COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March , 2008, 10:25 a.m. - - - 6 7 Bill 080027, Amending Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing zoning designation of 8 certain areas of land located within area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, 9 (former) Reed Street, the Delaware River, and Tasker Street (extended), under certain 10 terms and conditions. Bill 080028 - Approving plan of development for a Commercial Entertainment District in area generally bounded by (former) Reed Street, Tasker Street (extended), Christopher Columbus Boulevard, and the Delaware River. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Anna C. Verna, Chair James F. Kenney, Vice Chair Blondell Reynolds Brown Darrell L. Clarke Frank DiCicco William K. Greenlee Also Present: Councilman Bill Green - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I N D E X WITNESS Harris Steinberg, Executive Director..... PennPraxis Charles Denny, Streets Department....... 64 Fran Harney, PennDot Traffic Engineer... 72 J. Alvarez, Urban Planner, Stantech..... 97 L. Luggio, Traffic Engineer, Stantech 105 Frank Tavani, Traffic Engineer......... 129 F. Tavani & Associates Jeff Rush, QVNA President.............. 143 Ed Kerlin, lifelong Pennsport resident 151 Carl Primavera, Esquire, Philadelphia 163 Entertainment and Development Partners Jeff Greene, Orth-Rodgers & Associates Jim Dougherty.......................... 253 General Manager, Foxwoods Casino Terry Gillen, Commerce Department...... 288 Jim Paylor, Vice President............. 303 International Longshoremen's Association David Barry, UAW Member and............ 328 Connecticut Foxwoods Casino Employee C. Philo, International Downtown Assoc. 337 Philadelphia Neighborhood Association Panel Matt Ruben, Northern Liberties......... 345 Shawn Rairigh, Fishtown................ 345 Caryn Hunt, Passyunk Square............ 345 Steve Mullin, Econsult................. 372 * * 8 3 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Good morning, everyone this is the continued public hearing on rules regarding Bill 5 No. 080027 and Bill No. 080028. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the first witness. MR. McPHERSON: Harris Steinberg, Central Delaware Advisory Group. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam President. I'm going to gave a presentation if that's okay. If I could come to the podium.
Thank you. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Harris Steinberg. I am the executive director of PennPraxis, which is the clinical arm of the 4 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 School of Design at the University of Pennsylvania. Our office led a 13-month public planning process for the Central Delaware, under executive order of former Mayor John Street. The executive order was signed in October of 2006, and the project culminated in November of 2007, with a presentation at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. Over the 13 months, we engaged over 4,000 Philadelphians in imagining a future for the Central Delaware, which, as you know, is largely post- industrial lands that have developed over time without an overarching plan or vision. Councilman DiCicco's office approached us in the summer of 2006 with the then prospect of one, possibly two, casinos as well as 22 residential towers being built in the area, without any overarching plan or 5 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 vision, and it was our job to kind of help assemble that. We gave the following conditions to doing the work: One, that it was open and transparent; that it was a public process that the press was involved; and that, ultimately, we would put forth the recommendations for the governing agency or implementing body that was accountable to the public voice. So what I'm going to show you today is an abbreviated version of that 13 months' worth of work. You have before you the actual vision document, which is a 242-age document that was delivered to the Mayor in November and was guided by a 46-member advisory group that consisted of 15 civic associations that comprised the river wards, as well as government officials from Philadelphia and the state. Rhina Cutler, who's with us 6 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 today, was a member of the -- an active member of the advisory group in her then-capacity as PennDOT, and we're happy that she is here now with us in the City as the City moves forward on figuring out what to do with the Central Delaware. So that's the brief background. On November 14, 2007, 1500 people came to the Convention Center; it was a standing-room-only crowd, and the project received a standing ovation from the assembled audience in terms of the vision that was put forth. So I bring it here today and I'm honored to do so, to give you kind of a sense of the work that was done and how it may impact all of our decisions on the Central Delaware in terms of planning, design, and moving forward.
7 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 (Inaudible, off-mic.)
The disk includes the full version of the book. You have before you not only the book, but there's also an op-ed, which I have in the Daily News today, which is essentially saying, Let's figure out what are the steps along the Central Delaware until the Zoning Code Commission does its work in terms of coming up with a new zoning code and master plan for the Delaware. How can we do no harm in terms of reaching the goals of a pedestrian-friendly, human-scaled extension of Philadelphia to the riverfront, which is what the vision calls for. So with that, I beg your patience. I will show you the Central Delaware. And, again, we're going to go quickly. So the question is: Why a civic vision? And it's important to remember that the Delaware is part of 8 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 a much larger ecosystem and geological network, that the headlands of the Delaware supply water for half of New York's drinking supply, they empty out into the Delaware Bay and as we kind of think about and wrestle with what's the future of these seven miles are part of a much larger natural system. As we kind of zoom in and position ourselves in terms of the Central Delaware itself, it's seven miles of riverfront from Allegheny at the north to Oregon at the south, the river to the east, and I-95 to the west. It's an area that is largely post-industrial in nature in terms of the size of the parcels it terms of its disconnect from the riverward neighborhoods by I-95 and presents what we feel is an important opportunity for the City to become a city of choice in the 21st century in terms of extending neighborhoods and 9 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 uses to the river. And we'll talk about how we think that can be done. It's largely a landscape that's dominated by former industrial -- remnants of former industry that used to be here. This is the PECO power station at Penn Treaty Park. There's a tangle of infrastructure -- I-95 and 676 where they meet. At the foot of -- near the foot of Market Street, it disconnects the riverward neighborhoods from the river. There are changing and evolving uses. The active port, which will be expanding to the south and south port and then the new large, big-box stores that have come to the area are demonstrated here in this image as a collage of uses on the southern part. And there's history that underlines the entire seven miles. 10 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 These are steps at the Wood Street terminus that connect Front Street with Water Street and are a reminder of the first public states that William Penn mandated in terms of development of the Central Delaware, which was then the epicenter of the City. So why a civic vision? In the past, many decisions about the Delaware, as well as uses up and down the riverfront, were done on a parcel-by-parcel basis. And, in fact, we're here today to talk about a specific parcel of land. Our feeling is, and those of the more than 4,000 folks who participated in this process, is that by developing a comprehensive vision, one that looks at traffic, transportation, ecological infrastructure, civic values, and planning principles will create the infrastructure and the vision for the 11 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Central Delaware that will take us 30, 40 years into the future so that the that decisions we make today are a part of a much wider and broader concept of what the Central Delaware can be. So engaging people on walks, taking them through different forums where they talked about principles and values, and ultimately, we were able to come up with planning principles which guided the formation of the vision I will show you. A hundred years ago, Philadelphia was a thriving industrial center; we were the workshop of the world, and the Delaware itself played a tremendously active role in that.
At the same time, though, we were planning the Ben Franklin Parkway, and Fairmount Park was being developed, so we were thinking ahead, we were thinking long-term, and we were beginning to come to grips with 12 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 how do you balance the needs of the industrial society with kind of elegant and forward-thinking city plans. The question then is: What is our challenge today? How do we take a largely inaccessible waterfront and make it the centerpiece of a city of choice for the knowledge economy of the future? Other cities have done it, and we looked to: Chicago and Millennium Park; To Battery Park City in New York; To the Hudson River piers along the upper westside; To San Francisco, where the Embarcadero Freeway fell down and has now become a boulevard; To Hoboken, where they extended grid systems to the streets to access the river; And to Milwaukee, where historic housing is being adaptively 13 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 reused in old industrial structures. In Portland, we learned from the riparian edges where the landscape is actually doing active work to filter pollutants and manage storm water. So taking all of that knowledge that we learned and the citizens' values and principles that we distilled from the civic forums where over, as I said, 4,000 folks participated, along with our partners in the Penn Project for Civic Engagement, there were principles about connectivity, about designing with nature that ultimately went into framing a vision that was based on three simple networks: Movement, how you get around; Parks and open space, what's green and accessible; And then development. And we'll start to show you how those networks can come over and onto the Central Delaware over 20, 30, 14 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 40 years. This is a long-term vision. And, in fact, we're working with the civic associations that were a part 5 of the initial executive order to come 6 up with an action plan for the next 7 ten years that are actually doable 8 first steps towards realizing the 9 vision. 10 It starts with a network of 11 streets. Any traffic engineer will 12 tell you that multiple streets will 13 disperse traffic and calm traffic. 14 And if we take Delaware Avenue/ 15 Columbus Boulevard, which is currently designed more as a highway than as a boulevard, the more congested it becomes, the more disconnected the neighborhoods come from the river. So the vision calls for a rich network of streets that extends Philadelphia's streets pattern to the riverfront. It includes park spaces, where there are now eight acres of park and 1100 acres. It's a minuscule fraction 15 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of the waterfront. We're calling for about 27 percent of the riverfront to become greenways and park spaces that can become active, connective parts of neighborhoods. In fact, we're hoping that there'll be a park every 2,000 feet, which is roughly a ten-minute walk from any neighborhood. And then the rest is development. This is a development- rich plan that calls for a wide variety of different types of development. It accommodates the existing working port as well as what we hope will be -- where we'll be at the forefront of the knowledge economy, with pharmaceuticals and bioengineering, as well as mixed uses of residential and commercial up and down the Central Delaware. The goal, of course, is to -- through movement systems, through connectivity, through streets, and a network of parallel roads and a 16 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 boulevard -- literally connect the riverfront with the City in a way that it hasn't been for many, many decades. So it starts with the boulevard. And how does what is currently -- and this is Festival Pier up by Spring Garden Street -- present itself really not as a very attractive or welcoming place, become, through kind of dense urban, infilled, mass transportation, and quality sidewalks, a place of choice.
This is really about making it a place you're going to want to walk, live, work, and play. Allegheny Avenue at the north, which connects Kensington with the riverfront, could be a green connector street that manages storm-water runoff as well as accommodates the development of the knowledge economy. Over time, Columbus Boulevard and Delaware Avenue, which currently is three lanes in each direction and is more highway in scale than 17 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 pedestrian in scale, through the integration of mass transit -- and, again, this is looking way down the road -- we can imagine reducing the scale of those streets to two lanes in each direction, when a network of streets comes on board to help disperse traffic and make this more part of Center City as opposed to the suburban character of the road, which it currently has. And to do that, we have to extend Philadelphia's urban fabric, literally bring the streets that are on the west side of I-95 over, through, and across the 1100 acres so that it's an interconnected series of roadways, walkways, sidewalks, few corridors and pedestrian access between the neighborhoods and the river. The foot of Washington Avenue. We can manage Washington Avenue just going the extra half block and 18 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 connecting to a ribbon of green up and down the water's edge. And on the Conrail lands, 250 acres of former Port Richmond rail yards at the northern end by Allegheny Avenue, we can imagine Lehigh Avenue, Cumberland, and other main streets coming through and forming a network of streets and development parcels along with green and active rivers' edges. But it's all got to be thought of in terms of a traffic and transportation policy. How do we manage parking? how do we think about water transportation? how do we think about mass transportation? how do we connect this into the regional rail system -- SEPTA and PATCO -- so that Delaware Boulevard, which is what we're calling the combined Columbus Boulevard and Delaware Avenue, is not soley an automobile thoroughfare but is part of a regional transportation 19 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 network, where we're building the infrastructure for the future in order to make this maturing commercial corridor urban in nature and not suburban, which is how it's trending. So the foot of Market Street gets connected with a ferry terminal to Camden. And the light-rail system, which we talked about, runs down the center of Delaware Boulevard. To do that, we have to really embrace innovative infrastructure. We worked closely with Rhina Cutler when she was at PennDOT to imagine the future of I-95, which will be rebuilt over the next to 30 years. 18 Billions of dollars, of federal money 19 and infrastructure will be pumped into 20 the local economy into rebuilding I-95. Do we rebuild it exactly as it is, or do we take this opportunity to imagine perhaps tunneling, covering over in certain places, making more gracious civic portals and others, but 20 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 using and leveraging the federal investment along with other investments to use this as a way to bridge the divide of I-95. And we looked at a variety of different ways to actually think about the center section, which is where it's most significantly cut off over 600 foot of asphalt between Front Street and Penn's Landing. Are there ways to bridge, deck, tunnel. There's tremendous controversy around this; but, on the other hand, we're at a moment where we can imagine it. It will be rebuilt in the next to 30 years. What studies do we 18 need to do now? what kind of 19 relationships do we need to build in 20 Harrisburg to even think about making this happen?
If we were to do this, Penn's Landing -- which, again, now is disconnected -- would be not only prime development along this beautiful 21 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 new boulevard, but a signature urban park right at the center, at the foot of Market Street, much like parks in New York, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco are the pride and envy of the rest of the world. So Market Street, which is now disconnected by the I-95 as well as the scissor ramps, if that were to go away, a beautiful new park at the foot of Market Street that is accessible by foot between the river's edge and Market, much like it was for 250 years of our existence, would be recreated. But they're not all big moves. Small moves, such as Frankford Avenue, which is currently a rather desolate connection between the neighborhood and the riverfront, could be enlivened through streets and bike paths and I-95 that's more of a civic portal, and these are ways to connect the neighborhoods with the river while using the infrastructure investment in 22 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I-95 to make it more of a gracious connection. So if movement systems is the first of the frameworks to make a pedestrian-friendly, human-scaled riverfront, parks and open spaces is the next. And parks and open spaces in this vision are not just beautiful places, but they're actually working: They filter storm water, they filter pollutant, manage storm water, and are active members of the physical infrastructure in helping to kind of achieve a 21st-century city of choice. Penn Treaty Park, one of only eight acres of public land, is imagined in the future as part of a series of trails as well as a naturalized edge that helps to bring wild life back to the river's edge as well as manage storm water and filter pollutants. Penn's Landing, currently a 23 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 sea of parking, is envisioned as a great lawn and really a signature open space of significant urban quality at the river's edge in the center of the Central Delaware. Connecting the riverfront to the City through a series of trails that parallel the river is critical to the vision and. Linking neighborhoods that are currently underserved, with very little green space, such as Pennsport and Whitman, is shown here with a storm-water management park as South Philly, allowing the neighborhoods to be connected with green spaces to the river's edge. The Conrail lands to the north also become a part of a green edge, tidal wetlands and development. And Spring Garden Street, which actually connects the Schuylkill to the Delaware, is imagined as a storm water -- a green street that helps to manage storm water and get 24 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 people to a public park at the Spring Garden terminus, which is on the incinerator side and Festival Pier, which is owned by the City. Investing in a sustainable riverfront means really active, green urban infrastructure. And by that, I mean a river's edge that actually works for us. The city is under a federal mandate to manage its combined sewer and soil outflow into the river. And this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of the curve and begin to use infrastructure investment to meet that mandate in the future so that storm-water management, rain-water collection, pollutants that are filtered at the river's edge are all a part of the green riparian buffer of a hundred foot, which we're calling for in this vision. We worked with the Water Department on potential tidal wetlands 25 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that could be restored along the river's edge. As the airport expands and wetlands are potentially given up for the expansion of the airport, there's the potential to make compensatory wetlands, which will be naturalized areas along the Central Delaware.
And at Pulaski Park, at the northern end, which is currently another part of the acres of green along the Central Delaware, we can imagine tidal pools that come and go as the river ebbs and flows in terms of coming into view the industrial past that's celebrated through the restoration of the gantries and new development that's part of the burgeoning knowledge economy of the future. At the Girard Avenue interchange, we worked closely with PennDOT, and this is a project that's happening in real time. Almost 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 $900 million of investment in this interchange alone is being considered at the moment. And how can we make it something that actually adds value to the neighborhood, adds connectivity, creates opportunities for connections under the interchange, manages storm water in a way that actually creates green, healthy spaces as part of connected series of trails, has ecological sound walls, and is all part of connecting neighborhoods with the river in a way that is not only sustainable but elegant and fun. Behind Wal-Mart in South Philadelphia, an unused service road is imagined as part of the trail that can connect north and south along the Central Delaware, and then over time, is part of a larger park and naturalized tidal wetlands system at Pier 70. So if we have movement systems and we have open space, the rest is 27 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 development. And how do we begin to think about development? Again, the goals are that this is a connected urban, urbane, humane, pedestrian- oriented part of the City. It is not a suburb part of the City, which it currently, you could say, it's characterized as. The big-box stores, the sea of parking lots that currently characterize the southern part of the Central Delaware in particular are something you might find in exurbs or parts of South Jersey not necessarily in a dense, historic city. It's important to stress -- and here is, again the potential of what the mixture of uses could look like, everything from the working port, which is the purple to the left, to housing, commercial, retail and other uses. It is important to stress that the casino issue dominated this process for the 13 months that we were 28 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 leading it. We tried very hard to say this is not about casinos; it's about investment in infrastructure and it's about the way Philadelphia wants to grow over time, that cities are large, flexible organisms that can accommodate a multiplicity of uses. And, in fact, William Penn's original grid plan, which now accommodates everything Alfreth's Alley to the Comcast Tower, still serves today as our primary system of movement, parks, and open spaces. And so, taking that philosophy and extending it out over the Central Delaware, we hope to say this isn't about specific uses but the way that buildings act on their sites, the way you get to them, how you manage traffic, how you create open space, and what the form of the building is like, what's the proper size, how do you get through sites, how do you get to the river's edge. 29 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 The advisory group voted in May of '07 to include what is called "a build and no-build option" in the report, and that is before you. So our report really doesn't focus specifically on the casino sites. It says, if the casinos were built -- this diagram, which actually is a little light, shows the scale of those properties relative to the scale of the grid structure that we're proposing. So they're large sites and they have the potential to block access to the river's edge. But we thought it was more important -- and this is really what we think is important for you in your work today as you move this potential legislation through Council -- to think about what are important guidelines to guide development.
Rather than say one use is good or one use is bad, we felt it was more important to put forward guidelines 30 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that said buildings should relate to a street grid. And a street grid that's a Philadelphia street grid, we're saying 500 foot. Penn's original grid is roughly 400 foot by 400 foot. That's a comfortable dimension for Philadelphia. It makes us -- we know how to walk it, we know what it feels like to be on a rowhouse block that's 400 foot without a driveway that cuts through. It's kind of in our DNA that this is part of how we measure ourselves against the built environment. So we felt that that was an appropriate dimension to bring across onto the Central Delaware. We also thought that the hierarchy of the streets -- just like Broad Street and Market Street are big streets, Chestnut and Walnut are secondary streets, and then Sansom and others are tertiary -- that the Central Delaware would benefit from a similar kind of street network. 31 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 So we're looking at the boulevard as the main connecting link with light rail, a network of streets that can be subdivided as developers and the City wish, and then a hundred-foot riparian buffer to help filter storm water and manage pollutants. To do that, building should meet the street edge. Just like everything around us comes up to the sidewalk with active retail on the ground floor, that's what makes a city truly urban, where you want to walk the distance between Rittenhouse Square and City Hall because there's things to see and do and look at, and it's not dominated any one single use, blank walls, or driveways. So active uses on the ground floor and buildings that meet the street edge. Parking, then, is handled carefully. It should be hidden where it can be -- either wrapped within the 32 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 building, underground if possible, or part of a remote parking car-share or mass-transportation system. This really gets to -- a critical part of the civic vision is, how do we manage traffic and transportation and parking so that it does not dominate the physical landscape, because large parking structures that are visible multiple lanes of traffic where pedestrians can't cross make the riverfront, or any part of this city that's dominated by those characteristics, unfriendly and unwelcoming. So how we manage parking, how we deal with traffic is a critical part of our thinking. Green spaces that are both public and private, green roofs, courtyards, a network of open spaces all contribute to the health and viability of what we're calling a 21st-century city. 33 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 And then massing of building, towers that are staggered for views allow people to live in a variety of different building types and forms, not calling for any one specific form in general. The piers: Sixty-one of them that line the river's edge are important development opportunities but also could be overbuilt if we're not careful. How do we manage the development of the piers, protect public and private views, allow for parking, and also protect the river's edge? So this shows a series of subdistricts, which is basically helping the Zoning Code Commission as it does its work, and it breaks down to the various geographic areas as well as different market forces that are currently occurring on the Central Delaware. So a quick view of what this 34 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 might look like. Looking from the north, from Allegheny Avenue over the Conrail lands, as we imagine the network of streets, open spaces, and development parcels, it's essentially an extension of Philadelphia to the river's edge, with lots and lots of development. And in the south, across the Ikea, Wal-Mart, and other areas of -- that include big boxes and lots of parking, we imagine Whitman, Pennsport, Queen Village also extended out across the Central Delaware.
Again, this is long-term. We manage imagine a master plan that will create the template for growth, but ultimately, as market conditions kick in over time, there will be the infrastructure that's developed and implemented in order for this plan to be realized. And at Penn Treaty Park, we can imagine the adaptive reuse of the 35 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 power station, with development surrounding it and people coming to the river's edge in a truly urban and exciting fashion. And if you'll give me about two more minutes, I'm going to take you on a flyover of what the Central Delaware might look like as it goes from kind of a largely post-industrial landscape to one that is urban and connected and a part of the extension of Philadelphia to the river. )
The 36 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. It was a very impressive presentation, and I know that you have worked very hard on it and Councilman DiCicco has worked extremely hard in trying to bring this vision to a reality. A long-term question I have, and this is as a member of the Penn's Landing Board for the past, god, twenty-some years: The ownership of the parcels along the entire waterfront are mixed, are varied from public ownership to private ownership, you know, as you went through your presentation, old industrial uses. How do you -- or has the discussion been had to talk about how you manage individual development desires over the course of or 30 years? 24 'Cause what I always remember 25 about these large kind of Penn's 37 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Landing projects is that they were really massive in scale, and they had a lot of iterations, and they would be -- they started out more grand than they wound up, and it was a very frustrating process. Since this all needs to be coordinated in some fashion, how do you keep -- or how do you manage a private owner or a private developer from developing parcels of land that maybe don't fit into the vision of the green, open, environmentally-friendly riparian touching edge? 'Cause it's hard when people own their own property if they want to build either a high-rise residential property or they want to do some commercial or entertainment use. What's the suggestion to try to not slow it down but manage it in a way that it fits into the overall vision?
That's a great question. Thank you, Councilman 38 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Kenney. I'm going to try to break that down in a couple of different responses. One is: This is going to take time. If it didn't happen overnight, it's not going to be solved overnight. The City, as we all know, has the ability to create zoning, to create a master plan, and ultimately decide the form of its city in terms of streets, open space, and transportation networks, but it will take a concerted effort to create the master plan, work with the development community and the private ownership. The Delaware is largely, 95 percent, privately controlled, whether it's the port, private development. The City owns about two miles, but that's under the control of the Penn's Landing Corporation. So in the interim, which is what my op-ed says today: First, do 39 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 no harm. Let's agree -- if these are the principles that are important, then let's figure out a way to use them to, in the very short term, use that to guide decision-making. At the same time, we've spoken with the Councilman's office and working with the civic associations to do an interim zoning overlay that would help to codify the goals of the Central Delaware, while the Zoning Code Commission is working to ultimately do long-term zoning reform. This could be one of their test cases, given that a lot of work has been done. There also needs to then be a master plan that lays out the intention of the City streets put on paper that say, When this parcel gets developed, a street will go in. It's a long-term and difficult but, we think, something worth striving for structure. 40 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 There is the Penn's Landing Corporation and whether or not it's reformed as something that we think needs to be discussed. We've talked about that, it's in my op-ed today, that it has the potential to be a progressive, open and transparent implementation and management agency. I think it's up to Council and the new administration to determine how they want to move forward on managing this kind of growth.
