes; by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets. And the Department would offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030249: 50 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance request by Mr. Jason Pickering, the Law Offices of Eric Heinz, P.C., 1835 Market Street who represents Lawndale Village Incorporated. The purpose of this ordinance is to revise lines and grades on these streets so that the owner can proceed with development plans. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, City Planner, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two unneeded paper streets located in the Longcrest section of Northeast Philadelphia. The proposed development was never built. The purpose of this ordinance is to return Kerper Street to its original status so that the owner can proceed with a different development plan. The Planning Commission recommend approval of this action at its meeting on May 20, 51 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 2003. Therefore, the Planning Commissioner recommends that Bill NO. 030249 be approved. Thank you.
Good morning. I'm Aaron Finestone from Councilman O'Neill's office. Councilman O'Neill supports this Bill. The Bill is necessary so we can have development.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030347, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 238 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Salter Street from Third Street to Orianna Street and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for gas main purposes and public utility purposes within the 52 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 lines of Salter Street being stricken from the City Plan and vacated under authority of this ordinance, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. And the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030347: This is not an Administration ordinance 11 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Larry Wind of Harwin Homes of Havertown. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike and vacate Salter Street from the City Plan to facilitate he development of 28 new town house style condominiums. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
May it please the Council, Carl Primavera, I'm here on behalf of Harwin. We've been working with Queen Village to develop a site that would be market rate housing. Salter Street is very narrow and has really been a threat in terms of dumping trash, lack of lighting. So we still haven't come to terms with exactly what 53 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 the development will be. We're working with the Planning Commission and with the community, but we would like to have the flexibility of having Salter Street removed so that it can come under private control. However the development is accomplished, it will be, obviously, an improvement. It's currently, I think, an abandoned laundry that's been there. And that this is something that we hope will be a real improvement.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the committee? Mr. Primavera, you'll be testifying other on other bills?
Yes, Councilman DiCicco. I'm here on behalf of Goldenberg Group with regard to Porter Street striking.
Which Bill number is that, do you know? 030391? Why don't we jump to that one and any other bills that you have, that way you don't have to get back up.
Bill No. 030391, an 54 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 26-S by striking from the City Plan Porter Street from Christopher Columbus Boulevard to Weccacoe Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name, again, is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. The Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030391: This is not an Administration ordinance 13 but an ordinance requested by the Goldenberg Group by Mr. Brett Feldman of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers. The purpose of this ordinance 16 is to legally close Porter Street to allow for the development of Regional Shopping Facility. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, City Planner, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. 55 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of an unneeded street located in the South Delaware Riverfront section of South Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the assembly of a parcel for the construction of a regional shopping center. The Planing Commission approved the rezoning of is this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 030391 be approved. Thank you.
Again, for the record, Carl Primavera. I'm here on behalf of the Goldenberg Group. With me is Kevin Trapper from the Goldenberg Group, as well George Reese from Langan Engineering. Again, I know we've had the ribbon cutting for the Ikea site. This is a step in furtherance of that development which Council has been helpful in bringing to fruition. There's a former paper street which really has no basis, and as the City representatives testified, has no 24 purpose. It's essential that we, again, incorporate that into the site. 56 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 I'm just going to hand up for the record copies of the site plan. It may also be of interest to Councilmembers who are wondering about how we're coming along. And the answer is very well with regard to the project.
Anyone else to testify for or against the Bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 030350, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on portions of City Plan No. 27-S by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portions of Dilworth Street from Wolf Street to Ritner Street; by striking from the City Plan Ritner Street from Dilworth Street to Weccaccoe Avenue; by vacating Martin Street from Weccacoe Avenue to a point approximately 281 feet southwestwardly therefrom, and by vacating Geenville Street from Weccacoe Avenue to Dilworth Street, all under 57 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 certain terms and conditions.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. The Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030350: This is an Administration ordinance 9 requested by the Commerce Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant legal authority to close Dilworth Street and Ritner Street to facilitate expansion of a warehouse and establish secure parking. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, City Planner, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City plan and the vacating of four minor unneeded streets located in the South Delaware Riverfront section of South Philadelphia. The 58 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 purpose of this ordinance is to assist in the assembly of a parcel for the construction of a regional shopping center. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning of this area, therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 030350 be approved. Thank you.
Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030352, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan Nos. 307 and 308 by relocating certain portions of the curb lines of Chestnut Street from Independence Mall East to 18th Street, the intersection of 15th Street and South Penn Square, the intersection of 15th Street and John F. Kennedy Boulevard, the intersection of Juniper Street and Commerce Street and certain 59 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 portions of the curb lines of Market Street and Front Street to Independence Mall East.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030352: This is an Administration ordinance 9 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally change the curb lines to conformed with existing physical conditions. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, City Planner. I'm here to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the revisions of the lines and grades on the affected streets by creating curb lines that will improve pedestrian and vehicular movement. The Planning Commission staff reviewed and tentatively approved this action. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 60 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 030352 be approved. Thank you.
Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against of the Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030376, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 17-S by striking from the City Plan and vacating Oakford Street from 30th Street to 31st Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030376: This is not an Administration ordinance 23 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Richard DeMarco of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branszburg & Ellers who represents J.D. Mack Development Company. 61 05/28/03 - STREETS - BILL 030378 The purpose of this ordinance is to strike and vacate Oakford Street to facilitate the development of a Walgreen's at 30th and Greys Ferry Avenue. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.