Do you think that the development of the public land first sets the tone for the overall vision?
For example, that two-mile strip -- I mean, I've always felt that with all of the private development proposals that have gone at Penn's Landing, I'm really glad none of them ever happened because I think we would have been stuck with 41 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 something we didn't want there, and for numbers of reasons, the two or three or four of them went by the wayside, and I'm happy in retrospect that that's the case.
I've always concluded, after all these years, that somehow, large public subsidies are going to be needed to develop that particular two-mile parcel in a way that's accessible and open to the public and really fits into what it is you're outlining here. But you do believe that trying to get the publicly-owned parcels developed in this vision first will set the tone for it?
Yes, absolutely. Those are a bird in hand. We have them, they are a tremendous asset, and making them a green and public space will increase the value 42 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of everything around it. We know that from Rittenhouse Square, where the Parking Authority invested $6 million in the parcel just to the north of the square, and they sold it for $37 million a couple years later. Quality, open space is a tremendous incentive for private development. The model in Philadelphia has been, Let's pump money -- put development on public land. We want to -- we're trying to turn that on its end: Let's public money in public space to help support and enhance the value of the private sector.
And I totally agree 'cause I think that what we've seen over the years are kind of unworkable projects that -- again, the last one tat we worked very hard on, if it had gone there, I think, would have been an absolute disaster in the end.
So I'd like 43 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 to keep that public space open. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
I would kind of like to pick up on one of the questions that Councilman Kenney asked about the development and the vision specific to the Foxwoods 'cause, obviously, that's the purpose of this hearing today. Do you think that the Foxwoods plan of development fits the civic vision?
Could you elaborate on why you don't think it 44 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 does?
It includes a million and a half square feet of structured parking, which is equal to roughly football fields or 7 one-and-a-half John Wanamakers or 8 one-and-a-half One Liberty's as exposed 9 parking structure which would dominate 10 the streetscape as well as the 11 landscape. So that's one of the 12 issues. 13 Their parking remediation 14 suggestions make the Delaware 15 Boulevard -- or Columbus Boulevard at 16 that point more highway in nature and 17 less pedestrian-friendly and is really 18 a short-term solution to what is a 19 long-term challenge, which is a 20 maturing commercial corridor that is 21 trending towards dense urbanization 22 and needs to be thought of in a more 23 kind of wholistic traffic and 24 transportation program. 25 The site itself covers 45 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 approximately 8 to 900 foot of frontage on Columbus Boulevard and is not broken at the 500-foot intervals, which we're calling for in terms of the Philadelphia street pattern. There's no active uses at the street edge. The building itself is set back behind what is essentially kind of a traffic park. And so it would be very difficult to get to it by foot and to kind of want to get there because there's large parking ingress and egress and access to the building. So it's not a pedestrian-scale or a pedestrian-friendly destination.
You answered all three of my questions with that one statement, and I thank you, in the interest of time. Thanks, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes 46 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Steinberg.
Actually, bouncing off of what Councilman DiCicco said: Have you, as a result of the concerns you have with the Foxwoods design,s have you had conversations with anybody dealing with Foxwoods, or have they engaged you at all? Has there been any back-and-forth on that?
We have met with representatives of Foxwoods nearly from the beginning of this process to just understand where they were, and we have given them as well as SugarHouse briefings on the Central Delaware through the process, but we did not feel it was our role to actually advise them on design or be critics, per se. So our job was, as we saw it, to walk a very fine line between not 47 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 commenting on use because we know that that's a sensitive issue, but to what our appropriate design guidelines to help manage the growth of the whole corridor, not just this site. So our focus was to always be as open and honest about where we were going with this process as it evolved through the civic forums, feedbacks, and best practices, share that information but not critique or design individual parcels.
Let me first echo Councilman Jim Kenney's remarks regarding the -- how comprehensive, thorough, and detailed this presentation was; it was quite 48 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 impressive.
To Councilman Greenlee's question, you stated that as some point in the process, you had conversations with Foxwoods and SugarHouse regarding this presentation here today.
At what point? We met with Foxwoods and with SugarHouse, I believe, as early as last fall, really just to get information and meet them and to show that we're trying to reach out to everybody.
What we did -- from the very beginning, our strategy, politically -- and I say it in kind of a small P -- was to reach out to everybody.
Before the advisory group even met, which is the official body, we met with nearly all of the civic association that line 6 the river wards to show them that we 7 were independent, honest, neutral 8 brokers. 9
Not everyone 11 believed that and there was a lot 12 suspicion throughout, but our goal was 13 to dispel that by being as transparent 14 and open as possible. 15 We did --
I'm sorry. We did the same thing with the casino operators as well as other developers up and down the corridor. So we met with Jeff Rotwood, who is a lawyer at Obermeyer, who was involved with Foxwoods. We met with Keating and -- Dan Keating and his group, 50 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 which included Ian Cope, from Copelander, who were working on SugarHouse, and that was before we had any designs on paper.
The designs didn't emerge until about four months into the process. So we spent four months listening, learning, researching, and analyzing best practices.
We brought folks from around the country to Philadelphia to share what they've done on their waterfronts.
We brought in teams of designers from around the world as well as locally to kind of help start to think if we have best practices, if we have citizen values, if we have input from a variety of stakeholders, how can we start to solve 51 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 this problem.
So we consciously waited to declare anything until we had done a lot of listening and learning.
And then the ideas started to come out, and then we shared again, and we went -- we had a meeting at -- I believe it was at the Obermeyer law firm, where there were representatives of the two casinos, where they were given a briefing on the emerging systems of transportation, movement, open0space development, and the guidelines for development that was presented to them last summer.
Okay. So you answered my subsequent question, which was: When you initially sat with them, you did not have a document like this to share with them, which might be 52 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 helpful in informing and instructing subsequent steps?
There wasn't anything to -- and one of the fascinating parts of this process as well as what you're doing is that, you know, there are projects in play and how you -- and this gets back to Councilman Kenney's question: How do you begin to kind of manage growth in a way that balances public good and private investment, while there are projects that are working their way through the pipeline.
Mm-hmm. And to make sure I heard you correctly, you've since met the with the parties connected with the casinos since the publication of this document, so they've had a chance to see this tangible document and react to it? 53 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Okay. And I ask that question because, in response to Councilman Greenlee's question, you indicated that there have been discussions. Discussions with a document is one thin; discussions without a document is something else.
Yeah. This has been very public and very -- you know, the public has been apprised of this throughout. It's been in over 80 or 90 articles in the newspapers. We have a website where everything is videotaped and online. So it's all out there. And we've certainly met with as many people as we can, but we haven't -- I do not believe we've met with the casinos post-issuing the documents itself. 54 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Okay. Central Delaware Advisory Group is an agent of whom?
The Central Delaware Advisory Group was created by executive order of Mayor Street --
And it runs -- it expires in '09, so it's currently active in its -- there's civic 15 associations which have decided to stay active.
And we're helping to work with them to create an active plan.
Thank you, Madam President. 55 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I wanted to ask you a question more centered around the mass-transit component. I don't know what level of specificity you got into the practicality of it, but it's something that I've thought for quite some time regardless of what happens ultimately related to the casinos or any other development that should be explored. I actually had the occasion, like Councilman Kenney, to sit on the Penn's Landing Board for a while doing the -- I guess it was the Bartolo -- 56 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the Simon project, and it was a massive proposal. It wasn't very green in any standards whatsoever, and it didn't happen, obviously. But during the discussion, it was thought, even back then, that there needed to be some sort of a mass transit component. I actually had an opportunity -- and this is maybe three or four years -- maybe four or five years ago, to ride a train. Mr. Bennett Levin, who actually used to be the L&I commissioner, he had a -- he brought one of his trains down, a passenger train, and he took a number of Councilmembers and state legislators for a ride. And the ride started at the Hyatt Hotel, and he actually took us all the way up to East Falls. It was amazing that we had the ability.
Yeah. I 57 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 was like, wow, I had no idea you could actually connect and understanding that. Is there -- did you -- when you got into the mass-transit proponent, first of all, did you look at the practicality of bringing rail? And you would obviously either have to share the tracks on the southern end with the CSX I believe it is?
And then further up -- extending it further up the river. Did you look at, first, the practicality of putting something like that down there in terms of the infrastructure and then the ability to actually tie that into other areas throughout the City, similar to what we did on that ride?
It was a long question, I know, but I -- 58 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
But I think it's a critical question. I think in developing the riverfront as well as developing the rest of this city, our mass-transit infrastructure is a tremendous asset that we have. And as oil's at $104 gallon and they expect it to be $4 a gallon at the pump by summer, it's only going to get worse. So the -- so what we're trying to do with this report is position Philadelphia to really sort of seize that opportunity, build the relationships with Washington, where we hope federal dollars will be disbursed differently than they are now, and begin to kind of have that kind of infrastructure investment that's critically needed along the Central Delaware. We worked closely with SEPTA and PATCO throughout this process. And PATCO, as you know, us studying light rail along the Central Delaware 59 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 right now that could connect with the Stadium District as well as with east Market Street and the subway surface lines. So they are in the process of beginning to kind of look at it from a kind of deeper feasibility level. They've invited me to be a part of their technical advisory committee, which Rhina Cutler is part of as well as Paul Levy, who's interested in this issue. Our traffic consultants, as well as our design consultants, looked at dimensionally the feasibility of adding light rail to Delaware Boulevard in its kind of width and right-of-way, and it is feasible. It's also feasible, from what we understand, to use the existing freight rail with a modification that they could switch from both. Cities such as San Diego, Seattle, and others do share the right-of-way between 60 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 passenger and freight. So one of the things I called for in today's op-ed is: Don't give up that right-of-way. There could be the urge to do so to get more traffic in particularly to some of the development and add more turning lanes, but if we give up that right-of-way, we give up what I think is really the future of the waterfront, which is in making sure that mass transit is a vital part of the realization of the vision.
Mm-hmm. Understanding the -- what I believe the obvious significant costs of implementing such a program, at what point will you start looking at the costs associated with doing something like that on, you know, maybe a phased approach? Because even if we're looking at the federal government, in order to get enough allegation of funding, you have to start far out and 61 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 work your way through the system and ultimately get a phased revenue stream to support such a significant improvement.
And PATCO, that's a part of their work that they're undergoing right now as a part of a phased feasibility study to ultimately make the case for implementing this kind of investment. At the moment, the deck is stacked against us, to use a bad analogy, because --
Density usually drives investment, and we don't have the density yet. It's a chicken and egg, so how you start to craft that argument --
Oh, okay. 62 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Well -- so is that the parameters that they're operating around, that you need to be able to have a significant amount of potential traffic -- customers in order to justify such a use?
There's a number of metrics that the federal government uses in terms of investment in that kind of infrastructure, and many of them are being requested right now in terms of the way the gas tax is redistributed to the states for highway reinvestment as opposed to transportation investment. And there's a bill that's coming up at the end of this session in Congress that could ultimately raise the gas tax to 40 cents, from what is now currently 18 cents, over the next five years that could then start to put significant investment into transportation in the inner-city. So I think the moment is now to really have us start to think that 63 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 way, with the potential for a change in the White House, a change in Congress at the end of this year. With Congress starting to think more broadly about the implications of global warming and rising gas tax, mass transportation, then, becomes a critical part of that discussion. We currently fund transportation as part of a -- the Highway Funding Act of 1956, which largely goes to building new highways in areas that are congested. So a shift in paradigm is potentially coming down the road, and this sets us up, I think, for this conversation in a way that's critical.
You're welcome. Are there any further questions? 64 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 (No further questions.)
Mr. McPherson, our next witnesses? MR. McPHERSON: Our next witnesses are: Charles Denny, from the Streets Department; and Fran Harney, who is an assistant district traffic engineer for PennDOT. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Madam President and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear. My name is Charles Denny, and I am the acting chief traffic engineer for the Department of Streets, and I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No. 080026 and Bill No. 080027. The Streets Department has 65 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 been working with PennDOT in reviewing the impact of the casinos on the Delaware for the past few years. Each casino provided preliminary impact studies to the Streets Department and PennDOT for our review last year. Both agencies reviewed the preliminary studies and issued a joint letter that required a collection of additional data, identification of additional mitigation measures, and requested that traffic engineering consultants for the two separate casinos share traffic projection since one casino's crosses over into the area of the other casino. This should be a part of the traffic impact analysis. The casinos have agreed to use the Market Street as the boundary between the two casino areas. Foxwoods would be responsible for mitigation measures south of Market Street along Columbus Boulevard, and 66 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 SugarHouse would be responsible for mitigation measures north of Market Street along Columbus Boulevard/ Delaware Avenue. Both the Streets Department and PennDOT have stated that the goals of each organization are to reduce the effect of the additional traffic generated by the casinos to a minimum and to keep that traffic on the main highway, Columbus Boulevard/Delaware Avenue, and off the local roadways. Both agencies have stated that all mitigation measures identified in the impact study for Phase I are to be installed before the (indiscernible) casinos open. Traffic consultants for each casino have redone their traffic impact studies and resubmitted them to the Streets Department and PennDOT with the additional information that was requested. These studies are being reviewed by both the City and 67 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 State departments, and these reviews are not yet complete. Specifically, on the Foxwoods casino site and the mitigation measures, I have preliminarily reviewed some of the plans and their studies. This site has more challenges than the other casino. The streets Department has the same challenges with Columbus Boulevard today from Walnut Plaza to the Morris Street on-ramp to I-95. The solutions require physical changes to several intersections to make the existing conditions work and to handle future traffic generated by the Foxwoods Casinos. Excluding the changes at the entrance to Foxwoods Casinos, the following changes will be required: Add a second northbound turn lane from Columbus Boulevard to the combined I-95 I-676 ramp, keeping three moving lanes northbound and 68 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 southbound on Columbus Boulevard. Add a second northbound turn lane from Columbus Boulevard at Washington Avenue, keeping three moving lanes northbound and southbound on Columbus Boulevard. Establish a new left turn and traffic signal at Columbus and Morris Street for the northbound traffic to reduce the need for traffic to make U-turns on Columbus Boulevard or to travel through neighborhood streets to reach the southbound I-95 ramp. Replace the all-way stop control at Water and Morris Streets with a traffic signal, which causes the traffic heading to I-95 southbound ramp to back up onto southbound Columbus Boulevard. The other signals not at the site require signal retiming and possible restriping of some approaches. The three intersections at the 69 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 site -- Reed, Dickinson, and Tasker Street with Columbus Boulevard -- require that the intersections and the signals be redesigned. The streets Department and PennDOT system are still reviewing the design package that was submitted. In addition, Bill No.
080027 provides that the zoning map change for a Commercial Entertainment District for the proposed Foxwoods Casinos sites contain several conditions that need to be met before the ordinance can take effect. Among these conditions is Section 3(a)2 of the bill, which calls for an independent traffic analysis. The administration supports this condition and other terms and conditions contained within the Bill 22 080027. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I am here to answer any questions. 70 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Thank you. Mr. Harney, are you going to testify?
I don't have any formal testimony; I'm just here in support of Charlie Denny.
Thank you. Mr. Denny, you state that the Streets Department and PennDOT have been working with the two proposed casino operators on various traffic engineering issues and that each casino has redone their traffic impact studies and resubmitted them to the Streets Department and PennDOT, and that the review of these amended studies is not yet completed. When can we expect to see a report from the Streets Department and also PennDOT?
I think either by the end of this month or the middle of 71 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 next month.
Are you saying that at least six design changes must be made by Foxwoods? If these changes are not agreed to, will the Streets Department withhold approval of the project plan?
Are these design changes the only changes that will need to be made for the Foxwoods project, or do they only relate to Phase I of the project; and if it is only Phase I, what additional phases -- or changes, I'm sorry, will have to be made for Phases II and III?
The report's just for Phase I, and I need to look a little further to see what will be necessary for additional phases.
Well, is your report going to indicate all three phases? It should.
The initial report 72 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 does -- did include the additional phases of the casinos as they moved on and identified some potential improvements to be associated with those phases. However, as we go through the current negotiations, we are only discussing Phase I and those improvements that are associated with Phase I.
Well, do you think it's prudent to proceed with Phase I of this project without knowing whether the traffic requirements for proceeding with -- (Applause.)
Phase s II and III will be in place at the future time?
That's obviously a very good question and something we are also considering.
Well, the report that we will be getting at the end of the month, will that be 73 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 all-inclusive, or are we just talking about Phase I?
We are primarily talking about the initial phases of the casino at this time and how to mitigate those initial traffic projections, and that has been agreed to with both casinos at this time, but that doesn't mean that that's the end of the discussions.
No. 15 I that's not an answer to the question. Mr. Denny?
There will be additional mitigation measures required for the subsequent phases as more traffic is generated by the two sites, 74 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 and they won't be able to expand to the later phases unless those are done.
Well, that's not a very prudent way of doing things, in my opinion. Councilman DiCicco?
Well, I guess I was going to basically make the same statement. I mean, if you do the Phase I, and you said you'll address the issues going forward with II and III, will there be -- do you know whether there will be the need to acquire some private properties in order to add some travel lanes and things? Shouldn't that be a part of our forward-thinking? I mean, we just saw a civic vision, which your department was a party to. These are the things we probably didn't do many, many years 75 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 ago and we should be doing now, whether it's casinos or not, with the anticipation of development that's going on down there anyway. Is there a much more futuristic vision for how we would move traffic up and down Columbus Boulevard/Delaware Avenue in relationship to the casinos being developed or not? Phase I, we know what the anticipated vehicular traffic will be. And as the Council President's asking, should we -- I believe it would be prudent for us to have a much more forward vision of what we will need -- what will need to be done in order to accommodate Phases II and III, should they ever become a reality.
We believe the SugarHouse will -- Columbus Boulevard will be able to handle the traffic generated by SugarHouse in the later phases. 76 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 The southern one, again, has more challenges. There were recommendations for an additional ramp off of I-95, and that requires more work in terms of finding out where that would be sited.
And don't know one? That's the title of a song, I think.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee. 77 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Thank you, Madam President. I guess my question's along sort of the same lines, maybe just slightly different. I mean, obviously, one of the concerns raised the very day that Foxwoods was recommended or approved, whatever word you want to use, was the whole issue of traffic and how you get there and all of that kind of stuff. Now, I know you say, you know, that the traffic consultants for each casino have re-done their traffic impact studies. You said you -- so that's that means that you've had conversations with them in some form. How long back -- how long has that been going on?
There were reports generated prior to that, when there were six casinos in consideration that we reviewed. But for these two specifically, the last year and a half. 78 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 And we provided a joint letter last August to both casinos in terms of what we required in terms of additional information and mitigation measures.
Okay. So you would basically say they've done what they were supposed to -- I mean, is that what would be your statement, that they dealt with the issue, is that -- I mean would that be...
Not completely. We're still going through the report, and we'll still have requirements for them to do, but --
I guess one of the things in your statement -- and I'm not trying to be critical, but you talk about some things like turning lanes and timing and that. And, again, 79 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I go back to what I first said: You had a problem there in the beginning. With all due respect to the Streets Department, why haven't you done some of those things already to fix what's already there? (Applause.)
Because we have a -- don't -- do you agree -- I guess I should ask first, do you agree that there's a problem now, that there's a traffic-flow problem now?
Yes. And the two ones are the double turns required at Washington and at the double ramp to I-95, I-76.
And that requires a good bit of additional money, which we did not have available, to rebuild those two intersections and get the extra lane constructed in either one of those.
But I 80 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 know one of the things you say here is, the other signals not onsite require signal significantly timing and possible restriping. I mean, is that -- the timing doesn't sound -- the retiming of things --
We have prepared new timing plans; we have not implementing them. We will be implementing them within the next month or so on that section from -- from basically Walnut Plaza on to Columbus Commons, changing the cycle and improving the green time for pedestrians crossing.
Again, not to be confrontational or critical 81 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 here, but that's been a problem for a while, hasn't it?
There were a number of problems. It wasn't working properly to start with; we fixed that. But it's still -- we realized we needed to make the changes, and we've been working on making those changes. But we have not at this point implemented -- we still have to work out the actual coordination of the signals, how we're going to group them together, because we're going to a longer cycle length, which tends to make things more sluggish and slower. And we have to choose how we pair or group the signals together to maximize the flow north and south, so it's less sluggish.
Now, the 82 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 timing of those lights, or some of the other things you're doing, is that in a sense -- I guess the only way to say this, is that speeding traffic through a little bit more? Would that be the -- because it wouldn't get backed up. Is that --
We're not speeding them through; we're trying to move them through more efficiently. We're moving them through groups of vehicles in platoons so that there's a series of lights that are green that the vehicles move through; and then when they get to a light that's red, they've got to stop, wait for that to change and then move through that next grouping. We're also increasing the time for pedestrians to cross from what they're getting now so that they'll be getting a little bit more time.
That change you have in the traffic, how does that affect pedestrian flow, as you could see? 'Cause I think at our last hearing, the folks from Foxwoods -- and I think everybody would agree that if we can, you know, improve pedestrian flow, that obviously helps also. So is that where we'd see that --
We'll be timing the lights so that the pedestrian leaving the curb gets all the way across in one across; where, in many cases, they don't do that now, they're only going halfway, and then they have to wait for the next cycle.
Okay, all right. Let me just, in a sense, repeat my first question and then I'll -- I won't dominate here. The Streets Department has not yet approved what -- we're going to hear from Orth-Rodgers. Have they 84 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 actually -- are they in agreement with what Orth-Rodgers is saying? Or I thought I heard you say that there are still other discussions to have or --
We are still reviewing their proposal and we will be making a joint letter from PennDOT and the Streets Department to each of the casinos but to Foxwoods concerning that particular report and what their design shows.
So is it fair to say at this point that traffic engineering is not quite there yet, as saying that they agree that this -- the plan, as described by the consultant for Foxwoods, they are not totally in agreement with yet? Is that a fair statement?
And you're still working with them on that; is that what you said?
All right, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. First let me preface my question/comment with no desire to give you guys a hard time. I know you're technical people, this is what you do, and I know the task you've been given is probably fraught with some pressure to kind of get this thing moving, especially from the Harrisburg side. And I don't need you to comment, and I understand that. What confuses me is not Phases 86 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 II and III but Phase I. The six things that have been recommended don't seem to me to be that significant of changes that are going to really make this any -- much better than it is today, or with the additional 25,000 vehicles as expected. And what I'm confused about is that on one hand, the testimony says that we're trying to do something with light-timing to move the vehicles more efficiently, while, at the same time, giving people a longer period of time to cross the street. I don't know how you do both. If you're going to move cars -- not speed them through, but if you're going to move them through in a more -- in a quicker or a more effective, efficient manner, how do you get people the time to cross the street if you're moving these vehicles faster than they are moving now? 87 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
We're basically going to a longer cycle length. We're going from 90 to 120, so we have 30 seconds we're separating -- we're giving some of that time to the pedestrians to cross and we're giving some of that time to the traffic to go through north and south.
All right. I -- because -- I mean, as someone who uses that area all the time, including the Water Street passageway, if you call it that, I mean, right now, I think we have too many streets under 95 and on Water Street that are going in two different directions, which really are confusing. I mean, if you stop at that intersection at Water and Tasker and to try to get through it, it's a very, 88 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 very dangerous people, despite how small it is. People are turning left as you're trying to get across Water, people are not stopping at the stop sign, people are backing up from Tasker Street from Columbus Boulevard to Water. It's just -- there's two lanes of traffic under the highway of those streets, which makes it very difficult to turn and very difficult to cross, 'cause there's cars coming all the time. I mean, I appreciate the efforts on Phase I for additional lanes and signage and lights and timing; I don't really think that's enough. I really just -- I don't think it's enough. (Applause.)
Just knowing the conditions now, it's just -- it's really scary. But, again, I mean no 89 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 disrespect. I know you're doing your job and I appreciate you're doing your job, and we love our Streets Department and PennDOT's wonderful, but I just -- I think you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole down there, and I don't think it's going to work. So that's just my comment.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning again, gentlemen. The questions I had on pedestrians have already been asked. The suggestions that you're making on the changes as it relates to traffic -- pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic -- on Columbus/ Delaware Avenue Boulevard, what, if 90 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 any, impact will they have on the feeder streets coming from the west, obviously?
As you give more time to the pedestrians, you're giving more time to the east-west streets because they're sharing that time with the pedestrians.
Will there be more stacking on the westbound streets because you're giving more time on the -- for the north-south traffic?
When we give more time to pedestrians, we give more time to the east-west streets, so they have -- they are getting more time.
But the stacking for the east-west streets will remain the same.
But the green for 91 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 east-west streets will increase.
The green time for the east-west streets increases 'cause we're increasing the green time for the pedestrians.
On your other suggestions -- I think it was number one. Yes, it is. Add a second northbound lane from Columbus Boulevard to the combined I-95 I-676 on-ramp, keeping three lanes northbound and southbound on Columbus Boulevard. That's the lane where, if you're traveling north, you make the left off of Columbus Boulevard to get onto I-95, correct?
In order for you to add a third lane, a travel lane, that means you would have to take the eastbound side of the roadway, that sidewalk; is that correct?
The sidewalk -- the distance from the sidewalk, the curb line of that sidewalk to the bulkhead between Dockside and the other pier, which number I can't think of, is very narrow. How would you be able to add a lane in without either eliminating or significantly reducing that sidewalk?
There is -- the distance varies. There's also a lay-by there for parking, which I think we 93 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 would lose, but the width is there that you can take the lane and still have a sufficiently wide enough sidewalk.
Do you know the width of that sidewalk is now? You know the piece I'm talking about, where it gets really narrow between the piers? mr den: There's --
It's almost to the immediate right of where you make the left to get onto I-95. It's the finger pier --
-- where the bulkhead comes in. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible, off-mic.)
No, no. 21 This is south of that. This is just near Jack Brown's and Dockside, just south of Dockside. It gets very narrow.
I remember looking 94 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 at the plan for that. I don't remember the exact measurement, but the width was as least ten feet left, if not more, at the narrowest point for the sidewalk.
But remember, there's a lay-by in there, so it narrows it down. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
I could be wrong, but I don't think we're talking about the same section of sidewalk. In fact, after this hearing, I may take a ride down there just to re-acclimate myself, but I know it gets very narrow. And my -- the way I remember that sidewalk being so narrow is that 95 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 you would literally have to start moving that bulkhead further out and have filling, which leads to a whole bunch of other issues.
I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just trying to figure out -- look, I think we should have a third lane in there now, I mean, because that would stop some of the stacking that we are already currently experiencing. And I think the way I remember it, it would not permit to have a sidewalk if you took more of that eastbound travel lane to create a third lane for travel going north.
The plans that I've seen retain the sidewalk, but I'm 96 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 sure Mr. Greene from Foxwoods could probably elaborate further.
Yeah, I just would like to know what the current size of the sidewalk is and what we would have left if that third lane were added in. I think that's all, Madam President.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Jeremy Alvarez. (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record 97 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Jeremy Alvarez. I'm an urban planner and a transportation planner who's been active in this region for many years. I'm accompanied today by Lou Luggio, a professional engineer and expert in traffic matters. We both work for Stantec Consulting, a multi-disciplined planning, engineering, architecture management consulting firm with offices throughout North America. We work out of our office at 260 South Broad Street, here in Philadelphia. Madam Chairwoman and members of the Rules Committee, I'm here today --
Excuse me, Jeremy. Before you proceed, do you have written testimony that you can share with us?
It's -- yes. I -- but it won't be precise because 98 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 we've been working --
Our firm was retained in the summer of 2007 by City Council to conduct a review of the -- and to develop commentary on the proposed traffic-mitigation plans for both the Foxwoods and SugarHouse casino proposals. The focus of our review was, and is, to assist in optimizing the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. Today, we're going to focus soley on the Foxwoods proposal, given the purpose of the hearing, and I will provide an overview of what has transpired to date, and Mr. Luggio will comment more specifically on the traffic -- selected aspects of the 99 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 traffic studies that are in the proposed mitigation plans. There are have been several cycles of traffic review as part of this process. In mid-November of 2006, five casino operators made proposals for two licenses in the city. They presented their plans and a host of other materials to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board at hearings in Harrisburg. Each of these proposals contained traffic-mitigation plans, and these were posted by the Casino Board on their website. The Foxwoods traffic impact study had been submitted in May of 2006. An extensive revision was submitted to the board in October of 2006. At this point in the process, Foxwoods' plan contained several features -- notably a ramp from I-95 southbound to the waterfront -- that were proposed to be developed in conjunction with later phases of the 100 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 project. Shortly after the November hearings, SugarHouse and Foxwoods proposals selected by the board to receive the two Philadelphia licenses. In September of 2007, the Stantec team sent Councilman DiCicco a memorandum summarizing our comments on the mitigation plans as they stood at that point. The councilman forwarded these comments to the Foxwoods team. There were numerous comments, but I'll summarize some of the, I think, most important ones. We agreed with their trip- generation assumptions, particularly the assumed number of automobiles arriving at the site. These were lower than suggested by independent research that we conducted and also lower than those suggested by the Mayor's Gaming Commission, which had researched the issue in other locales. We disagreed with the trip 101 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 distribution on the roadway network, particularly the assumption that 4 percent of the traffic would approach 5 from the south on Columbus Boulevard; 6 specifically, that seemed too high to 7 us. 8 There were concerns about 9 traffic operations in later phases of 10 the project, which had not, in our 11 view, been adequately addressed. 12 There were suggestions 13 regarding further, particularly 14 traffic-modeling, that were made by 15 Stantec to Orth-Rodgers. 16 A meeting was held with the 17 Foxwoods team, with representatives of 18 the City in attendance, to discuss our 19 comments. It is important for the 20 record to reflect that at all times, 21 the manner and approach of the 22 Foxwoods team was highly professional 23 and cooperative, a fact that was much 24 appreciated throughout the process. 25 At the meeting, Orth-Rodgers 102 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Associates presented a written response to our comments, and we had a thorough discussion of all of the issues. On the matters of trip generation and distribution, Orth chose not to change either set of assumptions. On a wide variety of other matters, changes had been made by Orth to meet particular concerns; that is, they had responded to many comments by making changes to their proposals. And the Foxwoods team agreed to perform additional traffic- modeling, per the suggestions. Perhaps most importantly, though, at that meeting, the Foxwoods team told us that they were not planning to develop traffic-mitigation plans for the possible later phases of the project.
Specifically, the plans would address their Phase I plan, which included 3,000 slot machines and a variety of support retail. They 103 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 stated that the later phases were uncertain and speculative at this point. They made a commitment to re-study the needed mitigation when a decision was taken to move to Phase II, which would increase the number of slot machines from 3,000 to 5,000. And the work would benefit from actual operation data from Phase I; that is, they'd have an operating casino and they'd have new data to work with as they analyzed what would happen with Phase II. So it is that Phase 1 project and the associated proposed traffic mitigation that is the topic of our testimony today. In the course of this process, several meetings were held jointly with Foxwoods, PennDOT's traffic unit, the City's traffic unit. It would be useful -- not be useful -- we didn't think it would be useful today to try 104 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 to describe the evolution of these discussions, but it is important to understand that in the case of a large project in a complex environment -- and this certainly meets those two criteria -- it is normal for the studies and plans to develop in a series of iterations, a back-and-forth discussion, as things are developed. Given that Foxwoods had previously prepared a full traffic impact study in 2006, PennDOT made a decision late in 2007 to scale back the required additional work somewhat and requested that Foxwoods bring their various proposals together as a signal-permit application. The resulting document is the Traffic-Signal System Design Report, which our team received in late February of this year. Again, only the Phase I portion of the potential Foxwoods project is addressed in the report. 105 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 With that document, Orth- Rodgers supplied computer-model files that were employed to develop the signal designs; that is, we had live files that we could look at and run them ourselves. And Stantec reviewed those models. So at this point, I would like to turn the presentation over to Lou Luggio, a traffic engineer very familiar with these models, to provide comments on the proposals contained in the report.
Thanks, Jeremy. To reiterate what has been stated earlier, the Foxwoods team has been very professional and responsive in addressing comments on the traffic analysis prepared for the project. As noted in Mr. Denny's testimony, numerous improvements are proposed along the Columbus Boulevard corridor. These improvements are not only designed to mitigate the impacts 106 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of the Foxwoods Casino, but also help to address a number of existing deficiencies along Columbus Boulevard. Before I begin discussing our comments, I'd like to provide a brief explanation of a few traffic- engineering technical materials. The first is "level of service," LOS. The level of service is a report card on how well an intersection can process traffic, and it ranges from Level Service A, which is a free-flow, great condition, to Level Service F. So it's A through F, F being a failing condition. At Level Service E, it's accessible for vehicles to get through the intersection, but they are congested. The second term is a "V-over-C ratio"; that's a volume-to-capacity ratio. 0. " Queuing is basically cars that are stacked up, waiting to get processed by the traffic signal. If there's an exclusive left-turn lane, that lane itself experiences a number of vehicles that are queued in it, waiting to get processed by the signal. And, as you would imagine, if that lane is too short to handle the queuing traffic, it then backs up the through-movements in the corridor, thereby creating congestion. As Jeremy stated, we received a copy of the Traffic Signal System Design Report prepared by Orth-Rodgers in late February of 2008. The report documents the analysis of fifteen intersections along Columbus Boulevard as well as the intersection of Morris Street and Water Street during nine 108 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 different peak periods of operation. Our review of the documents identified some areas of concern. The analysis, as presented in the report, identifies a number of intersections where there are significant increases in delay associated, or anticipated, in the future; that's ten years beyond the anticipated 2009 opening of the casino. When we talk about delay, we're talking about the additional time that a vehicle or a motorist would have to wait in addition to the red time of a traffic signal, so the vehicle wouldn't be moving because of the congestion that's in the corridor. During numerous periods, the northbound left turn at Reed Street drops from no worse than Level Service D to Level Service F. An example of this: For the Friday early peak hour is that the delay would be 109 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 approximately a half a minute, and it would increase to nearly two minutes of delay. During all Friday peak periods, the southbound Columbus Boulevard through-movement at Christian Street is degraded from an acceptable level of service to a Level Service F. And an example of this: Again, on a Friday early peak hour would be a Level Service E, about a minute or 60 seconds to a Level Service F, 123 seconds of delay. Similar degradation from an acceptable level of service to Level Service F, or a significant increase in delay, on an already-failing movement occurs during at least on peak period at the following intersections. These are the key intersections that would have problems: The northbound left turn at Christian Street, the eastbound left 110 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 turn at Reed Street, the northbound left turn at the I-95 northbound on-ramp at Lombard Circle, and the northbound left turn at Dock Street. In addition, the following new movements fail during one analysis period, and that would be: the northbound left turn at Tasker Street, the northbound left turn into the site at Dickinson Street.
After review of all of the material and during a recent review of the electronic data files and analysis, we discovered a coding error that impacts all of the analysis that has been prepared and presented in the current report. As a result of this coding error and delay, the V-over-C ratios and the queuing that were predicted and analyzed in the report are all underestimated in the current report. The issue here is moving data files from one version of the software 111 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that is used to look at the signal progression and analysis and operation through the corridor to a newer version of the program. In effect, what happens is that there is an additional amount of green time that's added to all of the approach movements. And this is not something that was done purposely; unfortunately, moving data files from one program to a newer version of it, this happened, and it was just recently discovered. I'd like to provide you with a few examples of what this change means that occur in correcting this coding error and not making any other adjustments, no geometric or timing adjustments. 9, very 112 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 close to capacity. So that 74 seconds would go to 92 seconds of delay, and that would result in a Level Service F, very close to capacity at that turn bay, and the queuing of the vehicles would also increase. And the queuing is the most important part of this because it affects not only the operation of that signal but the signals to the north and south of it. 0, and that queue would go from 197 feet to 220 feet. These are just a few examples of the changes that would occur based on the coding error that was discovered. It our opinion that this 113 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 analysis presented in the current report needs to be revised to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. As Jeremy noted in his testimony, we also raised concerns about the trip generation and distribution utilized in the analysis. Basically, the trip generation itself is the key fundamental aspect of the program and the development. If the trip generation is underestimated, then the mitigation in the proposed roadway network volume is also suspect. The trip generation is a key element in looking at what the build conditions could or would be, not only in Phase I but the subsequent phases. Orth-Rodgers, unfortunately, chose not to change their assumption; however, they agreed to perform a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of the site, generating higher 114 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 traffic volume. If, in fact, that trip generation would be higher, that sensitivity looked at that and being distributed to the roadway network in a different manner. m. and a late Friday afternoon and Saturday early periods. This information should also be provided for the 2019 analysis year. There are many different analysis periods; there are nine altogether. So the other six peak periods -- and we're not sure if they're all required because some generate a worse-case condition, and that's something that we would discuss with them. Once the analysis has been revised with the coding error corrected, we then will also be able 115 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 to accurately assess the results of the sensitivity analysis that has been provided. Additionally, Orth-Rodgers is committed to preparing a microsimulation model to assess the full impacts of the development. This microsimulation model, in our opinion, needs to be conducted in a different analysis tool that has been used. The Vissim, V-I-S-S-I-M, the Vissim analysis program would better ascertain the impacts of the proposed mitigation plan in the corridor itself. We strongly urge that the Vissim model be prepared for the entire corridor length, and not only at the intersections that have a mixture of vehicle traffic and railroad preemption.
The preparation of this model is ongoing for isolated intersections, and future comments may result after reviewing the results of this analysis 116 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 is. Finally, this is the current status of our review. As you can tell from our testimony here, there is additional work that is required to be completed before a final assessment of the impacts of the Foxwoods casino can be determined. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. Just one, I guess, general question, sir. And you may have said this; I may have missed it. I know you said that Orth-Rodgers -- and, again, we're going to hear from them, I know -- did not choose to change anything yet. Did they agree with you that -- you talked about the coding error. Sorry, I lost you a little bit there, but, you know, you -- did they agree with 117 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 your assessment on that, that there was an error there or --
I don't think they actually switched program. It was just a coding error that was built in and then carried over, and -- but the coding error is there. It, in effect, provides a couple of extra seconds that aren't there.
We have also 118 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 contacted the manufacturer of the traffic software, and they agree that, unfortunately, this is something that is built into the model and needs to be changed every time that you go in and you make changes to each individual intersection. So it is there, and that's a question that we would have to follow up with Orth-Rodgers on.
And is that the main concern you have with their report or --
The other is, obviously, the trip generation and the distribution aspects, which fundamentally really cause the traffic to be assigned to the network and then looking at the mitigation that would be required for each one of those.
If I could detail 119 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that a little bit, or put some dimensions on it, we did our own investigation at a certain point in looking at another casino proposal, and we projected approximately 740 trips in the Friday peak. The SugarHouse proposal proposed 840 trips in the Friday peak. And the number that was used by the Foxwoods team was 650. Now, those are actually significantly different numbers.
And you go to 850, or you go up even a relatively small amount in a very fragile system, which is really what this is -- in other words, it's operating at the very edge.
So it could throw it all off, obviously, the numbers.
Yes. That was our concern. 120 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Mm-hmm. Okay, all right. And, like you say, when Orth-Rodgers comes up, I guess I'll ask a similar question.
Okay. Thank you. (Vice Chair Councilman Kenney takes over chairing of proceeding.)
Thank you. Good morning. In reference to the code, how long do you think it will take to correct this error?
I think that's a question that should be put to the Foxwoods team. I don't know. I don't want to comment on their behalf.
What does it mean, this error? What does it mean in significance to Foxwoods' plan?
The overall plan 121 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 probably wouldn't change it. It then looks at the mitigation that is beneficial on an intersection-by- intersection basis long Columbus. Some of the mitigation may not be enough in terms of capacity to handle that additional, number one, traffic and/or the reduction and some of the green time -- (Applause.)
And I don't mean this to be a loaded question, although I'm sure some people will figure it is, but from time to time -- actually, from the beginning, we've always heard from the Foxwoods folks that their traffic-mitigation plan and all of these necessary improvements or whatever, changes, will actually make traffic conditions better. In your estimation, do you 122 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 agree or disagree with that?
And I understand the professionalism that goes on both sides.
And I'm not trying to pit one side against the other, but that's a very crucial question, I think, because that's always been their contention. And being a layperson, I still can't figure how, when you add to 15 25 or 28,000 cars a day, it will make 16 traffic conditions better. I just, in 17 my mind, have never be able to 18 comprehend that, without even taking 19 into consideration Phase II and III 20 and no consideration for any of the development that we hope would come to the Central Delaware waterfront.
And the fragile -- Jeremy, as you mentioned, 123 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 it's very fragile already.
How does it work? And this kind of goes to my statement that Foxwoods folks have been saying for a year. In order for Foxwoods to be successful and the what-if, as Mr. Primavera said at the end of our last meeting, what if we all wake up, and there will be casinos there because of the courts or whatever have made that decision, I know for me, I want 'em to be successful, because the revenues that they generate not only for the profit for the operators, but the revenues that the City will benefit by is important to us, all of us.
And if you can't get your customer in, will you be as successful as you believe that you will be? And these things that we're 124 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 talking about today lead me to continually believe that something's going to break, and we'll get into the economic impact. It's either the casinos won't be successful or the retail establishments that we worked so hard to bring to the city, the big box and all will fail. There's just not enough --
To get back to your loaded question, we anticipated the question and wrestled with what the proper response would be. The most accurate thing I could say is that many movements for many hours are, in fact, improved by their mitigation plan. However, other movements deteriorate and -- so it's -- it's a complicated question to answer.
It depends on the time period and it depends on the 125 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 particular movement.
And, in fact, adding vehicles with the mitigation plan on the corridor and looking at the progression of the signals as the platoon, as Mr. Denny pointed out, moves through the intersection, I guess in a layman's term, you would stop at less traffic signals that are red. However, your speed wouldn't be increased during the corridor experience; you would just stop less, and in fact, you would think that you would be moving quicker through the corridor because you stop at less intersections. In effect, that enables the side street and pedestrian movements to happen more effectively at the intersections. But in general terms, without going through this latest sensitivity analysis and the coding issues that we have, it would probably be as it is 126 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 today, if not, as Jeremy said, a little worse at different locations and different movements. So there is a balancing of some movements having an improved level of service and, unfortunately, some movements having a stressed level of service.
Did your study take into consideration the possibility of the additional ramp, southbound ramp, off of 95?
Our approach throughout, Councilman, was to evaluate the work put forward by the proponents. So while that component was in the very early traffic-impact study, the one prior to the presentation to the board, it was not in any of the subsequent work, and so we did not evaluate it, and it was not included in their modeling exercises. At a certain point -- I believe that Mr. Greene testified to 127 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 this at the prior hearing that you had here -- PennDOT indicated that they wanted to reconsider the whole matter. They didn't want the casino proponent -- necessarily the call that they had made, they weren't convinced that that was absolutely the right ramp to build if you were going to build one or that it was maybe not the right place to build it. And they took that decision back under their wing. I think Mr. Greene testified to that last time he was here. And we were aware of that decision, we were aware of that transition where PennDOT basically pulled back on that.
One final question: Would you recommend further study prior to our final approval?
Yeah, definitely. I mean, the -- first of all, there are defects in this work that are correctable but they need to be worked 128 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 out. And then a little more evaluation about what they propose needs to be done. I mean, we're not convinced we're looking at the actual scenario right now. In other words, the scenario may be different and/or worse, and we'd like to see that.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Frank Tavani. I am a traffic engineer representing the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance. I 129 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 do have something I will be discussing today and I have handouts, if I can approach. (Mr. Tavani's handouts distributed.)
Speak directly into the microphone and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Again, my name is Frank Tavani. I am a licensed traffic engineer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I've been in practice for 15 years, and I am the president and principal of F. Tavani & Associates, Incorporated, which was organized and 2004. I come here today to discuss a couple of issues that are mentioned in the handout, which I just circulated. The handout is a two-page letter followed by a three-page curriculum vitae. The first comment says that 130 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 neither casino's traffic study reflects the other. And to explain that a little bit better, when these traffic studies for both Foxwoods and SugarHouse were first conducted, no 7 one knew who the licenses were going to go to at that time. So, obviously, neither study preparer could accurately predict how much traffic might be due to other casinos that might be in the immediate area. And, as it turns out in this particular instance, we have both licenses awarded to the same -- awarded to locations that are on the same corridor. And in all of the studies that I've reviewed over the last approximately two years to this point, I've seen no mention of the additional traffic that SugarHouse would bring to Foxwoods or vice versa. Now, I should point out that in earlier testimony today, I did hear something I had not heard before. I 131 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 think it was Mr. Denny who pointed out that one of the comments from the City was, in fact, that that traffic should be included. And, obviously, I have not seen the outcome of that review or even the studies that the applicant prepared to at this point. But I will say this: When a traffic engineer is tasked with including other development traffic in his or her traffic study, you can simply take the traffic that is due to that development and layer it into your traffic study and reflect it that way. So, for example, if you're preparing a traffic study for a residential development and it just so happens that another residential development is proposed down the street, it's relatively simple to include that traffic one to the other. However, in this case, these are casinos. And one could offer an 132 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 opinion, which I think would be justifiable, that there's a certain synergy that is actually achieved when you start having multiple casinos in the same general area. And, you know, taken from one extreme, you have Chester Downs, which is an existing freestanding casino in the Philadelphia right now, and that probably has different trip-generation characteristics than, say, casinos in Las Vegas, where that whole city is promoted as a destination that has a certain synergy and other activities that come with having so many casinos in one location. So in this instance, you know, neither one nor the other, maybe you could argue, were closer to the singular situation, but I think it's certainly reasonable to think that there would be some cross traffic between the two casinos. And even the trip-generation 133 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 characteristics of the casinos themselves might be elevated because of the fact that now we have like a strip effect that's starting to be developed. So I would like to see some discussion, or I would humbly suggest that the City request that some suggestion of that be incorporated in future reports. The second issue, which I think we've already covered today, is that it's my understanding that the license that's awarded by the state permits up to 5,000 slot machines, but it seems that despite some previous preliminary work by Foxwoods' traffic engineer indicating other improvements might be necessary at the 5,000 slot machine level, all we're talking about now are improvements that serve up to 3,000 slots.
And I think that it would be incumbent upon City Council to at least find out what improvements would 134 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 be needed and maybe even mandate that those improvements be put in place not only to meet the mandate of making traffic conditions better, as Councilman DiCicco mentioned earlier today, but also just to give some assurances to the people of Philadelphia, and even in the region, that there couldn't be the possibility of going from 3,000 slots to 5,000 slots without those improvements already in place. The third item has to do with the potential for some port redevelopment, which I have seen reported in various capacities in the immediate vicinity of Foxwoods. I'm not sure if any of those plans have been finalized at this point, but I think there's been some pretty discussion and there's been some movement toward a significant revitalization effort that would bring with it its own traffic. And to this 135 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 point, I believe neither traffic studies for either casino have incorporated the effect of that added traffic along the Christopher Columbus Boulevard, and that in itself could render some of the proposed improvements less effective. And, more importantly, just the added traffic from the casino, even with -- or the casinos, even with their proposed improvements, could result in a situation where, as you heard from Stantec, certain movements may deteriorate while others actually get better. If some of those movements which deteriorate happen to be through-movements along Columbus Boulevard, then that would means that the casinos could have a potentially deleterious effect on any planned industrial-seaport activities, which, of course, would render that redevelopment activity less effective. 136 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 And then, finally, you've heard a couple of times tonight that pedestrians, mass transit, and alternative forms of transportation are important to any proposed land development and, certainly, one of this scale. And I find it interesting to note that Shawn Jalosinski, a name with which you're probably all familiar, who is a former traffic engineer with the City and is currently the executive director of the Sports Complex Special Services District was recently quoted, I think, in The Review as saying, quote: The biggest unmet need at this hour is a better way of directing pedestrian flow. Because all pedestrians cross at grade level, they block auto traffic at peak times, end quote. And that is very significant because that is what happens. If you have pedestrian crossings that are 137 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 shared with other vehicular movements, you invariably stymie one or the other. You have a situation where a horde of pedestrians could, in fact, impede some vehicular flow, or vice versa. In the Stadium Complex area, obviously, the pedestrian spikes are significant, and they're clustered around the beginnings and endings of certain events, which are not daily. In the case of a casino, some of the trip-generation information that I've seen submitted by the applicant would seem to suggest a fairly consistent activity level within the casino and, one would assume, a fairly consistent pedestrian activity level of, you know, seven days a week, hours a day to some 22 extent. 23 So I haven't seen any 24 pedestrian studies submitted, I haven't seen any suggestions for what 138 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I would term, you know, "unusual pedestrian facilities" such as grade separation. You know, obviously adding additional green time, or maybe even adding additional crosswalks is an improvement -- there is no denying that -- but that still does not remove the potential conflict that occurs between pedestrians and cars, which could, you know, potentially negatively affect one or the other. And that's essentially the summation of what I turned in.
And I should just point out one other thing that I had noticed during the first presentation, which I also thought was very good. I think a particular slide showed a potential vision of Christopher Columbus Boulevard as being, instead of six lanes in cross-section, maybe two lanes in each direction, with a boulevard in the center that was tree-lined and grassed and went for 139 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 more -- I think the word the gentleman used was from a highway more to a boulevard, something that was befitting what's along the riverfront. And it would seem to me that the City -- the Council is facing a really difficult situation because you can't really do that and mitigate the traffic impacts of the casino at the same time. The casino would require obvious traffic improvements that would make the roads wider. And if, in the City's wisdom, the plan is to actually make it a more pedestrian-friendly environment and have a different context along the roadway, then although perhaps the license can be upheld, it would seem that this location is fundamentally incompatible with what the plan is for the corridor. Thank you. )
Are 140 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 there any questions of the witnesses before us?
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Tavani, you heard the recommendations earlier today of traffic engineering. Have you seen the Orth-Rodgers or heard the Orth-Rodgers recommendations?
Okay. I guess my question is: The recommendations that they made -- and I'll reference what Councilman Kenney others, and I guess others feel it might not be enough, but what is your opinion of those recommendations 141 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 generally? Do you think they improve things at all? do you think they just don't go far enough? What would be your general -- without going into great detail. I'm just wondering.
I understand. This is almost a follow-up to the last question that was posed to the last witness about, I guess, the quality of the improvements and what they do in terms of offsetting impacts. And I guess when there's a mandate that's somewhat open-ended and not specific such as improved traffic conditions, that leaves it open to interpretation. And you can make certain improvements better and you can come up with different ways of measuring improvement that might not be the same as what the person who offered that mandate imagined or had in their mine at the time. 142 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 So the studies that have been done to date are extensive, and I have not really had the opportunity or the mandate to go through in each individual case and say whether every improvement -- or every turning movement is actually improved over the existing condition. I've heard earlier today that that's not the case, and I would think that that's true, that there's just simply no way that you can add 25,000 vehicles a day, make a few spot improvements, and think everything is going to be better. I don't think the applicant is being disingenuous when it says that there's an overall improvement, but I still go back to the fact that there will be some instances where things will get worse and there are some -- there's a vision that's being put forth right now for what this corridor should look like, and it seems like 143 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 it's fundamentally incompatible with what the applicant, even if it wanted to do, should do. (Applause.)
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Good morning, Madam President, Councilman DiCicco, and members of Council's Rules Committee. My name is Jeff Rush and I am president of Queen Village Neighbors Association, and I'm pleased to be here again to testify on traffic for the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance, which, you may recall, is comprised of 27 civic associations citywide. 144 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I'd especially like to thank Councilman DiCicco and his staff and members of Council for having the foresight to hire an independent -- or a review team, Stantec. It is perhaps better to have your own guard dog than to have the Fox guard the hen house. As all of you are, no doubt, aware, the target areas surrounding the proposed Foxwoods site at Reed Street and Columbus Boulevard is situated in an area with numerous very successful big-box businesses such as United Artists Movie Complex, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Fresh Foods, Ikea, and many others. Add to this the bustling port operations that are poised to take off following the dredging of the Delaware River in that area and throw in four strip chubs for good measure. All these businesses did not exist back in the early '90s when riverboat gambling was a gleam in the 145 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 governor's eye. Madam President, I've lived at Old Swedes' Court at Delaware and Christian Street for 28 years. I've watched the traffic in this area go from a trickle to a torrent. Saturday and Sunday traffic regularly crawls as neighbors, visitors, and shoppers all struggle to make it from the I-95 expressway ramps to various destinations along the corridor. It's not unusual to get stuck in traffic on a typical Saturday for an hour or over on a trip that normally takes maybe ten minutes. Simply put: At times of peak usage, we are already maxed out. And let's not forget major traffic from sporting events at the Stadium Complex, special events, motorcycles, whatever, the train, and inevitable emergencies. The result of all of this activity occurring on the edge of this densely populated urban 146 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 area in South Philadelphia is at least one-and-a-half million vehicular trips a year through the boulevard corridor. By Foxwoods' own traffic estimates, to support the 3,000 slot machines programmed for Phase I, this traffic will nearly double. Traffic generated by Foxwoods will presumably increase another 40 percent within two years of opening, when 2,000 more slot machines are added in the next round. Then there's more traffic from additional development that will occur from the final phase of a full buildout. Have I mentioned the bus traffic in and out of there? The pollution and congestion are potentially staggering. Do you know where they're going to park those buses waiting to take those patrons home? I don't. ), district engineer for PennDOT, they state: "Our initial response letter dated August 20, '07, answered some of the questions and comments relative to Phase I only" -- as you noted, Madam President. "The department, however, asked us to address of other comments in full in the documentation for the Traffic-Signal System Design Report rather than submit a revised traffic impact study. This allowed the design to proceed. " We understand that DVRPC has been developing traffic volumes for 148 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 overall riverfront planning. However, their studies are not yet available. 4 miles apart. So what exactly is Foxwoods asking City Council to do? They're asking you to allow them to get in the ground, with not much more than their beliefs and promises that they can make this work. The previous City administration and the Governor were, and are, so anxious to happen that they lowered the bar and green-lighted a traffic management study rather than 149 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 a traffic impact plan.
And, curiously, PennDOT relieved Foxwoods of the responsibility for an additional southbound off-ramp in South Philly, which then conveniently disappeared from their traffic plan. Does that mean they don't need the ramp? Is it really irrelevant? It's really irrelevant because that ramp is ten years out in any case. And, of course, what incredibly little they've actually put on the table is, as they say, for Phase I only. By their own admission, they have only timelines but no plan as to how or when they will be able to straighten out the problems stemming from additional development. But they promise it will be fine, better than today. It's as though the kid down the block asked for your permission to take your teenage daughter across country but 150 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 hasn't figured out how to get past West Philly, let alone how to get to California. But he promises you he can do it, he promises. Not to worry. Members of City Council, we should all be worried. Approval of zoning without a thorough and completed traffic impact study risks a catastrophe either now or in the future, and it's ill-advised. Why is the burden of proof being put squarely on our neighborhoods to accept these promises when, after all, we're the ones that will have to live with all of this? )
The governor, the trades, and even many residents are frustrated because of our concerns, and want to see casinos built. And granted, the City and the Commonwealth do need the revenues. The quickest away to break this impasse is to move the casinos to 151 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 sites that do not threaten neighborhoods. City Council, Mayor Nutter, Governor Rendell, and our state delegation should convince casino investors to work with them together to find alternate sites such as the airport, as recommended in a recent Inquirer editorial. We strongly urge Council to immediately convene a reciting committee, a measure you authorized eight months ago, to examine alternate sites to see where we could find sites that will not threaten neighborhoods. Now that's a winning hand. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Thank you. Are you going to testify?
My name is Ed Kerlin. I'm a lifelong resident of the Pennsport community. Welcome to Foxwoods Casino, 152 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 where the only gamble you take is getting there. " So you can imagine from the point of view of a customer coming to Foxwoods, who will be waiting in a long line and a traffic jam coming south on 95. And then they get off of 95 and then they wait on Delaware Avenue until they finally get into the casino. My mission today is to convey to you some of the sense of frustration and confusion that the residents and the taxpayers in the adjacent neighborhoods are feeling as we have tried to withstand this process over the last two years. 153 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 It started back with the application process, when Foxwoods submitted their application and their mitigation proposals, which, because of their kindness and their courtesy and their neighborliness, we had to get off of the Internet; no one was kind enough or courteous enough to deliver that to our offices. In that application, there was a letter from the Streets Department by a Mr. Robert Wright, who stated for the record -- and the application was approved based on that letter -- that all the traffic mitigation proposals would work and, quote, that the neighboring communities would be satisfied with that. I believe Mr. Wright was fired for that, but the letter has never been rescinded, and it's never been communicated to the Gaming Board that that letter was sent in error. The next step in the process 154 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 was someone from the Gaming Board had Kelsey & Associates to review the traffic-mitigation proposals, but, of course, they also relied in part on that letter from Mr. Wright, which was never rescinded. Also, Kelsey & Associates never contacted anyone in the community for a commonsense perspective on whether the traffic would work or wouldn't work. In October of 2006, Pennsport, Whitman, State Representative Keller, State Representative O'Brien, State Representative Taylor, and the two civic associations hosted a symposium where the casinos were invited to make a presentation, and they had indicated that they would come, but on the morning of the symposium, they didn't show, and we still are wondering where they were and why they didn't come. In January, there was another symposium because at the first 155 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 symposium, we found that we didn't have all the people and the experts in the room who could testify. At that symposium, PennDOT was present, the Streets Department was present, and the DVRPC, the mother ship of traffic issues, was there as well. That was also on December 20th, the same day that the licenses were awarded. " On in the executive summary, they've said: "I-95 plays an important role as principal access to all of the sites except Limerick. Given that portion of this highway are at or near capacity during weekday peak periods, proposed casino trips will add to saturation. Additionally, many of the other regional highways are also already congested according to the recent updated DVRPC congestion management process. Additional trips 156 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 will exacerbate congested conditions, increasing time of delay and extending peak periods. The local roadways will bear the brunt of the impacts. " Now, Foxwoods claims that their traffic mitigation will improve conditions 32 percent. Well, that's in direct contradiction with what the DVRPC said, the mother ship. And no 16 one, to our satisfaction, has reconciled the differences. Let me see here. Also, you know, in terms of the confusion and the information and the flow of information and the modifications that are made, there's testimony here from an earlier bill 24 before City Council where Mr. Kenney asked Mr. Rotwit what the traffic 157 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 would be, and I'll read from the testimony. " Mr.
" Mr. " So now that's 15,000, and it's been doubled since that testimony. So, again, this is all just going to the point of our confusion and our frustration with the information that comes around. We had the Stantec report Mr. Alvarez just presented on that, but even that, it was a $50,000 study that, in the midterm report, was still waiting on information from the casinos and information from the 158 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 DVRPC. And we also have the draft of the PennPraxis plan, which their findings on traffic and pedestrian issues is in direct contradiction to what Foxwoods is proposing. I know that today's hearing is about the CED, the process by which they will get their zoning. I would ask that -- they keep talking about mitigation and it's like this is some panacea, but to the people in community it's more like chemotherapy, and we know chemotherapy always doesn't work out. We would ask that there -- let's consult with the patient if we're going to do these things. To this point no one in the community knows anything about any of these plans, and they're the ones that are going to have to live with it. Again, under the heading of 'courtesy and neighborliness," we got this 159 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 report Thursday of their traffic mitigations. So as far as the process for getting the CED legislation is concerned, we would ask that there be a member of the communities that is a working team member on each of these review panels so that we can save a step. What's going to happen is, they're going to do their independent analysis and then come back to the community, and then we'll have a limited window to react or critique. Why not save some steps, since we're being accused of say. And I want to say that due diligence is not delay. But why not put a working team member from the communities on these panels so that as questions come up, the commonsense questions that sometimes escape the experts, can be raised at the table at the time that they're being considered. And, also, we would ask that 160 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 all of these traffic mitigation proposals, that they be presented to the community before you make your decisions, before you even have your independent reviews, so that all of the concerns of the neighbors in a half-a-mile radius of the changes can be considered. 5 feet per second is how fast a pedestrian is supposed to walk. Well, I'll tell ya, my grandmother doesn't walk that quick. And the other point is the amount of pedestrians. Nowhere in there -- they give estimates for cars but they don't give estimates for pedestrians. One of the uses -- you know, if PennPraxis goes ahead and the Foxwoods built and we have all of this 161 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 access to the riverfront, there could be as many as to 20,000 pedestrian 4 crossings a day. You have to remember 5 a few things. There's going to be 6 pedestrians there that are non-gaming 7 pedestrians, and there's going to be a 8 lot of people who come to the casino 9 and park their car and walk across 10 Delaware Avenue for the, quote, attractions that are over there, meaning the four skin joints. There's a Wawa and there's restaurants. So throughout this, we have asked for verification, verification, verification. And what does that mean? Well, if you're adding 1100 cars per hour and you're telling me that you're going to re-time the lights, then tell me exactly how many cars is that re-timing going to accommodate. And if you're shortening the light cycle at one interchange, how many cars are going to be stacked 162 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 up on the other side? It's all about the law of unintended consequences. And the neighborhoods' concerns are that none of this has been bore out.
It's just that they're making -- oh, we're going to do -- make a lot of changes, but no 9 one has proved to us mathematically that the changes will handle the increases in the traffic.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you for your interesting testimony.
We appreciate your coming in. (Applause.) 163 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 MR. McPHERSON: The next witness: Representatives from the Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, Jeff Greene. (Witnesses come forward.)
Madam President, again Carl Primavera. Jeff Greene from Orth-Rodgers, hopefully he's going to be able to be mic'd as Harris Steinberg was. It will make it easier for his presentation. He has some larger boards that he would like to refer to. So if we could ask the staff to make that happen. Also, we have materials which we will be submitting to the committee, which are really the reduced versions of the larger boards that he'll be talking from. Thank you. And with me, of course, is Mr. Jim Dougherty to my left. While Jeff is setting up, just 164 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 a few things by way of background, just to clarify some of the discussions. And we'll probably agree to disagree on more than one issue. But on the CED approval that we're seeking through these hearings, this is for Phase I of our project. If and when we go to further phases, I just want to make sure that we all remember that we have to go back to the Gaming Board, back to the Planning Commission, and then back to City Council. So there's no opportunity for the horse to get away and then there's a closing of the door. This is a process which PennDOT and the Planning Commission and the other review agencies suggested made the most sense, and the idea being that with all of the development that we hope will happen in the future, to make a prediction now on what's going to happen would premature So, again, the number of machines, 165 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Phase I process is what we're talking about today. The committee has also received, as per Council President Verna's request at the last hearing, the complete traffic study, so you have that as well, with all of the backup data as well as an executive review that Jeff has put together. So, hopefully, those detailed documentations will be available to you, and today's presentation will really be a summary. And then, of course, he's available to answer any particular questions that you have. Councilman Greenlee asked a very insightful question, and I don't believe he got the answer. He said to Stantec, Did you talk to Orth-Rodgers about this so-called coding issue? And they both answered, but the truth is, you'll hear from Jeff, is that over the weekend, they called him, and for the 166 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 first time told him about their recent discovery of this so-called coding issue. So that happened over the weekend, and I don't know if that was clear this the commentary you had with the witnesses.
While you're on that, can I just ask, do you -- and maybe you haven't had a chance to look at it yet, do you agree with that --
And what happened is, you'll hear we are using the PennDOT-approved program, which is 167 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 used by all of the tristate agencies. What Stantec did is, they went to a later software version, which is, as yet, untried and untrue. And in doing that they found a glitch. Our report is based on the computer software PennDOT mandated and the City mandated. It's the accepted gold standard. So it's not unusual when, like, software comes out, a later edition, that there's something lost in the translation. Now, we're going to work with them, and as they said, we've been working with them very closely and collaboratively. So if somebody has a better idea, we're certainly going to look at it. But all of the agencies mandated our use of the software that we have used, and that's why we don't think that this over-the-weekend discovery for today's hearing was at all changing the confidence that we 168 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 have in our own program.
Well, if I just could ask, though, I mean, obviously, their point was that by the coding being wrong, the numbers were in a sense wrong, and it threw the whole design, if you will, the whole plan out of balance. Now, it sounds like, obviously, you don't agree with that --
But it does seem like they have numbers, you have numbers, and somehow they're not the same numbers. And I'm not saying who's right or wrong.
What we did, as you'll hear, there's a Program 6 that PennDOT mandates.
Uh-huh. 169 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
We use the Program and the City mandates that, 4 and all of the tristate-area highway 5 agencies. They put it in on their own 6 in number 7, which is like a new product by the software company. So they didn't do what PennDOT mandated. They said, Well, let's try this new software that's out on the market. And in going from our numbers in the 6 Program to this kind of untested, untried 7 Program, they came up and said, Gee, it's coming out with a different answer. And we said, Well, we'll work with you on that, but what we were obligated to do by the appropriate agencies, our numbers are very validated. And, quite frankly, PennDOT and the City and everybody else, the people who were the experts for the Gaming Board, they're all using the same software, which is what we're using. We're kind of using the gold 170 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 standard. Now, in a perfect world, this newer-generation program should speak the same language and come to the same results as the tried and true system. And that's why we're going to talk to the software company and see. It may well be that there is a glitch that is easily explained. But it's not as though they discovered wrong with our report; they just put it through a different program. And, as we all know, if we're walking at the same speed but you start two steps ahead of me, I'll never catch up to you. So sometimes it's the technology that's really causing the complication. But our report, as you'll hear from Jeff today, is really as good as it can be. So, Jeff, with that, can you just give us your introduction. And then we're going refer to the 171 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 materials --
One moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Not to belabor the point, but you just mentioned it yourself, that the software -- the glitch, as you referred to it, my understanding is that was identified by the software developer, not necessarily Stantec. It was just given to them as a result of the designer of the software.
And that's in the 7, which we're not using. The glitch is in the 7. Our 6 is the gold standard; that's why PennDOT mandates it. So this new 7 that has not been adopted by PennDOT probably needs a little bit of grooming. I guess Stantec wanted to be a little bit over 172 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the top and said, If is good, might be better. And that's when they said, Gee, we're getting a glitch. But it's not necessarily anything wrong with our report. We're standing by our report, PennDOT stands by our report. So, again, it's -- it's apples and oranges, and that's why the confusion. They're comparing us to a software that we didn't use.
Madam Chair, I just -- they can go through with their presentation. I think at some point, we have to get Stantec back because it seems like there's either a misunderstanding or -- obviously, either side sees it totally different that the other side, and I'd like to get clarification on --
After your presentation. 173 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Yeah. And I don't know if it was clear to you, Councilman DiCicco, that this came up over Saturday. It didn't sound that way in the testimony, and I see Councilman Greenlee saying -- so to some extent, I'm wondering why they were so reluctant to share that this was not something that had come about before because he said -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
Yeah. All right, thank you. Jeff -- and, again, we're referring to the materials that he has on the big boards, but they're the same as the what you have at your desk.
Let me start by talking -- am I mic'd properly? Let me start by talking about 174 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 what makes a traffic-impact study and how a mitigation plan is put together. When we do a traffic-impact study -- and you heard a little bit about this earlier today -- the first thing one does is look in the existing traffic volumes, kind of like in a (indiscernible) chart, we build upon each layer. And we did an extensive amount of traffic counting, both in 2006 and in 2007 to try and, you know, get a good handle on how much traffic there really is on Columbus Boulevard. We also looked at data that DVRPC collects on behalf of PennDOT for daily traffic and tried to make sense of all of that. And you'll see, I'll going to back and forth with each of them as we go forward. The next thing is, we looked at background traffic and traffic from other developments, and we did due diligence, went to the Planning 175 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Commission in 2006, learned about a lot of development. But as time went on and did our studies, it all melted away, particularly in the southern end of Columbus Boulevard, except for an additional building in the Dockside Complex, which we included in our study. We also looked at background traffic and felt that traffic -- well, PennDOT keeps a traffic growth-rate sheet, and they estimate a 1 percent annual growth rate for Columbus Boulevard for our section. We actually used a higher growth rate -- 1.6 percent for the first five years of our analysis, and then 1 percent after it. So as you compound it, our rate is a lot higher than, excuse me, the PennDOT rate. And that adds up to some 5 to 600 vehicles on -- additional vehicles on Columbus Boulevard. And that's a pretty hefty development. 176 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 So on top of that, then you would add site traffic, so you would have three tiers of traffic. Now, normally, when you're all looking at a development for zoning approval or, you know, just approval here in the city -- and this is the same as everywhere else in the surrounding areas, in the suburbs -- a developer is asked to mitigation just his site traffic. In other words, look to the future and put it back as if everything else happens except the development. You're only mitigating the development. We were serious when we took the job that we wanted to mitigate the existing traffic problems as well as traffic from other developments and our site traffic. And we were serious about that. We would need a lot fewer improvements if we were just offsetting our usage of the capacity by working with site traffic alone. 177 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 So we're very serious about it, to try and mitigate the problems. And I've talked about 'em repeatedly. And I think you've heard Mr. Denny talk about taking action on a number of recommendations that we have been making in our study. So how much traffic is Foxwoods going to add? I think you heard some testimony today that we're only adding some 640 vehicles in the peak hour, in the Friday peak. That's not true. We studied nine peak hours, and you can see the peak hours shown here on this graphic. And then we studied a typical weekday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, our 24-hour volumes. Last time I was here, I answered some of the 24-hour volume questions, and I'd like to respond to the comment from earlier today as well. We studied three peaks on a 178 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Friday: An early p.m. peak from 4:15 to 5:15. That's a casino peak, we have a lot of entering traffic. And we saw it, you know, based upon the data that we collected from Foxwoods, their business model, their performance in Connecticut, how they attract businesses and use buses, we actually did an accumulation of people in the building, and we identified that during that 4:15-to-5:15 peak hour, 740 vehicles would be entering and leaving the site.
May I interrupt you? Madam President, point of order.
Thank you. Not to interrupt, but this is the additional numbers that we're looking at --
-- in addition to what is currently 179 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 happening?
Yes. This is the new traffic that our site's going to generate, our site alone.
What is the current traffic? The Council President and were asking -- she was going to ask this question, but I'll take advantage of the --
It depends where you are on Columbus Boulevard. Right around Christian Street, it's about 50,000 a day. In front of our site, 31,000; and south of us, 28,000.
Could you give me it by the hour, that peak hour? How many cars are in that site vicinity on those peak hours you're speaking to?
And each of you 180 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 have this as well, so I'll ask Jeff to refer to the page when he goes through it.
Okay. At the Friday afternoon peak hour, where we generate 760 vehicles, in front of our site, there is... about 2800 vehicle; that's both directions.
Well, 181 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that's --
We have different access points, so it's not all to one point, one single point.
The number represents only the traffic that we're adding to the roadway system. That's what it represents.
About 2800 vehicles up and down. That's total of both directions. Between 5 and 6 p.m., it's 182 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 1,088. That's quite a bit more than 640.
That's in the later report. We counted a lot more and broke it down a lot more finally for the traffic-signal system design report. It goes up a little bit but not much.
Yeah. And then Friday evening -- this is 7:15 to 8:15, which is a casino peak -- 1,095 vehicles. So we added quite a lot of traffic on a Friday; it's a busy day. On Saturday, we add as much as 1,752 vehicles. At the key shopping peak, 183 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 early Saturday, which is between 1:30 and 2:30, we add almost 1200 -- 1187 -- to the exiting shopping peak traffic.
And, again, is the Saturday existing peak current traffic, is it higher than the Friday?
Well, those are the numbers that, I think, are important.
Yeah, I think this is very informative but useless in a way because it really doesn't tell you what presently is in existence and what you would be adding to it.
I didn't plan to go through all of those graphics. If you'd like me to, I can. 184 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
That's one of the questions -- the layman's question is: How many more cars are we going to add to the current number of vehicles that are on Columbus Boulevard at any given hour today? You're showing us what you anticipate at the site.
Well, we're showing you what we're adding to Columbus Boulevard. And the number changes block by block because traffic turns off and traffic enters at different places.
Jeff, would it help you to have your materials over there rather than over here? This way, you --
'Cause I think most of this is in your report. It's just not in the graphic.
All right. And 185 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 what they're saying is -- just go to your report. The graphic was meant to be an aid to you, but if they have a question that's in your report, they have the report at their desk; just let them know which page it is, and then you can refer to that. I think they're trying to say, What is the current load? and then what's the factor by which you anticipate you'll be adding to it?
And these materials were delivered, I guess, last week with a separate cover letter.
It's Figure 8 and 186 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 it follows . That's it, that's it. Those are hourly numbers. And you can see the streets and pick the locations. Between Dickson and Reed, you would add 116, plus 17, plus 1,014, plus 19. And on the other side, it would be 1872. So we're talking about, let's see, about 3,000 vehicles. That's how you would read that graphic and you would do the same for each block up and down Columbus Boulevard. Shall I go on?
(Inaudible, off-mic.) Councilman, you -- 187 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
You're saying 3,000 cars, but currently, there are 2800 cars in that peak hour. And if you add 760, we're at 3560 cars.
And then if you take Saturday, which goes up by a couple of hundred, you're up to over 4,000 --
But you just said it's 3,000 cars. What happened to the other thousand?
It's about 3,000 on a Saturday peak you asked me about, and then you would add -- 188 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Add those -- okay. Then we're up over 4,000, 4200, whatever, okay.
Is that -- are the current numbers the average over a 365-day period of time, or were they taken just on certain Saturdays in general?
Holidays, Christmas holidays, I guess, weren't taken into consideration. Or were they?
All right. You could probably put another 3,000 cars on that one, but go ahead. I'm sorry.
Jeff, just let's talk about the protocol. How was 189 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the protocol arrived at for your traffic-impact analysis, you know, and who was involved and what was involved? just so that they understand the protocols and the accepted techniques that were involved here.
Basically, it's counting cars. The field of work is going out and counting the number of vehicles on the street making each turning movement. We also counted pedestrians and we also counted -- well, basically anything that moves. And we've provided all of that --
Well, in the report, as the Council President pointed out, this was done on -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
And everyone knows -- and I'm not trying to 190 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 create an argument here, but everyone knows that January and February, are the slower retail months. And when the City's Streets Department did a survey of the off-ramp of 95, I believe it was February of either '06 or '05, and it was 1100 cars per hour coming off that ramp. But, again, these are really downtimes in terms of traffic on Columbus Boulevard.
In 2007, we repeated the counts a little bit later, February and March, at the same intersections and made adjustments.
Well, February is not a good -- I don't think is a good month to use as a -- and I'm not a traffic engineer, but I'm just a regular guy who goes up and down Columbus Boulevard, and I can tell you, from my experience in the retail business, that February is the slowest month of the year. 191 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
All right. Are you finished, Frank? The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. I just had a question still on the trip-generation issue, but I guess kind of from the other angle. I'm sorry, you may said this and I missed it. How do you get these figures for where -- how you project Foxwoods will be?
We did a number of things. First, we got a lot of information from the Foxwoods people. They know at their Connecticut facility how much traffic goes out and comes in, how long they're there.
And we were able to do an accumulation of people in the building. And knowing how many people 192 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 are in a car on average, how many people would be on a bus, we were able to deduce the number of vehicle trips, car trips, in and out, which is what these number represent, but we didn't stop there.
We checked all five applicants for licenses in Philadelphia, their traffic studies, one of which was the one Stantec did for Trump, and our traffic was higher than that study. We also looked at literature about casinos in Las Vegas to make sure that we were in concert with the suburban-ring casinos, and we were. We also looked at -- there were articles published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers as part of its effort to identify the trip-generation rates for casinos. And we found it to be consistent with that. 193 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 We also did actual studies by counting traffic at Delaware Park over in Newark, Delaware.
How about the two casinos that are closer here? I'm just wondering --
Mm-hmm, okay. 'Cause I'm just thinking, you know, they're closing closer to Philadelphia, they're closer to the -- what the folks might do.
I wish we had them at the time, and it would have been a good model.
Mm-hmm. Okay, all right. Thank you. 194 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
I keep interrupting you because you say some things, obviously, that come to mind -- I have questions that come to mind. You say you looked at the Connecticut numbers.
Isn't that a totally different environment than Delaware Avenue? I mean, Connecticut is a -- the largest casino in the world, what have you. It's out in the country, it's a destination point, it's where people stay. Most -- I would think a lot of people stay, and I'm sure it has day commuters as well. But isn't it apples versus oranges here?
You're looking at numbers of people who come in and out, but the environment itself.
Actually, we used it only for people trips and time of 195 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 arrival. I wasn't interested in the number of vehicle trips in and out because your point's well taken. What we did then is use the literature to determine the number of people per vehicle and, you know, the rate that they would arrive to make our comparisons, and we were able to get some convergence with that data, and that's how we know that we're have good with our -- and very strong with our trip-generation estimates.
And just so I -- I want to -- if I may, just one question. You said that your trip generation was greater than what Stantec did for Trump, and Trump is probably the biggest name in the world in gaming. So you actually have more numbers for your trip generation, even though today, Stantec came in and perhaps criticized your trip generation. It was larger than what they had anticipated when they were the 196 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 consultants for Trump.
Is that to suggest that the name Trump would have generated more --
Well, Trump is the biggest name to me, and I'm just saying that if we're projecting more trip generation for our site than Stantec projected for Trump, I think if you do a show of hands anywhere, Trump is the name, at least in this marketplace.
I think Trump's been Trumped by Borgata lately, 197 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 but that's beside the point.
Well, I don't think Foxwoods is as well known as Trump in this market. Now, when we're up and running, we will be 'cause we'll be state-of-the-art. But I think that -- to show that we really balanced the numbers aggressively in favor of trying to be the most forthcoming with our trip generation. We didn't try to show the numbers in a way that was beneficial to us because, as you remember Jeff saying last time, there's an engineering science we're bringing to this, and the facts and the numbers work in a way that makes it better for everybody. We don't want to, in effect, build in something that's not going to be accurate. All right, Jeff, if you want to proceed.
We'll try, we'll try. We're trying, Carl. 198 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Okay. And last time we were here, I talked about the daily-trip numbers, and I thought I would like to expand on it a little bit. The number that everybody asked me about was Saturday, which is the highest. And the way to read this line for Saturday is: In-trips would be 14,200 per day, exiting would be 14,200 per day, for a total of 28,400. So we have 14,000 in and 14,000 vehicles coming out. And that's the way to read it. And I didn't say that. I only quoted the one number last time. And that's how you would read all of the numbers for the trip generation. Another question from last time was: Does all of this traffic happen at one time during the day? And the answer is it's not. And these squiggly lines are an attempt to describe that. 199 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 What I would like to do is describe how traffic patterns go throughout a Friday, a Saturday, and a Sunday. And you can see that the numbers that I used in the last graphic of trip generation kind of parallel where the squiggly lines are. For example, on Friday, during the early-morning hours, they were fairly low. And then throughout the day, we tend to go upward, to a peak at 8 p.m. at night and then drop off. On Saturday we have a lot of late-evening people, and this explains the unbalance in the numbers for, you know, the ins and outs that I showed you, down to a low, which is first- thing-in-the-morning Saturday. And then it kind of creeps up as the day goes forward to its highs. On Sunday, similarly, there's the late owls that stay around. And we have, again, our lull at 7 in the morning. And then it kind of creeps 200 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 up to a peak at 1 in the afternoon. And then it kind of stays constant or decreases as the day goes forward. So there are different peaks. This is the sum total of ins plus outs for every hour of the day. This graphic represents direction of approach and departure. We believe that some 60 percent of our traffic is going to arrive via the expressway network. Now, by some estimates it might be higher, but we believe that it's going to be 60, a minimum of 60 percent. Further to the north of us -- and this would include traffic to the residential districts, to Center City, and maybe even to SugarHouse -- would be about 15 percent. And traffic south of Columbus Boulevard, south of us, including some 95 traffic, is either 15 or 24 percent, depending on your direction. 25 And then we believe that into 201 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Pennsport, Queen Village, into that area, there would be percent, most 4 it using Washington Avenue, and the 5 rest of it on the local streets; Reed, 6 Tasker would be primary streets to 7 carry that traffic. 8
Of cars that are going to be in Queen Village and those neighborhood, what the 10 percent represents. Or 15, whatever the numbers you --
You mentioned something about neighborhoods increasing 10 percent, some traffic. 202 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 What is that in terms of raw numbers?
We believe that 4 percent of our traffic is going to the 5 neighborhood. 6 Let me go back to my 7 trip-generation graphic. Friday, 8 early p.m., 4:15 to 5:15, if 10 9 percent goes into the neighborhoods, 10 that's 76 vehicles. At the high peak on Friday, it's 108. At our highest peak, it's 175 in one hour.
Thank you, Madam President. Along the same line of that question I asked before, how did you come up, say, with the percentages? How -- was there -- how did you determine that?
Okay. 203 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
We did what's called -- I guess "a sector study" is the best word, much like a marketer would do to locate a business, a retail business. We started with census data, looking at the number of gambling-aged people. You can get that from the census data, and you can get it by municipality, which is a little finer grain than zip code -- census block data. And we plotted it out for, my gosh, going out to the edge of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission area. And then what you can do is, using the Google maps or, you know, the Map Quest, you can actually find, by doing it enough, what the dividing lines are as to which would be the quickest route to the site. And we did that and we came up with a distribution. Then, because all of us live 204 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 in the Philadelphia area, we tested it among the members of our firm. And we said to ourselves, for instance, if you live in New Jersey, certain points in New Jersey like Marlton or Evesham Township, you have a choice of bridges, and the choice of bridges might be different during different times of the day. If you lived in the western suburbs, for example, and -- take Lansdale, not quite the western suburbs, but the northwestern suburbs, how would you go? Well, you have two choices: You can come down the turnpike I-476, you can either come in the Schuylkill Expressway to Vine Street to the site, which is the way the mapping programs tell you. Or go down 476 and come past the airport and come back up from the south. And, again, different hours of the different days would have different routes. And it's very tough 205 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 because -- I know I would listen to the traffic report and make that decision. So we made some adjustments based upon that. Pretty much, if you're in the I-95 corridor, that was the easy one, but everything else was based upon our knowledge of the area and the mapping programs and the census data to where the customers, the potential customers, would live.
Okay. You've heard a lot of talk about our improvement plan, and I was gratified to hear that the first one I'm going to talk about, at least the first element of the first part of it is going to be implemented by the City. We have provided our data to the City, to the Streets Department, so that they could generate new re-timing plans for Columbus Boulevard. 206 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 They recognized, as we recognized, that re-timing the signals would be a major benefit right now, and repairing the existing system would be a major benefit right now. And I'm happy to hear that they're on target with doing that work. We still think that the traffic system needs to be replaced with new technology, and we have been designing that traffic-signal system. The first part of it is a big communication system. " One of the points of coordination with us and SugarHouse is a single fiber optics cable to go the length of Columbus Boulevard. Our responsibility is to take it up to Market Street. However, we're going to end up taking it a little further. There is a hub at Spring Garden that both the City and the state share. We'll be connecting to 207 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 it. And right there at the hub is a direct connection into the City's operation center as well as PennDOT's traffic operations center. They want to know what's going on. Now, that cable will actually communicate traffic volume information as well as it has the ability to do cameras, video links. And we expect that they'll be asking us to put cameras up on Columbus Boulevard so that they can see real-time traffic, and we will do that as part of the system. Also as part of the system is going to be -- and this is at PennDOT's request -- programs that will cover when there's an incident on I-95 that remotely the City can direct a new traffic-signal timing plan to accommodate the added traffic from '95 on Columbus Boulevard when they have to when there's an incident. And we're designing those traffic plans as 208 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 well. There's another part to the signal program, and that's the railroad preemption. Right now, there isn't any. We're also -- so we have to add railroad preemption to the system. And what that does is, because of the type of detection we're using, we're able to make it very efficient by following a train. Rather than blocking all of the crossings of Columbus Boulevard at once we can actually roll -- you know, have the preemption follow the train as it goes up and it goes down Columbus Boulevard. It's a very high-tech system, and we're-looking working with Conrail Shared Assets and Norfolk Southern to come up with a way to do it. It's a kind of state-of-the-art. So it's a very high-tech traffic-signal system, and I might add it has detection for pedestrians, 209 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 detection for left-turn lanes, and detection for cross streets. One of the things that we're concerned about is pedestrian crossing. And what we're building into the system is increased time to cross the street and pedestrian-refuge islands where we can fit them in so that if somebody does get caught halfway across the street, they'll have a place to stop until the walk signal occurs. And we're also providing, like you see in a growing number of places around Philadelphia, walk/don't walk countdown, you know, where you go 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. And we think that that's a major improvement. So all 15 intersections -- and now 16, because we're going to have to design the traffic signal at Water Street and Morris Street -- will have all of those provisions as part of it. And those signal systems typically are 210 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 expandable as time and finances see fit. So that's the first. I'm not going to read the revised signal timing everywhere, because that's basically what I just described.
But at I-95 and Lombard Circle,we're building a pedestrian- refuge island. That's a big one because there's a lot of pedestrians at that location At the I-95 double-slide under-ramps, we're building a double left-turn lane, as you heard earlier, as well as a pedestrian-refuge island, again, for the number of folks there. At Christian Street, we're restriping the Christian Street approach to provide a separate turn lane. At Washington Avenue, we're providing a double left-turn lane to go into Washington Avenue in the northbound direction. And a lot of 211 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 people now on Washington kind of make it a double left-turn lane. It's not striped as such, it's not phased for that for the traffic signals. We'll do that, we'll provide that so that it is a true, safe double left-turn lane. In front of our site, we're providing -- and this was important to your Planning Commission. We're providing three lanes in each direction as well as continuing the bike lane At Reed Street, in the block between Reed and Water Street, one of the reasons that traffic kind of backs up in the southbound direction a lot -- there's two basic reasons. One is, the driveway at Staple's is pretty small. The other is that when someone wants to turn in on Reed Street into the movie theater parking lot, traffic tends to back up around the corner, particularly at change of showtimes A lot of people that make that turn want to go under I-95 to park or on into the 212 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 neighborhood. We can fix that by -- if we can just take half a block of parking on each side off, what we can do is --
We've already removed that traffic; it's no 11 longer there. The parking, I should say.
Okay. Well, we'd like to stripe it as five lanes. That was the last thing. So that we have two incoming lanes and three outgoing lanes. And it will make a big difference. I'm sure the parking removal has made a big difference as well. At Dickinson Street, our driveway is the big feature there, but we're going to signalize that intersection. We'll be providing a left-turn lane in, three through-lanes 213 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 south, three through-lanes north. And as the southbound left turn and the right turns go in, they go into two lanes; one lanes goes up to the port cochere, and the other lane goes into the self-parking garage. Just immediately to the south of that interchange, we're going to take left turns on Tasker that want to go westbound to go southbound to 95, and we're going to bring them up along the front of the parking garage and then bring them into the Dickson intersection and turn them. And that movement will go at the same time the entering lefts will go, so that we're taking advantage of that green period of time. It's a very efficient use of the space and the time. At Reed Street, what we're providing is a left-turn lane in the southbound direction by taking a lane across the tracks just south of 214 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Dickinson. Currently, the northbound lanes are wide enough to provide this lane. So we can provide three through-lanes up north and one left-turn lane south. We can also provide something that the community asked us for. And I remember, Councilman DiCicco, when we were at Washington School, they asked us for this one: To provide a northbound left-turn lane at Tasker Avenue. And with this design, we have a way to provide it. At Morris, this is an interesting mitigation. Right now, anybody who's south of Morris Street and wants to go up to 95-South, what they have to do is go up to Dickinson street and make a U-turn or to Reed Street and make a U-turn -- usually it's Dickinson Street -- and then they can go over to Morris and turn right and go onto 95. By regrading the railroad 215 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 tracks and adjusting the curbs, we can provide a crossing of the railroad there so that people can go directly to I-95 if they're traveling north on Columbus Boulevard. That gets to be a lot of traffic at sometimes during the day, and it really takes away from the operation -- the smooth operation of Columbus Boulevard, so we want to fix that. So those are basically the civil engineering of the highway-type improvements. Now --
And, Jeff, just for the record, you need a highway occupancy permit which will be jointly administered by the City and PennDOT, and before they would give you that permit, they would have to, in effect, ratify this mitigation plan, which is what Mr. Denny said was hopefully going to be decided by the end of this month; is that correct? 216 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
That is correct. We've made our submission jointly to both PennDOT and the City's Streets Department as well as other City agencies who have asked us for it, and they are in the process of reviewing it; I was hoping to have their letter for today.
And as a follow-up question that was asked previously to PennDOT and the City: Was there anything that PennDOT or the City have asked you to do that you've refused to do or you're not willing to do?
And, presumably, whatever they ask you to do you'll do because you need that highway occupancy permit to build.
Yes. Now, I tried to work with the levels of service and show them in a very easy-to-understand manner. We 217 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 made, actually, 1500 calculations, level-of-service calculations, for all of the nine peak hours. And what this shows is the overall level of service today in the first block, and in the second block is the overall intersection level of service for 2009 after the casino opens. And what we're showing in this graphic is that in green is level of service D; in yellow, level of service E; and in F [sic], level of service F. As I mentioned before, our goal is to try and make traffic flow better than today, and part of it is improve the level of service. As you can see, at Washington Avenue, we have some peaks where today we're in the yellow and we're also in the red. We can improve all but two to green, and those two are in the yellow, so we've made an improvement at Washington with our improvement 218 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 program. At Christian Street, one of -- the Saturday peak hour, the shopping peak, is in the red -- or in the yellow. We can improve that to the green. The I-76 I-95 ramps -- 676, I-95 ramps is a real issue where we have most of the peak hours how a poor level of service; and, again, with our double left-turn lane, we can make a major improvement such that we can get into the green range. Now, that doesn't mean, like the folks from Stantec said, that every single movement is acceptable. In a city, it's very difficult to make all movements acceptable. So you look at overall level of service; in fact, that's the PennDOT regulation when they look at whether you have to have a level of service waiver or a mitigation. They look at the overall level of service, and then once they 219 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 identify that there is a mitigation needed, then you look at each move the and try and mitigate it so. Our mitigations actually make traffic flow better than today, and let me talk to you about how it's done. The overall level of service and delay figure for each intersection, each of our 12 intersections. And when you add up 13 the overall level of service for 14 intersection and delay, you can see -- 15 this is the -- each of peak hours is shown, all nine peak hours. The middle column in the white area is the number of seconds of delay that we're reducing. Now, granted, it isn't much when you're thinking about, you know, driving down Columbus Boulevard, but don't forget, we took it -- we took responsibility for all of the background growth and the existing problems and made a 220 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 comparison against traffic signals that have been working together in a system -- not as they do today, all independent. So we're showing some modest improvements -- as little as ten seconds but as great as in excess of a minute and a half. Our percent improvements range from 3 percent all the way up to 24 percent during the various times of the day. If I make an average, it's 13 is percent improvement. Now, that is based strictly on the analysis, as we've submitted it, for our 30 percent plans; that doesn't reflect any comments that were made by Stantec and it doesn't reflect any comments I haven't seen yet like the PennDOT comments that PennDOT and the City are working on. But as it stands now, based on our analysis, which I believe is correct -- and I believe in this 221 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 analysis I've made -- we've met our mandate.
And, also, there was a question by the committee last time about the port delays, and I think you said that you would look at that and report back. Could you tell us what you did on that?
I did. I wish Councilman Kenney was here to hear it. He's the one that asked me the question.
Okay. We took a look at where the piers are in relation to I-95. The first part of his question was: All of the truck traffic on Columbus Boulevard is going to be affected by Foxwoods, so -- and 222 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 particularly the ramps that we're going to put most of our traffic on, or that most of our traffic will use, I think, is a more correct way of saying it. This graphic shows the port all the way from Pattison Avenue, with Ameriport and the Packer Avenue Terminal, the Walt Whitman Bridge, and on up Christopher Columbus through the numbered piers of 98 through 78, past Pier 70 retail, Foxwoods, on up to 40 and 38, and then on past to the 95 and 676 ramps. Looking at, again, the distance to the ports from 95 and the access ramps to and from 95, it's very clear to us that somewhere between Pier 80 and 82 is the boundary between trucks that would use the Walt Whitman Bridge as opposed to the Penn's Landing interchange. Pier 82 and south would most likely use the Walt Whitman Bridge interchange, which we impact very 223 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 little. Pier 80, 78, 40, and 38 would use the Penn's Landing interchange, all of those four ramps that we will be impacting. But then, again, they will have the benefit of the reduced delays that our mitigations will bring to bear. Let me talk about that for a second because he asked me very pointedly: If a truck is late to, say, Wal-Mart or Home Depot, that's okay, but if a truck is late to be loaded or unloaded at a port, that's not okay because the boat leaves. And we took a look at that. From the analysis that we did, we know how many trucks are on Columbus Boulevard during each of our periods, peak periods, and depending on the day of the week, PennDOT reports that the number of trucks is anywhere from 800 to 1500. But these are each of the peak hours, and it doesn't cover the 24-hour, you know, 224 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 period of the day. So if you look at our delays that I've projected for all traffic at our intersections, we can come up with a cost per hour of delay for the trucks. Now, what research tells us is that -- and this is from the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation -- that it costs about anywhere from $25 to $250 per hour to operate a truck. I'm not sure what the cost is to operate a truck on Columbus Boulevard, so we've assumed something in the middle; we took $100 as a cost per hour. It may be more, it may be less, but I think the conclusion would be the same. Basically, if you look at the total number of trucks and the decrease per trucks, multiply it out, and then the cost for the delay, these numbers here are the reduction in 225 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 dollars for trucks during each of the peak hours. No, it's not a lot of cost reduction: $254 weekday morning, 251 Friday morning, 339 in the middle of the afternoon on a weekday, which is the high. But on the other hand, it is a reduction. So our mitigation is actually saving money for the trucking industry in general. And we're not -- and we're not adding to the cost or adding to the delays for the trucks destined to the cargo ships. And that's the conclusion of our analysis. That's my direct testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I have more than a couple questions now. The first one came from 226 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 someone out in the audience. You described a -- the analysis for where the customers would be coming from and what routes they would be taking. Is that -- would that be a public document that you can share?
We have a pretty large spreadsheet that I can make available.
-- make it available to the Chair? The next question I have is about the -- what you described, and this is not to be -- meant to be sarcastic 'cause I guess it would apply even to the Stantec. It's a perfect environment: Traffic moving, no accidents, no 23 disruption of construction going on on the City street -- on Columbus Boulevard in this particular instance 227 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 -- no accidents on I-95. Anyone who's been familiar -- is familiar with I-95, especially south of maybe Allegheny, understands that in addition to the heavy volume of traffic on Columbus/Delaware Avenue, when there's an accident on I-95, Columbus Boulevard becomes the alternate route, in addition to it already being an alternate route for people who have figured an easier way of going north or south up and down the Delaware River. Has any of that be taken into consideration? And has any consideration been given to game days, be it the Sixers, be it the Flyers, be it the Eagles, and special events that are part of what we do and promote in the Penn's Landing Central Delaware Waterfront corridor? Have any of those things been taken into consideration? I mean, logic would tell you 228 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that it's going to change these numbers. Has there any consideration been given to those things?
Because these are things, by the way, but for special events when we know when they're coming, accidents we can't predict, and they happen almost on a regular basis. I mean, just turn into KYW any morning or afternoon, and you'll always hear about backups on I-95; it's just a natural, everday occurrence.
Councilman DiCicco, the answer is yes, we have. I talked earlier about the traffic-signal system and the capabilities that we're designing into it and that the programs -- and, again, we're doing exactly what PennDOT and the City want on this because they control how the traffic is diverted. They've asked us to 229 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 design a traffic-signal program to cover the diversion of traffic onto Columbus Boulevard, and we intend to do that as part of our next submission.
It -- it -- you're right, it is a reality. And what we need to do there is, again, look at the number -- look at our traffic-signal programs, and it's going to make an adjustment to either the cycle length or the apportionment of the green time. So that's how we intend to handle that situation, so the answer is yes to your question.
Pedestrian bridges, tunnels, have they ever been taken into consideration? 230 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
'Cause someone mentioned Las Vegas -- I don't know if it was in your testimony or in someone else's testimony. And I happened to be out in Vegas a couple of years ago, which was the first time in years, and even though it's a 10 destination place when there's hotels 11 and most people go there and wind up 12 staying there, the vehicular traffic is 13 so much that they had to create 14 pedestrian bridges almost at after 15 every single intersection. 16
I have an office 17 in Las Vegas, and my partner was the 18 one that got -- Steve Wynn and Sherman 19 Addleson (sp?), I think, were banging 20 their heads, and I think I told you the story. And they built a pedestrian bridge between the two after a lot of consternation. We looked at the possibility here in South Philadelphia. We can 231 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 certainly do something on our side but we have nothing to connect it to on the other side that would be -- that would allow us to have a good design that's ADA-compliant, so we did look at it. As a part of our design -- and you heard a lot of talk from our review team about pedestrians and how to accommodate the pedestrians -- we are providing sufficient green time to cross in accordance with the manual and uniform traffic-control devices, and this is something that your own Planning Commission is very insistent upon, and it's something that we want to do because it's a part of a good design. So as Mr. Denny testified earlier, the increased cycle length, a lot of that time is going to increase the cross street green time to provide for pedestrians.
Sidewalks 232 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 will be maintained adequately in terms of size?
And I'm -- this came from somewhere else; I'm not sure if it was my legislative assistant or not but I want to follow up. You mentioned about the train tracks.
Where you in terms of discussions with the owners of the tracks; are they agreeing to modify the tracks, relocate? Where are we with those discussions?
We are coordinating with the railroads. We're in the middle of that process right now. We know we have to be successful with that coordination, and we believe we have three alternatives right now to achieve that success. And the 233 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 railroads are looking at the three potential alternatives.
Are they potential alternatives in the event that they refuse, or are they alternatives to what you've currently presented to them?
I don't think the state legislature thought that there'd be any opposition to the casinos on the Delaware waterfront as well, but here we are. (Applause.)
I mean, we really -- we really need to look at this because my experience with railroads during the twelve years or so that I've been here, in addition to 234 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 taking about two years to find out -- to get somebody to talk to, because it's like a secret society, they are not very cooperative in most cases that I've had a dealing with them. And I'm not suggesting that they won't be here, but what if? It's the what-if again. If they refuse, what happens; is there another plan?
I'd rather talk about the motives of the railroad to start my dialogue here.
Yeah. Well, I know their motives. I did legislation that gave them Ikea, which gave them 16 million bucks when I did the legislation to change the classification for the Ikea site with CSX, 16-and-a-half million dollars extra.
We were told by the railroads that they would like to move their switching operations to the south, to somewhere other than in front 235 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of our site.
I'll give you an example. Swanson Street in that little shopping area -- Staple's or Office Max was there. I would assume it's maybe where McKean Street intersects with Swanson. There's a set of tracks there.
I've been working for three years with a private developer who manages that shopping mall to correct a very dangerous situation, that there's the crash barrier, if you will, that's been there probably for 50 years that is a very dangerous situation. I've been working for three years with the railroads to try to get them to give the developer, who's willing to pay for the improvements, the permission to go there and make that a safe intersection. Three years and counting. 236 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Again, railroads, my experience with railroads have been very difficult -- but for the Ikea deal because they got 16-and-a-half million dollars by virtue of that legislation in additional, you know, revenues. So I can't sit here and in good conscience agree on the -- you're saying that "we believe we're going to get there." We always have to keep in mind that that may not happen. And then where would we be?
Well, let me talk about what we believe will happen, and then I'll talk about our Plan B. As I said earlier, the railroads don't want to do their switching operations in the increased traffic that is coming to the area where they do their switching operations today, centered around Dickinson. They would like to move it somewhere else, and we've identified 237 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 three alternative ways to do it to the south, and they're looking at it to make a determination as to which one is best. If they can do that, then we can go from two tracks to one track from Morris Street up to just south of Washington, and that would be a part of our plan to reduce to one track. Whether we go to no tracks has everything to do with the PennPraxis plan and the proposed light-rail system because those tracks could be used for the light rail. It also has everything to do with Pier 38 and 40; there's a viable paper company there that does -- they get maybe one or two cars, railroad cars, a month, but it needs to be served so that unless they can -- we can work out an arrangement where they, you know, get their goods in and out some other way, either by trucks, they're going to need rail service. 238 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 So we believe that the end-game is going to be one track for the long-term reasons that you Harris Steinberg talk about this morning to the short-term reasons that something -- you know, service has to be provided to Penn Paper, I believe it is, at Pier 38 and 40. The other part is Inolex, which is the problem that, Councilman, you're working on. They have service from two railroads -- Norfolk Southern and Conrail. And I believe when Conrail serves them, they have to bring the train up in front of our site and then back it in. They don't need a lot of rail cars, unlike the Pier 78, Pier 80, Pier 82, that complex. They get a lot of cars a month, and that's really the switching operation that has to be accommodated. So for the few cars a month that the paper company gets and that Inolex gets, there's going to be 239 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 a train that comes up and goes back. Now, if your initiative is successful, we won't have the Inolex train coming up and going back; but if it's not, we will have it. So we believe that there will have to be a railroad track, a single track, in front of our site. We believe that there's going to have to be a double track somewhere to the south to make up the difference. And we've presented a series of alternatives to the railroad companies, and we're waiting to hear back from them. Now, if it's not successful, where are we? And that's really the question that you asked me, and I'd like to answer that. And we have two tracks in front of us. We've, again, presented our traffic data to the railroads. Most of their switching operations can be moved to the morning, so they can 240 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 control, to a degree, when they have to come up Columbus Boulevard. And you saw from my graphic earlier that we don't have a lot of traffic in the morning. You also heard my dialogue about the preemption system. Unlike most preemption systems where you pull up to a grade crossing, the gates are down, the signals are going crazy, and you're wondering where the train is, this one's different. The preemption system that we have is -- will be high-tech. And the way that it will work is that the signals up and down Columbus Boulevard will be forced to green for north and southbound Columbus Boulevard as the train goes across the crossings. And there's appropriate clearances and safety zones and things like that that are a part of it. But when that occurs, traffic on Columbus Boulevard will keep 241 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 moving, and traffic coming out of the side streets on our site can be able to turn right full-time.
The only movements that will not be able to occur would be left turns and cross traffic. Today, without preemption, the trains go at walking speed, and there's supposed to be a flagger. I know sometimes it's not there, but there's supposed to be a flagger. And it's a very difficult operation; we've watched it occur. So the railroad wants to eliminate that operation. There's something in this for them, and that's why they're cooperating with us. They finally get a system that's much safer than it is today. And that's why we're working together, to try and find what the best preemption system is and the best way that they can use the need for a "runaround track," as they call it. 242 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 So that's the answer is as to where we stand today.
Well, I think you got close to answering the what-if, but I don't think you've answered it entirely because, again, dealing with the railroads and the time that it takes and the time that I've been -- like I said, I've experienced a number of projects in my district. They can be very difficult. And I still don't think you've answered entirely the question. I know you took a good shot at it, but --
The preemption system that we're designing will make things a lot better if the double track must remain, but I don't believe it will remain.
Then the preemption system, when the trains are 243 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 there in the earlier parts of the day --
It -- well, we're not generating a lot of traffic, so it would be much as it is today except better and safer because traffic will be directed when it's safe to move for each of the movements -- not today, when folks simply just go in front of the engine, which is not safe at all. So it will be a lot safer than it is today.
But your mitigation requires that one of those tracks be removed.
No. We've assumed in all of our calculations that the two tracks remain, and if you look at it, 244 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the trains come at different times of the day, so it's very difficult to make those calculations, but as we've looked at it from our modeling with the preemption system, because the north and southbound Columbus Boulevard traffic continues to move, there's very little increase in delay to Columbus Boulevard. That traffic just keeps moving.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. And, again, Mr. Greene, you may have addressed this, I may have missed it: As far as accidents, did you look at the accident rate now? And do you think some of the things you're suggesting, was that taken into 245 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 consideration? And, also, I guess along the same lines, with the increased traffic, did you look at the accident potential at all? Where did that factor in?
It's not a -- not a requirement, and we haven't been asked to do it by the review team.
Hmm. Let me just jump to another thing, and I know this was done back -- your report was done now, I guess, like 20 months ago or whatever, but you talk about 246 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 coordination with SEPTA and tour bus operators on of your study.
And Mr. Rush earlier had said about tour buses or buses generally, where would they sit? And the last sentence here, it says: "It is intended that buses would drop off customers, exit the site to lay over at some offsite location, then return to pick up patrons."
Over this period of time, have you gotten any more specific where you're looking at with that or --
We haven't identified where our charter buses would lay over, we have not done that yet.
Mm-hmm. I mean, obviously, there would be a concern if --
We'll -- we'll 247 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 have to do that.
Wouldn't -- again, I'm not trying to be critical, but wouldn't that have been something that would be pretty -- I mean, again, if you're trying to bring in people through the buses, I mean, wouldn't the layover issue be a pretty --
But we have to go and either by land or lease land or do something, and since we're not far enough along in the process to make that kind of a commitment, we haven't done it yet but we sure will. We have to do that because it's a part of the 248 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 operation.
Okay. And how about SEPTA; has there been any more conversation with SEPTA as far as what improvement could be done for buses or if it's increasing the routes that there are there now or other routes, anything like that? Does anybody know?
One of the things on my to-do list is to meet with SEPTA again to present our plan for their buses. We're providing a place for four buses right outside our bus entrance --
-- to the casino on the Tasker Avenue side -- the Tasker Street side. One of the issues with them is the route, as they go through the Pier 70 shopping center and come around, we need to make some changes, which, at our first meeting them, they indicated 249 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 a willingness to make -- in fact, they suggested it.
What we need to do now is get down into the details and talk with them about it. They are planning -- they have on their wish list two more bus routes that would terminate in the Foxwoods Pier 70 area.
But they haven't made any plans yet, and I think they're waiting for us to come back. And it also depends upon, you know, the -- well, they'll probably make the decision closer to either the opening or after the -- you know, after we open. They also, I guess, have to go a little bit further with the light-rail idea that's been put forward.
Okay, right. 250 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
And that's a concept that we encourage. We believe it's a very positive thing. And, as I talked about earlier, when Councilman DiCicco was talking to me about the railroad tracks, I firmly believe that one of the tracks should remain to provide that opportunity to get light rail back into Center City, where customers are.
Mm-hmm. And last question on that: On , you talk about offsite parking, shuttle-bus service for employees.
It says: "It is possible that some parking, particularly for employees, could be provided offsite with shuttle buses providing connection." Again, have you looked at that any more closely since that time, since your report? 251 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
However, opening day -- and. Jim, maybe you can, you know, talk about this a little bit. We're very popular and we have a lot more people than estimated coming in. It may be something that Foxwoods wants to do just as a, you know, a measure to make sure that customers have sufficient places to park. And I'm not -- we haven't really --
When you say "something," do you mean shuttle-bus service?
And then we get back to the same questions: 252 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Where would though buses lay over --
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Just before I get to the port issues, relative to casino-bus traffic, you really don't have any control over where they park, do you? You can't force them into a lot or onto a site. If the operator of the bus wants to park at -- under I-95, I don't think -- which would be a 253 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 disaster, I don't think that the casino has the ability to tell a tour bus operator where to go.
So you're requiring them to sign a contract where they would have to park their vehicles in a specific spot?
It's part of a program. Jim, maybe you can talk a little bit more about that. I --
I'm sorry, Jim. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record.
Jim Dougherty. At this point, even though we haven't designated any specific lots for that, on our program with our bus 254 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 traffic or with our bus operators, we can ask them, Here's where we want you to park, and that's a part of the requirement they have in order to get incentives, you know, to use our facility.
Do you have any other facilities that you have a requirement for the buses to park in a specific location?
No. In Connecticut, we have (indiscernible). They can park right there on one of our satellite parking lots.
But there's not enough space at this site for onsite parking for buses.
So it's got 255 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 to be offsite regardless.
And you have an ability to require it by contract that your tour bus operators park in the --
And how far -- industry standard-wise, how far is too far away from the site? I mean, how far can you send a bus to lay over while they're waiting for their passengers to get back on? I mean, is there a distance which -- where they will not travel?
All right, 256 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 because I -- I mean I -- I think that if we get into a situation where we don't have -- or you don't have control over where your tour buses operators park and they just start lining up wherever they feel like it, it's going to be a disaster. And the closest, most obvious place is under I-95, and I see it happening now with various tour bus operators -- not related to casinos, but just in general, they park at Washington Avenue under I-95 and other locations under I-95. So that would be a real big problem 'cause they usually idle the buses in the hot weather to keep the air-conditioning on, and in the cold weather to keep the heat on. So that's a huge problem. Just for the record, I mean, I'm not going to belabor this port issue but it is extremely counterintuitive to anybody who just 257 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 looks at the facts that the additional cars that you're bringing in to this site, regardless of the signalization mitigation, is going to save the port operators money and speed up their truck traffic. It's just counterintuitive. (Applause.)
I recognize you work for Foxwoods, and I respect that, and everybody has kind of their slant of things, our own -- our consultants, you know, PennDOT the City, you guys, but... So what you're telling us in your testimony is that by what you do in signalization, that if I'm a trucker going into the Port of Philadelphia, I'm going to save money?
What I'm saying is that by reducing the delays at the intersections, like we are, all vehicles are going to benefit from 258 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 those delays. Truckers have a cost per hour to operate, and if you apply that to the delay savings and the number of trucks, then you get these modest numbers that I've shown here.
And let me just understand it again. We take the current traffic -- what's the current traffic counts now, without the casino?
North of Washington, around Christian Street, it's about 50,000 per day. In front of our site, about 31,000. And south of us, around Pier 70, north of Snyder, 28,000 per day. It goes down when you get south of that.
And you believe that despite the mitigation -- I mean because of the mitigation, that the additional traffic flow that you're attracting to this site is going to 259 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 speed up traffic through that area.
It's not going to speed it up; it's going to reduce the delays.
Quicker in time. 260 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
It's just counterintuitive, I'm sorry. I just -- I mean, it's -- I just -- it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And if you couple that with the fact that this port expansion is supposedly, and hopefully, going to bring in significant amounts of additional traffic for the port, I don't know see how you could say that south of Pier -- I guess in the southern end of the port is not affected by your operation. I -- that doesn't make any sense, either. People are not coming from New Jersey?
Okay. What we found was that natural dividing line in terms of --
Why is it a natural dividing line? I still don't understand the premise.
Because it's easier to get from Pier 82 on south from the Walt Whitman Bridge interchange.
A good portion of your traffic is not coming off the Walt Whitman Bridge?
Most all of our traffic from the expressway system is 262 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 using the Penn's Landing interchange.
Wait a minute. If I live in Washington Township -- Councilman DiCicco's favorite spot -- I'm going to take the Ben Franklin Bridge to get to this site?
Take the Walt Whitman Bridge. And where am I going to get off at?
Right here. If you're driving your car and you're going to Foxwoods, you're going to get off at the Penn's Landing interchange that ramp is a block from the site.
And if -- and in the event that your mitigation efforts are not successful or you're so 263 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 successful that you've ever brought more cars into the area than you thought you would, I, coming from South Jersey, would get off at the Walt Whitman Bridge and get on Delaware Avenue at --
So how would it not have an impact on port traffic south of this natural dividing line that you speak of?
'Cause traffic volumes on Columbus Boulevard are a lot lower down here, in the southern part, than they are up here.
Oh, geez. If we're 50,000 here, we're 28,000 here, we're lower here. I don't know what 264 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the number is down here, but it is lower.
Look, I've lived in that neighborhood my whole life and I've traveled all of these highways, and I'm always looking for spots to get around, and I can't believe -- and until I see it -- and I'll tell you that were right, if I see it -- that your location and operation there is going to make the Port of Philadelphia cheaper for a trucker to use. That's basically what you're telling me.
What I'm saying is -- and I'm -- we're talking around the same thing. What I'm saying is --
For a truck that has to go through the traffic signals that we are improving and through the intersections that we're improving, 265 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 because we're reducing delays at those intersections --
Okay. It's an hypothesis as we speak 'cause you haven't done it yet.
Okay. But it's still -- it's a hypothesis as we speak 'cause you haven't done it yet.
By reducing the delays at each of those intersections, we're reducing the amount of time that a truck spends on the road; therefore, we're theoretically reducing those costs because they measure their costs in cost per hour. 266 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
So the location of Foxwoods Casino at Delaware Avenue and Reed Streets and your mitigation efforts is going to make the Port of Philadelphia a more cost- effective place to do business.
Well, it just -- it just -- I mean, it seems to be about as bizarre a statement as I've heard, and I don't mean any disrespect by it, but you see what's there now. I mean, how -- all right. Look, I know you have to try to get through this and you have to try to get what you need done for your clients, and that's terrific. But I'm -- anyone who has lived in that neighborhood and seen that traffic pattern and can tell me that the Port of Philadelphia is going to be better off for it, I think is just not accurate. 267 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. One final question: Are you familiar, or did your firm do any work for Atlantic City with its casinos?
We did the very first traffic study for the Kansas and Missouri entering the entrance boulevard, the one that they ultimately built. We didn't do any of the impact studies for any of the casinos there.
What we also did in Atlantic City the off-island employee bus system.
Are you familiar with the signalization on Atlantic Avenue in Atlantic City? I assume that there were some 268 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 signalization changes made that would mitigate traffic or whatever.
Yes. There is an island-wide system that has been implemented.
Right. And I suspect that that was implemented in order for traffic to be able to move more quickly -- not speed-wise, but more quickly.
How long have you lived in this area? Do you -- let me ask you this question: Did you know Atlantic City before there were casinos?
Uh, geez, I don't remember very much before there were casinos.
I do. And I remember Atlantic City pre-casino, when it was in its hay day, I remember it when it was at the bottom, and I see it today. And with all their 269 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 mitigation remedies Atlantic Avenue in Atlantic City is one big traffic grid, and it's a result of all of those tens of thousands of additional cars that come to Atlantic City on a daily basis. And I say that because it's what we keep coming back to over here is, how does it get better by adding tens of thousands of additional cars on a daily basis? And Atlantic Avenue probably has -- and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, it probably has more stoplights than Delaware Avenue/ Columbus Boulevard has, but its volume -- and that's the only way I can describe it, it's just that volume has caused the gridlock in Atlantic City pretty much on every given evening, most weekends during the day, 24-hour periods, it is -- and for anyone who's ever been there, and I'm sure most people in this office have been there either -- not to gamble, 270 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 but they've been to Atlantic City. It's horrible.
It has two lanes in each direction, except where you get right to the center of Missouri and (indiscernible) Avenues.
But it also has a left-turn lane, and it does flare out at the -- where the Atlantic City Expressway comes in to the boulevard.
But north and south of the expressway entrance or exit --
-- all the way back to the Tropicana, south of that, it does start to open up.
But from 271 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 back where the Tropicana -- I can't remember what the cross-street is there -- all the way up through and north of the shopping mall that was created, it is total gridlock.
And I'm not trying to trick you into anything. I'm just, again, from a layman's point of view realizing that there's going to be -- and your estimates, I take, are correct, they actually may get higher with Phases II and III, but just using Phase I and say we never even get to Phase II and III and that your projections are going to be stagnant, they'll never increase, how does it work? And I look at Atlantic City as the example, and maybe I shouldn't, but you guys talk about Connecticut, so I need to talk about Atlantic City.
Atlantic City -- Atlantic Avenue is a totally different 272 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 street. It does have more traffic signals, but the way that the boulevard going to the Atlantic City Expressway comes in, it's really a point source. Our traffic entrances, as you can see in this graphic, are more spread out. The highest traffic block is between Reed and the 95-northbound off-ramp for our traffic. This is where 71 percent of our traffic is going to be. And this is where we don't do as well as we'd like to do with improving the traffic, but because we're able to improve the other intersections where we have the double left here at 95 and at Washington, and our work at Reed Street, by getting more traffic out of there, we're able to provide additional capacity. And, surprisingly, the 122nd cycle length, going from the existing 90- to a 120-second cycle, makes the progression work even better. It's 273 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 almost a perfect progression. So there's a lot of good things that happen with the signal system that adds capacity because we get more traffic moving during more times during the signal cycle as well as we're eliminating some of the bottlenecks that exist today. So that's -- that's the reason.
I hate to put you on the spot, but if you were opening up a casino, would that be a site that you would choose in terms of traffic? And you don't have to answer that. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
I know, it's a cheap shot but I can't help it, I just can't help it. I'm sorry.
And we don't 274 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 have anything further. I just -- if it's up to the committee --
And, obviously, Carl, I think if Foxwoods had their druthers about this, they wouldn't have chosen this site as well. That's just my opinion.
Because had they chosen a site going through the process, they would have probably been under construction today, but we're stuck with this, and I understand that.
Two things: One, we're looking forward to making the port traffic better; and, two, before we ask Jeff to sit down, the question was asked before about the discrepancy between Version 7 and Version 6. I know we're going to hear from Stantec. I guess rather than 275 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 having Jeff sit down and stand up again, if the committee's interested in hearing his explanation on that, he's, you know, happy to present it. (No response.)
I think the question for Jeff was: You heard Mr. Alvarez earlier talk about the discrepancy between 7 and 6 in the program. I know you heard about it over the weekend, but you did have an opportunity to analyze it, and if you could explain for the committee what you believe the discrepancy is attributed to, and then we'll hear from Jeremy as to here opinion.
Okay. The Synchro 276 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 program that we all use to analyze intersections -- and all traffic engineers all over the country use it -- started with just Synchro, and then it went on to -- up to Version 6, which is the latest version that's in widespread use right now. Version 7 is just coming on stream. The software is supposed to follow the rules of the Highway Capacity Manual. When we're talking about startup time at an intersection, or "lost time" as they call it, three components of the lost time. First is the first two seconds of when the green light goes on. The second is the all-red phase. And the third is the last two seconds of the yellow phase -- 2, 2, 2, six seconds, and that's what you heard Lou Luggio talk about. Uniformly throughout the Delaware Avenue, throughout New Jersey, throughout Delaware, the 277 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 engineers have been using Version and a four-second lost time, not six seconds, as was recommended by Version 7. As far as -- I've looked at it and I've read the Highway Capacity software when I was doing my late-night reading last night, after "The Wire," and there's a paragraph after the paragraph that says to use two seconds for the green, the last two seconds for yellow and all red to get the six, that says where you have complicated intersections and turning movements, left-turn phases specifically, you can use four seconds. Now, the difference in our intersection, because we have left-turn lanes just about everywhere at our intersections, is we can use four seconds for those. So at some of the locations where they've cited that we didn't use the -- made it the 278 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 coding error, where you have a high level of -- a high-volume capacity ratio, it has an impact for a left-turn lane, but it would be wrong to apply that lost time for a left-turn lane because the Capacity Manual says we don't have to account for it. Now, let me talk about that first green period, the first two seconds of a green. And I was thinking about it as I was driving into work this morning, every traffic signal I went through that I had to stop at. What it means is: The light turns green and you count -- 1001, 1002, and then you go after the light turns greens two seconds later. Well, nobody in Philadelphia waits two seconds; they get started, they just go when the light turns green. And so, I think in an urban situation like this, it would be wrong to use those 279 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 extra two seconds. Now, the Capacity Manual says that we should use those extra two seconds as you transfer from the through-phase. As far as we're concerned, for the left-turn phases, it permits us to use the four seconds. And that's the exact answer that I can get from my understanding and reading of the Capacity Manual. I believe that I did it correctly because our study has gone through -- and we provided our live files to anybody who's asked, and those live files were presented to both PennDOT and the City, and they've worked with them, and because all of the traffic engineers in our region use Version 6 and use four seconds for that lost time, I believe our study is exactly correct and should go forward as it sits. It is exactly the way that we've all been doing it for a long time here in the Philadelphia 280 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 area.
Thank you. (Messrs. Alvarez and Luggio return to the witness table.)
Again, Louis Luggio from Stantec. The issue of lost time and all-red is, in fact, the four seconds and the two seconds that we're talking about here. And, in fact, it doesn't really matter which version -- whether it be 6 or 7 that you utilize, we still need to utilize six seconds of what we call "lost time," lost time that no one, no vehicle, is moving through the intersection. On the signal plans that have been presented on the timing sheets, indeed it shows four seconds and two seconds, for a total of six seconds that's in the signal plan. But in the Synchro model itself, there's only 281 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 four seconds of lost time. So those two additional seconds that are not considered lost time get put back into what we call "the effective green." It takes into account that people are aggressive in urban areas and that they do not wait for all-yellow to be completed; they go through all-yellow. It does take into account that. But the traditionally, across-the-board utilizing six seconds of lost time is what is required. And, again, it doesn't matter if it's Version 6 or Version 7. And if it's shown on the timing plan as being 4+2, or 6, seconds, then that does not match up with the electronic files. That's the source of our concern. And if, in fact, the electronic files were updated to actually include the six seconds, we feel that the delays that are presented are overestimated at this 282 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 point, and that's really the fact of the matter.
We do make separate yellow inputs and separate all-red inputs. So under Version 6, we're entirely consistent by making all of the clearance inputs that were required, as well as the default value for lost time, so I believe that our numbers are exactly correct.
Jeremy Alvarez again. I just wanted to mention one thing: I only have one of the many numbers that were done for the Trump study, but there was an assertion made by Mr. Primavera that the trip- generation estimates that were used for the Foxwoods analysis were higher than the ones that were used for Trump or for others. And I only have for Friday night; I don't have all of our 283 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 data with us 'cause I just picked a sample. But on Friday night, their number was 650 in peak hour, which is percent lower than SugarHouse's, 7 which is 840 almost and the number 8 that was used that we gave for the 9 Trump study, which was 740. Again, 10 about 15 percent higher. 11 So I'm just saying that I 12 don't know where that assertion comes 13 from that they used higher numbers. 14 And, again, I only have the one-hour 15 period, and they did a very good job 16 of covering nine different peaks, and 17 there may be a whole lot of other 18 issues floating around out there that 19 I don't have the data for at this 20 point. 21
But, respectfully 22 also, in the numbers that Jeremy just pointed out, we're really considered about the trip generation for the slots, not for the balance of the 284 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 retail that's a component of the facility, but focusing in on the slots themselves because that's the issue of trip generation and distribution that is most critical to us.
And as I testified earlier, we studied three Friday peaks: the Friday peak from 4:15 to 5:15, where we generate 650 total; the peak from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., where we generate 1,088 trips; and the peak from 7:15 to 8:15, where we generate 1,095 trips. So it is higher.
I just want to be clear that the numbers that you just presented include the retail development, not just the slots; is that true?
We don't have a real retail development in our Phase I; we have complementary restaurants and some stores.
And it includes 285 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that.
Thank you. Good point. You said you don't have those in this?
We have -- there are restaurants and there are some stores and there is a showroom. However, everybody that attends the restaurants, the showrooms and the stores gambles.
No, no, no, no. I don't know where you get that from.
We have actual data from Foxwoods in Connecticut that that's the case.
Well, I don't know. The last three trips that I did to an Atlantic City casino, I 286 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 went to a show and left. So what about the shows? I mean you have a 2500-seat theater?
You're saying that those numbers for the theater attendance are included in those peak hours?
They're included in all of the peak hours. I've only done part of 'em.
Because you believe that everyone that goes to the show is going to stay to gamble.
I don't know if that's accurate. I'm not a casino expert, but I know people who go to the shows and go to retail. They were built so the husbands can gamble 287 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 and the wives can shop. A lot of that stuff is happening today in Vegas, a lot of the retail, but...
Okay. The committee will stand in recess until 3 o'clock. Thank you. (Break taken at 2:15.) (Proceedings resume at 3:15.)
The Committee is now back in session. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Terry Gillen, Commerce Department. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Council President. My name is Terry Gillen. I'm a senior advisor to the Mayor. 288 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I have submitted written testimony so I won't read all of it, but I'll just hit the highlights, given the hour.
Very well. Thank you. Does the stenographer have a copy? (Ms. Gillen's submitted testimony attached hereto.)
I was asked to talk about the economic impact of the Foxwoods proposal and just wanted to make two quick points. One was, for purposes of the City's Five-Year Plan and budget, the Nutter administration has anticipated that the City will receive a host fee from the casinos, but we did not assume any additional revenues from 289 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 wage taxes, induced businesses, or other sources. So I just wanted folks to be clear that for financial purposes, that was the only assumption that we made. The Foxwoods Casino will certainly create some jobs, new casino jobs, and induce some construction jobs; however, we have not done any independent impact-economic analysis of how many jobs or the likely impact. For this reason, Mayor Nutter supports City Council's requirement that an outside economic-impact study be performed as part of the Foxwoods' approval process. We encourage Council to considering the following factors in any study that Council undertakes. And just very quickly: Updated gaming impact study that's done since 2004, because the study that was done under the Mayor -- under the Philadelphia Gaming Task 290 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Force study looked at 2004 data, so there's an opportunity to update that data. Whether there's been a leveling-off in visits to casinos that were looked at in the study, because there's a pattern that visits tend to level off after a couple of years, when the novelty wears off. An examination of the track record of other Pennsylvania casinos. Those casinos were not up and running when the study was done, and there's an opportunity to look at them now. And, also, I would point out that how we do it matters. As the task force noted, casinos will only benefit the City to the extent that they augment, rather than detract from, qualities that bring people to Philadelphia. So the overall tourism impact depends in large part on the location and the amenities attached to the casino project. Now that we know 291 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 what those will be, there's an opportunity to go back and do a better analysis of the numbers. In addition, the Gaming Task Force's model depended on the location of the casino and the other casinos that were award a license. They noted that locating it near a cluster of hotels will maximize tourist revenues. Since that didn't happen here, what it will mean to the revenue projections? Finally, later phases will have a large long-term impact. One problem that has been noted in the testimony today is that the traffic constraints of Phase II and Phase II of Foxwoods are significant, so one question is: If there's not going to be a Phase II or a Phase III, what does that do to the economic-impact analysis? Also, we have to be careful that we don't mix up new spending with substitution spending, and this a 292 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 really critical point for any economic impact study of casinos. The Gaming Task Force model determined that between 75 and 90 percent of all casino spending is new; that is, money that would have not been spent on movies, sporting events, or other things in Philadelphia. We need to understand that number, the origins of it, and test some of the assumptions that went into it. Conversely, we need to study whether there might be a negative impact on existing businesses, as has occurred at many other places that have had casinos. In summary, the good news about the delay and implementation of the casino project is that the City has a chance to go back and get updated data that will allow us to make this a better project. We can look at the experience of other casinos and revisit some assumptions 293 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that were made in the 2005 study. Mayor Nutter applauds Council's attempt to get this right, and we look forward to working with you on this. That's the end of my testimony.
Miss Gillen, you state that in preparing the Five-Year Plan, the administration did not assume any additional revenue from wage taxes, induced businesses, or other source. Did Econsult make any such estimates? If so, what were they?
They did make estimates. I'd have to go and check on them and get back to you on that, although I think that Steve Mullin will be here testifying about that, and if you wanted to ask him that, you probably could. But I can get those numbers for you and get back to you. 294 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
I'd appreciate it. You further state that the City Council should have its economic consultant look at the long-term impact of the project, specifically that the traffic constraints in Phases II and III are so significant that it is difficult to see how Foxwoods can overcome them. Can you tell us, what does this mean for long-term revenues?
I think that's the question. We need to look and see whether the long-term revenues that Foxwoods projects in Phase II and III are critical to the success of the project. And I think we saw some of that this morning, when there was a discussion about what would be the custody of traffic improvements and the I-95 improvements that would be required for Phase II and III. And 295 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 until the impact of them is clear, I want to make sure that when we're looking at economic-impact numbers, we're looking just at Phase 1, not at Phase II and III; or if we are looking at Phase II and III, to make sure we're clear on what the complete set of costs would be of implementing Phase II and III. Sometimes we're looking at apples and oranges, and I just want to make sure that we're consistent.
Very well. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I have a brief statement I wanted to make regarding the record, and I just was e-mailed a message from Senator Fumo, who is watching these proceedings while he is recuperating from his heart attack. 296 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I'll read that after I read my quick statement. Much of the testimony we will hear today raises concerns about the economic impact of Foxwoods Casinos, and I recognize that there are some who disagree or have some concerns and don't share the same concerns that we may have. I want to make it clear that of these organizations -- many of these organizations were contacted in an effort to be fair and balanced. The Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, among others, all declined to testify. In addition, we contacted several businesses in the proximity of the site. The businesses also declined to testify, expressing concerns on how their testimony would be perceived in Harrisburg and by certain political leaders. 297 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 And, again, Madam President, I just wanted to put that on the record. And if you will bear with me for a moment, I would like to read the senator's statement, which is actually being put out as a news release. Let me just get it back here.
Isn't he supposed to be resting, Councilman? (Laughter.)
Well, he and I were e-mailing each other at 1 o'clock this morning, from 10 o'clock yesterday morning, so --
Enough said. Thank you. (Reading.) Fumo issues statement concerning use of ILMC land -- ILMC is the Interstate Land Management Corporation that basically controls and manages the areas under I-95, down where the movie theater is, 298 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 as an example, as parking that is controlled by ILMC. (Continues reading.) Today, March 10th, in conjunction with the City Council Rules Committee meeting today regarding the proposed Foxwoods Casino development on the Delaware waterfront, Senator Fumo issued the following statement: "Interstate Land Management Act controls certain lands along Interstate I-95. As a state senator who has a seat on the ILMC Board, I want to make it clear at this time that I will vigorously oppose leasing any ILMC space underneath I-95, or elsewhere in the Pennsport, for employee or especially bus parking for Foxwoods; the same holds true for Queen Village, Society Hill, and Whitman. "Use of such lands resources for the casino would increase traffic congestion and air pollution in 299 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Pennsport to a degree that would be unacceptable to the residents of the community. It is an unacceptable potential solution to the requirements of the Foxwoods facility, one that would come at the expense of Pennsport or other neighborhoods." And that's the end of it. (Applause.)
And should the senator be watching this view, we just wish him a very speedy recovery.
And godspeed. The Chair recognizes my dear friend to my left, Councilman Greenlee.
Thank 300 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 you, Madam President. Miss Gillen, actually, Councilman DiCicco touched on a question that I was going to ask about the -- you talk about the negative impact on existing businesses. Is that something our Commerce Department would be looking into at some point, or some entity in the City to sort of get a impartial, as much as we can get --
And I would urge that, you know, on this project, someone should do it.
And I think that's why we hoped that either the study that the Council is doing do that, or we could look at doing in on our own, because displacement of spending, you know, in the local economy is a big 301 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 issue, and it was dealt with at some length in the Gaming Task Force report.
But, you know, the assumptions about, you know, what level will be new, they -- you know, they make certain assumptions, and different consultants could make different assumptions. And I think that the more -- somebody should at least make sure that the assumptions of 75 percent to 90 percent new spending is a good assumption, I think the better. So that's a long answer, but that's the --
No, I understand, 'cause that, certainly along with the traffic issue, is certainly a concern. You know, you don't want to hurt existing businesses that have been, you know, pushing for a while if -- and I'm not saying it would do it. Like you said, you're not sure, but I'm just -- 302 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Oh, right. And it's complicated. It depends on what's within in the casino itself. It depends on -- the traffic has an impact, obviously, if it's hard for people to get to other businesses, that sort of thing.
So the answer gets very complicated, but now that we know what this particular project looks like, we -- I think we can do a better analysis of the displacement factor.
You're welcome. Any our questions? (No further questions.)
Thank 303 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 you.
Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Jim Paylor, International Longshoremen's Association. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record --
My name is Jim Paylor. I am president of Local 1566, from the Port of Philadelphia, and I also am a vice president with the International Longshoremen's Association, which gives me the privilege of working in ports from Portland, Maine, to Corpus Christi, 304 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Texas, including Puerto Rico and the Great Lakes. I'm here today to testify based on what I think is a common issue of employees, workers, and the people who live in the South Philly community. I think it comes down to one issue: It comes down compatibility. And I think -- or I hope when I conclude today, you'll understand what my concerns are. I've been in front of this committee and other committees numerous times, and at the expense of being somewhat painful to you, I'd just like to give a quick summary of where the port is today, meaning the Port of Philadelphia, and then get into the impact of casinos. When I was in front of City Council a few months back, there was an issue concerning where we were going to -- or as a port, and I was concerned that the industrial Port of 305 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Philadelphia was being bookended by a Food Center project that was going to interfere with potential growth moving south, and then where the casinos are going to be located, that they would have a severe impact and will have a severe impact on the facilities, which are outlined in the presentation that was given today, which are Piers 38, 40 and Pier 39, which are a few blocks north of the Foxwoods site, and also Piers 78, 78 annex, Piers 80 and 80 annex, Pier 82 and Pier 84. These are all active facilities as we speak. There's the longshoremen, Teamsters, truck drivers, warehousemen, freight forwarders, and many office personnel that work out of these facilities. There has been some changes, okay, I'm sure that the committee is aware of that the Governor has now changed his mind on the port expansion project. He's been lobbying for the drudging, and as a result of the 306 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 drudging project moving forward and the possibility of other investors coming in and spending millions and billions of private money for port expansion, for the first time in many, many years, I think that there's a reason to be somewhat optimistic as far as our industry is concerned. I testified in previous meetings about the potential growth. And by 2020, the cargo that's coming into the United States is expected to multiply at a level where it should at least double, and it's raising concerns in Washington that, will we believe to handle the imported cargo? is the infrastructure in place? meaning the pier facilities themselves, the roads necessary to move the cargo to and from the piers, and including railroads; is that infrastructure available? What we've seen recently, knowing that there's not enough space 307 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 in the maritime industry or along our coast to accommodate those cargos, that the -- any waterfront real estate is now being considered prime real estate, and there's parcels -- or facilities, I should say, that are being sold for millions and billions of dollars. And that's being seen in the port of New York, which is probably our closest competitor. It's being in Baltimore. And the good news is that watching that experience, we've now seen the interest go from little in the Port of Philadelphia to tremendous. The Governor has changed his position based on the ILA working along with the maritime industry, the Philadelphia Marine Trade Association, and the Philadelphia Maritime Exchange. We have put together a group called "The Stakeholders," and our 308 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 interest is basically to lobby for port development. And what we did at the challenge of Governor's office is, we went and found potential investors.
They're AIG, American International, and there's Coleman Sachs, and just recently, I met with Galaxy International Fund, and they came in with a group that they called their "dream team," and they brought $7 billion to the table, and that $7 billion now wants to be invested and not just in the 820 acres that was being projected but they want 700 acres in this area. And the reason why they want to come into this area is something that I testified to earlier, is that we're the only port in country, the only port, that has three prime railroads that are located in a maritime-related facility. And I presented that diagram before, and I have it here again today. 309 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 That's the good news. The bad news is what we're concerned about still is that the facilities which I talked about -- Pier 82, Pier 38, their future is at risk if the casinos go there. And the reason why we know that is that we have had to analyze what it takes to bring cargo into this port. 2 million man hours, and as a result of the concessions that the longshoremen have made that included freezing our pension plan in 1996, freezing the wages. 50 above what they were in 1981. We've eliminated manning, okay, so there was major concessions all put in place by our crafts in order to maintain the cargo that was here and to attract new cargo. The forest products that go 310 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 into 38 and 40 and into Piers 82 and 84 are some of the cargos that we had originally and, as a result of the concession, have almost doubled and sometimes tripled in their size or their volume. The other thing that's necessary to bring cargo into the port, other than the cost of who's performing the work, is that you have to be able to move that cargo as quick as possible. You have to be able to store it beyond the owner of the cargo's needs, and you have to be able to move it without any obstacles when the owner of that cargo says send to whomever, the inquirer or wherever else. One of the things that we've done in the Port of Philadelphia is that we make sure our people are high-skilled, they're trained, and they're dedicated; and as a result, we have a reputation for being the 311 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 highest productive along the East Coast. That type cargo is called niche cargo 'cause it's different than containers, it's a different operation, but that's been the life blood of the Port of Philadelphia. We have 70 percent break bulk, which is cargo similar to plywood, paper, and fruit, and only 30 percent containers. That's starting to change, okay? It's starting to shift. It's more like a 40 percent of containers, and it's going to grow if we get the port expansion. We're concerned that there's not enough support to protect the other cargos, the break bulk cargos, because the interest is in containers, and the threat of casinos has created a situation where the owner and operator of J&H Stevedore and Penn Trucking Warehouse, which is one in the same, who operates out of Piers 312 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 38, 39, 40, and Pier 82 and Pier 80, has not purchased the majority stocks. N. Murphy Marine Services, which is down in Wilmington, Delaware, and we feel that he's doing that to hedge his bets here, that if the facility cannot operate in a product fashion and we can't move the cargo across the piers, in and out of the piers, that he wants to have a backup facility where he could then take that cargo within close proximity to the City of Philadelphia, because that's where some of their cargo goes, but far enough away where he's not dealing with some of the bureaucracy of our port, unfortunately. That's as we speak. What are the issues?
The issues are, very simply -- and I came into the meeting late today, but I heard the conversation and some of the questions that were raised by your panel -- how can the casinos, okay, 313 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 provide a situation with traffic flow that won't interfere with existing businesses? And I believe that the stevedoring business is the business that should be looked at the most, the reason being it's an industry that still requires people who may not be college-educated but pays a wage and a benefit that's family-sustaining. You could buy a house in South Philadelphia on the wage of a longshoremen or a truck driver. And I've asked at many meetings -- one with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, one with the City Planning Commission, and one with PennDOT, and sometimes there's meetings that included all three of those entities. And the question that was asked all the time was: Did any entity perform an economic-impact study on how the casinos will affect the existing 314 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 businesses? And in all cases. The answer to that was no. And it doesn't surprise me, but it was no. 5 Now the issue of congestion, okay, is one of the things that you're analyzing. And I can't sit here and say to you I'm an expert on traffic flow because I'm not. But what I am is someone who sits in that traffic almost on a daily basis 'cause my office is at 1341 Delaware Avenue. And I know it used to take me 14 minutes to go from Spring Garden 15 Street down to Oregon Avenue; now it takes at least a half hour to do so. And my time may not be as valuable as the truck drivers, but the truck driver's time is valuable because they have to move that cargo that we're talking about. And that's where we have a common interest with the neighborhood, because the other businesses that are there are educating themselves, 315 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 something I had to educate myself too. And it is: What is the total impact going to be? And sometimes we make things too complicated, or we listen only to the dollars and cents and not to the general impact. My experience has taken me with the community people to learn about the social ills, and I know you probably heard a lot about that today, but in this case, I just want to concentrate on the economics. I have traveled, like I said, and I've been to different cities who do have casinos, and there's three that stand out: One is Atlantic City, and with all due respect to Atlantic City, it's a pretty one-dimensional city based around beach and entertainment, and the casinos are there. But, as Councilman DiCicco said, if you drive down to Atlantic Boulevard, you see what surrounds the 316 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 casinos that at one time were residential properties, okay, and it's not the time of development and they're not the type of businesses that you want in our neighborhoods. " I don't think you would find anyone. And the same thing with New Orleans. New Orleans has been through some very trying times, but even prior to Hurricane Katrina, they had casinos. " They go there for the French Quarter or Duval Street or some of the other things that New Orleans provides. And I think the 317 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 same thing exists in Philadelphia, okay? If the casinos didn't generate the prosperity in the inner cities of those other places, why do we have to look further? Why do we have to look into what people are going to put presentations together to make it look like they want it to look like? Why don't we look at what the reality of the issue is. In all of those other cities, you see the decay that surrounds those casinos. You see unhealthy other activities.
I notice, riding down Delaware Avenue just recently, there's been two major capital improvements: One is on a gentleman's club that spent about a million dollars, a new Atlantic City casino-type sign that now blinks and flashes; and the other one is from a show-and-tell adult facility that's on Delaware Avenue. They're the ones 318 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 spending the money speculating the casinos are going to bring something into our area. The longshoremen live in the same communities that the people that are raising the objections, okay? You have to look into the economics of what it will do to those persons. Tell a person who's lived in the Fishtown area or in the Pennsport area or in the Whitman area that the value of their homes is not important; it's the jobs that are going to be generated and construction and the other things that are going to come into our area. And they're going to say, Well, why? And they've been fighting it for years. At other meetings, I've showed that -- and I want to say this delicately 'cause I made a mistake. I offended people by raising the issue, but I think it has to be raised in a way where it's understood. 319 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 In other meetings I presented, which I have here today, segments of a collective-bargaining agreement from the Borgata in Atlantic City, and I have that here with me today, only segments of it. 50 an hour. And then I presented, which I have here also, it's an Excel sheet that shows how a person on $12 an hour pays for their mortgage in our neighborhood, pays for electric bill 18 or a cable bill; and at the end of each month, there's a serious deficit and there's no money left over for recreation and there's no money left over for education and there's no 23 money left over for clothing. It's called "the working poor," and we're creating more of these jobs, and it's 320 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 unhealthy for everybody. " That sounds nice, and a lot of people get a lot of exercise. But in my opinion, that's the only way the workers that will work in the casino can get to and from work, because they can't buy a house in South Philadelphia and pay for a car also. When I look at the design -- and, once again, I'm not an expert, but I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to address a complaint of where are the people and where is the traffic going to go and what impact is it going to have. My understanding is that when the impact study was going to be done, it would be done by an independent 321 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 company, number one. And Councilman DiCicco, you remember when we were down at Old Swedes' Church, we talked about, can we really get an independent analysis done that wouldn't have any political stringholds tied to it, and I would hope that if it hasn't been done already, if it's being done, that that impact study does include having participation from a lot of the different businesses in that area. The other thing that I noticed here -- and, once again, being familiar with Delaware Avenue -- is that you've never had to take pedestrians into consideration, and I drive it almost daily, okay, 'Cause there's not many people walking across Delaware Avenue. Really, the only place that you do see some pedestrian traffic is when they're going into the SuperFresh or where Wal-Mart and Home Depot is. But in most cases, most 322 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 people are driving because the packages that they're carrying out of those facilities warrant some type of transportation, so there's not much pedestrian traffic.
And when I see what's going here on Tasker Street or Morris Street, the Morris Street ramp, if you put a left-hand turn on the Morris Street ramp, you would be required to close down Water Street because that's coming southbound on Delaware Avenue that turns right, past the Wawa, and goes up onto the southbound 95 ramp is always intersected by Water Street and traffic on Water Street. To bring traffic coming northbound and put a left-hand turn in there, number one, I don't think Morris Street is wide enough -- I'm sure that could be dealt with -- but the traffic you would probably have to close Water Street down. When I look at the Tasker 323 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Avenue and the Reed Street and the Washington Avenue access proposals, you could see that they did the same thing that they did in Atlantic City when they widened the Atlantic City Expressway. They want to make wider roads getting to the casinos, okay? But in this case, every one of those roads comes either to and from out of the neighborhoods; they're not access ramps onto 95. So where I thought the design was supposed to eliminate or keep traffic from coming into the community, when you read this -- and I'm only reading it for the first time -- it seems like they're preparing to have more traffic come to and from the surrounding neighborhoods. So that in itself, in my opinion, tells the people who have been fighting this that their fears are real, that the older person who 324 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 may have even inherited a home that's been there for a hundred years is going to lose some of the values, they're going to lose the quality of life. They're all economic issues, as far as I'm concerned 'cause they add to the stress of living in South Philadelphia. The new person, okay, the person that's only years old that 12 paid 20 times the amount than I did 13 for my house on Durfor Street is now 14 looking at -- my mortgage may not -- 15 may be more expensive than the value 16 of my home. And if we allow this 17 impact to come into our community, the 18 value of my home is even going to be 19 less, and I'll be working harder to 20 pay for something that's worth a lot 21 less. 22 So the impact is not just on 23 the businesses; it's on the total 24 environment. 25 And with that, if you want, I 325 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 could give you more detail on the waterfront. I don't know how necessary it is other than, if our jobs are being displaced why would you want to displace a family-sustaining job and a family-sustaining wage with employees, with all due respect, okay, that are working for a wage that cannot buy a house in our own area. They have to supplement it somehow. And they could get into -- and I've had this said to me through this analysis, "Well, a husband and a wife do have to work," and I understand that; it's pretty natural to what we're doing right now. Then you have take into consideration day care, which is expensive also, and you got to work out a whole 'nother economic issue like I did. It doesn't pay to work for those type jobs when you're coming -- -- or when you're especially displacing other family-sustaining jobs. 326 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 What my concern is, sitting here, which I think is a representative of my own people who live in the communities that we're talking about, is that I'm confused on where are we in this city? 'Cause depending on what letter I read, it sounds like the City has certain right, whether it's over zoning, whether it's over riparian rights, whether it's over the entertainment district zoning that you're involved in And then I read another document that says no, the State has control over those things. Or then I hear other things where we're going to go to court to make sure the State takes it out of City Council's hands.
Well, no matter what this thing plays out to be, where I think that you have the responsibility -- and I say this with all due respect 'cause you've done a great job -- is that you have to analyze what our 327 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 responsibilities are. And the way I understand it is, our responsibilities are to the people and not to the person who contributes to campaigns, but to the people themselves. And I think we lose focus on that sometimes. Harrisburg, when you read the paper, says, Well, if Philadelphia doesn't do the right thing, well, we're going to take it out of their hands, or they're going to pay for it down the road. I understand that that's part of business; you have to have some relationship with Harrisburg for certain, but they shouldn't be able to strip you of all your rights -- not City Council, nor the people that work there, nor the people that live there. And I'd be glad to answer any questions.
I don't think there are any questions, 328 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 but I want you to know I personally enjoyed your testimony. I thought it was very informative. Thank you very much.
Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Is Dave Barry from the United Auto Workers. (Witness comes forward.)
I'm going to get some water. I'm not used to this kind of stuff.
Sure. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is David Barry, and I want to thank the members of this Council for allowing me this time. As a Foxwoods employee in Connecticut, as a member of the United 329 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Auto Workers union, UAW, I'm here to offer testimony to the proposed Foxwoods development plan from the perspective of the Foxwoods employee. The bottom line: Foxwoods has broken its promises to us and our communities. I have worked as a dealer at Foxwoods Resorts Casinos for years and I have lived in 11 Connecticut all of my life. As a 12 Foxwoods employee, I have experienced 13 the impact of Foxwoods' management 14 decisions on me and my coworkers as 15 well as our community. 16 When the Mahantucket Pequot tribe proposed building the casinos, they promised our communities good-paying jobs with great benefits. They were good jobs at first, but over the years, wages have stagnated, and the benefits and the working conditions have gotten worse. Foxwoods has grown into a multi-billion-dollar-a-year gaming 330 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 enterprise, and with that growth, Foxwoods has become like so many other giant corporations: Employees are just treated as numbers. 25 an hour. That's right, the base pay has gone up only 50 cents in while 11 Foxwoods' profits have gone through 12 the roof. 13 Meanwhile, the price of 14 gasoline has tripled, electricity and 15 oil have gotten harder and harder to 16 afford, every other expense has skyrocketed. The only reason we can make a living and support our families is because of the generosity of the customers from their tips. Last February, the federal courts ruled that the National Labor Relations Act gives casinos employees on tribal lands the right to organize a union. Within weeks, Foxwoods told 331 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the community and all the employees that they would get a percent raise. 4 The truth is, most of us received 5 nothing at all; many of us got pennies. We would have been further ahead if they had given us the stamps to mail our bills rather than the pennies per paycheck that we calculated. I am sure -- I am -- I wasn't sure if I -- I'm sorry. It sure wasn't the 5 percent that they had promised, and one thing dealers can do is math. When we decided to organize the union with the UAW, Foxwoods' management said it would respect our rights to organize but, instead, violated these legal rights at every turn to intimidation, harassment, and unfair discipline. During the time leading up to our union vote, Foxwoods illegally disciplined some of our union committee members. They ran captive 332 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 audiences hours a day, seven days a week. They threatened that it would be futile to form a union because they would never come to the negotiating table. They segregated Asian workers into separate anti-union meetings with Chinese translators. Whether my coworkers were Cambodian, Vietnamese, or Korean, as long as they looked Asian, they were sent to the Asian-only meetings. The National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB, investigated charges filed by the union on behalf of Foxwoods employees. The NLRB found merit to the charges and is bringing Foxwoods to trial on 35 counts, involving discrimination, threats, unlawful discipline, including warning suspensions, and a discharge. I have submitted of the Labor Board's complaints with my testimony. And the trial sent March 25th on these 333 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 violations. In the face of all this, we stood strong, we stood together, and we won 60 percent of our vote in our union election in November. Despite our decisive vote, Foxwoods management is continuing legal delays. They've filed objections to our election because they refuse to accept the results of the election. They have threatened to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Foxwoods claims that this is about tribal sovereignty, but let's be clear: This is an irresponsible corporation using whatever legally tactics they can come up with to try to fight its own employees. Through the UAW, we are now pursuing state legislation in Connecticut to ban smoking in the casinos. Foxwoods employees face high incidences of asthma, emphysema, and cancer due to secondhand smoke. As a 334 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 table-games dealer, I have to breathe highly contaminated levels of secondhand smoke eight hours a day, day in and day on it. Foxwoods used to have a totally smoke-free area that employees with asthma or other health problems or pregnant women would be assigned to. About three to five years ago, they discontinued that. Workers with asthma and emphysema were told that they had to either produce a doctor's note clearing them to work in the smoky casino or resign. No one should have to choose between the financial security of their families and their lives. We have raised our concerns to management about exposure to secondhand smoke for years now. They've had plenty of opportunity to do something about it, and now their position on the proposed legislation is one of arrogance: You can't make 335 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 us. We are not surprised; for years, this has been Foxwoods' way of dealing with the employees and our communities. I hope our experiences will help you to make a thoughtful decision for Philadelphia. We are all for economic development, if it is a smart development that brings good jobs and allows hardworking people to support their families. It's up to you to make that decision, what is right for your community, but please, one word of caution: Don't bank on Foxwoods' promises; get everything in writing. Thank you again for your time.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your 336 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 coming in to testify. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Green?
Thank you very much. I just have one quick question. I've asked other people from the union this question who are here today, and I just told them I'd be asking it of you on the union's behalf to get it on the record. Would the location of the casino have any bearing on the desire or ability to organize casino workers -- or on UAW's desire or ability to organize the casino workers?
Thank 337 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Cynthia Philo. (Witness comes forward.).
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Cynthia Philo. I'm here testifying as the chair of the Pennsylvania Downtown Center, as well as a member of the board of directors of the International Downtown Association. I have testimony that's prepared today. It's short. Hopefully, it will be sweet, and I'll just start.
The Pennsylvania Downtown Center is headquartered in Harrisburg and is the only statewide nonprofit organization dedicated soley 338 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 to the revitalization of the Commonwealth's core, or traditional, communities. Community leaders and citizens across the Commonwealth are working diligently to ensure that their downtowns and neighborhoods that surround them remain viable centers of activity, both economic and social. , is a world leader and champion of vital, liveable downtown communities. Both organizations address issues including that of gaming as well as the impact on our urban centers. Today, I would like to focus my comments on the need for an independent economic-impact study as it relates to gaming and the surrounding business community. In order to create a true synergy with the surrounding 339 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 community, the City would benefit from an independent economic-impact study to see how gaming fits into the fabric of a neighborhood. Most studies that have been undertaken by both the casinos and city governments relating to economics have focused soley on the following: the employment or job creation by casinos; on the impact of various tribal communities that have a stake in gaming, whether or not the members of the tribe are receiving adequate benefits from gaming revenues; whether there's tax revenue generated to the city; as well as studies related to the mental health impacts on municipalities with gaming. Nothing has really focused on how gaming in particular affects the growth, either positive or negative, of nearby local businesses, especially with regard to retail, restaurant, or cultural. A number of gaming sites have gone into the areas of 340 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 communities that are distressed, with no surrounding business or residential elements nearby. In those cases, the introduction of a new business, which is the casino itself, serves to boost the economics in the particular area. Often, the architecture of the gaming facility encourages the customer to stay inside the facility. This works well when there's nothing else surrounding the casino, and may be beneficial to the overall economy of the casino and, in the long run, the city government by way of tax refers. However, in Philadelphia, our gaming facilities are being placed along a vibrant waterfront with many businesses already existing in the area. In fact, our gaming venues are to be located right in core downtown communities. How will gaming connect to the urban economic fabric of this type of a neighborhood? Can this be 341 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 done in a positive way for all concerned? This is where a study can be most beneficial. The question came up, I believe, that Councilman Greenlee had said to Terry Gillen with regard to the Commerce Department: Can the Commerce Department do this type of a survey or an economic study? And I would recommend personally, coming from my opinion, it really needs to be truly independent so that both the casinos, the City, as well as the business community feel that it's a true independent view of what is out there, and they can buy into that study. Additionally, along those lines, the Pennsylvania Downtown Center is particularly interested to understand whether or not gaming is truly a tourist destination for areas where casinos are located. The Commonwealth describes a 342 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 tourist destination as one in which a person drives more than 50 miles to get to and stays overnight. Tourists that do this tend to not only take part in what the casino has to offer by way of retail and restaurants, but they tend to venture outside the casino, into the neighborhood, and also partake in local shopping, dining as well as tours and cultural activities.
If an individual is not traveling such a distance, they may be staying soley inside the gaming venue and not stimulating the economy in the downtown core or the surround community. Further, whatever types of dining and shopping are offered on the inside of the casino can have an impact on the surrounding shopping and dining community. We want casino-goers to eat, shop, and tour in our downtowns. If casinos have all the same places that 343 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 our downtowns have, will casino-goers even venture forth into the neighboring community to spend their dollars? Should there be an agreement with the individual casinos to avoid duplication of local businesses inside their establishment; in other words, to help grow local employees? Or can arrangements be made where diners, shoppers, and tourists leave the casino at some point to go into downtown to do some of their business? Knowing the answers to these type of questions, which are very important because it impacts the entire group, would be highly beneficial to the City government and casinos as well as the community. Without a clearer understanding of the larger economic issues that may impact the immediate and surrounding business/residential 344 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 areas, we may not be able to truly make sound judgments as to the future revitalization through gaming. And I would recommend that this Council move forward with going through and doing a true independent economic-impact study. Thank you. )
Thank you very much. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Representatives from the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. 345 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. My name is Matt Ruben. I am with the Northern Liberties Neighborhood Association and the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance.
Shawn Rairigh. I'm with the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance, also with Fishtown Neighborhood Association and with Neighbors Allied for the Best Riverfront, NABR.
I am Caryn Hunt, I'm with Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance, and I'm a delegate from Passyunk Square Civic Association.
Madam President and members of Council, thank you so much for the opportunity to have us testify as part of this hearing. We will be as brief as possible and will be going in the order from your right to left, our left to your right. 346 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 I want to make a few brief points. First of all, I would like to say that I very much appreciate what Council has done, particularly Councilman DiCicco and you, President Verna. We understand the importance of the bill that is before the Council, particularly given the Supreme Court's actions in previous similar situations with the SugarHouse Casino. We understand the thrust of the bill, and I, for one, certainly appreciate, you know, the reason that it's here and what it's trying to do. That said, I have serious concerns about the bill, at least in its currents form, and at this juncture, would recommend not recommending this bill to the full Council, at least in its current form, and there are a few reasons that I want to briefly go over that, some of which have been very well covered by Ms. Gillen and by other witnesses 347 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 today. First off, as we know from the PICA report, probably the most willfully ignored report in the history of PICA, Philadelphia casinos, according to credible studies, the Foxwoods site, in particular for today, could end up costing the City $200 million a year simply in terms of the cost of dealing gambling addiction and the criminal justice and social service costs associated with that. This is a cost whose existence has never been refuted, as far as I know, by any credible source, by any credible study by either of the two proposed casinos for Philadelphia. This is a significant cost that was not included in the original Five-Year Plan produced by the City under the previous administration, and it's a cost that needs to be taken into account along with many others, if we are to paint a clear picture of what 348 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 exactly the economic impact of casinos are. Secondly, as Ms. Gillen and others have noted, there has been no 6 sufficient evidence that the full 5,000 slot machine Phase II or III buildout can be sufficiently or feasibly mitigated or even accomplished any way that is profitable given the current tax structure that the State has put on casinos. So we have a situation where there is no evidence whatsoever that is credible that Foxwoods can actually provide the full revenues at this proposed location. And that reinforces the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance's conviction that this is an improper location for this casino, because it cannot produce the revenues that we are all depending on and is being promised by casino development. 349 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Thirdly, if there's one thing that all of the scholarship shows us, it's that proximity kills. All of the negative impacts of casinos pose a greater risk and are more accentuated and are more difficult to deal with the closer a casino is to established residential communities. And to the best of my knowledge, no one in the country -- or perhaps anywhere -- has contemplated putting a casino this large in thriving residential communities this dense; it is a giant social experiment, and we believe that at this point, it is a more or less entirely uncontrolled experiment. Again, the closer you are to a casino, the more the negative impacts affect your community, the more people who are liable to become addicted to gambling, the more problems you have with traffic, and so on. In addition, and as Mr. Rairigh will testify in more 350 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 detail, you have lost opportunities. This is not destination gambling; these are slot machine facilities, they are convenience gambling. And convenience gambling does not belong in a prime destination spot like a waterfront.
You give up the opportunity to develop an incredibly valuable and lucrative mixed-use and commercial developments that require the specificity of waterfront and destination locations. A convenience facility can, and should, go somewhere else to allow the City to reap the full benefits of its waterfront. I'm certainly for quality of life, but for this hearing, economically as well. In addition, you also have other opportunity costs that Mr. Rairigh will talk about, including the sabotaging of existing businesses that was also just brought up recently. 351 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Finally, it seems to me that casinos, based soley on the tax structure are not private development; they're public policy. The State of Pennsylvania and, therefore, our city and, therefore, our public are partners in this enterprise with a tax rate that is over 50 percent. And, therefore, it is incumbent upon all of us at all levels of government and the citizenry to participate in the regulation of these casinos at all levels, in all aspects. If the State is granting a license based on revenues produced by a 5,000 slot machine buildout, then Foxwoods needs to demonstrate by a reasonable standard that it can build in a profitable way and that it can mitigate 5,000 machine buildout -- and it has not even come close to doing that at any time, as far as I am aware. If this bill is going to go 352 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 forward, I think at the very least, it needs some amendments in order to provide safeguards and to make Foxwoods meet a reasonable standard for casino development. And this is by no means exhaustive, but among them: Number one, it must be made clear that any traffic study, any proposed traffic mitigation, must be for the full 5,000 machine buildout; that is not, in my understanding, currently spelled out with that degree of specificity in the legislation and certainly has not been proposed or provided by Foxwoods thus far. That's one thing that has to be done. In addition, there must be a study, an independent study, on the preparedness of our social service infrastructure for the inevitable social pathologies and social impacts of gambling. And in my view, the casino should have to fund an 353 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 independently conducted -- in other words, there should be an independent consultant but funded by the casinos to assess our social infrastructure, and they should have to pay whatever money is necessary to bring our social service infrastructure up to speed. In addition, any nonprofit that is established, which is a part of the legislative criteria here, should not be providing enhanced municipal services; those should be provided by a casino and the City and State government. Any nonprofit is merely compensation to build up cultural and social infrastructure to compensate for the inevitable negative effects of a casino. And, finally, Foxwoods should be required to participate -- and this, in my view, should be the new subsection 3(a)1 -- to participate in a public process to evaluate the feasibility and workability of other 354 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 alternative locations for their casino, because, in our view, that is the number-one best way to mitigate, is to move them to a better site. )
I don't want to take up any more of the Council's time, so I'll stop there and turn it over to Mr. Rairigh.
Thank you. I'll try to be brief. Basically, I should introduce myself a little more. I'm here today for the Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance but I also am a part of Fishtown Neighborhood Association and a group called NABR, Neighbors Allied for the Best Riverfront. We started prior to the casino issue; we started worrying about the waterfront when we were getting proposals for 40-story towers and 8-story parking garages and things like that, so we are not anti-casino; we're just careful about 355 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the kind of development we want to see on the waterfront. In my eight years of planning experience, where I especially worked in the revitalization of Philadelphia neighborhoods, this becomes a very interesting case, the casino thing. And it just proves that place matters. What we're here today to decide is whether this set of uses should be allowed at this location in the City. And I would like to remind Council, as they've heard many times today, that the jobs, the union activity, the tax revenues, and even the social costs that are associated with casinos will happen no matter what the site is in the City. Casinos, as long as they can attract gamblers, as long as there is access, the revenue you hear projected by the casino folks today will remain the same no matter the site, but the costs may not. 356 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 And, ultimately, what we should be worrying about from the City government's perspective is the base economics. Base economics is a term I learned my first year of planning school. Basically, it means we should build our base economy; that is, the dollars coming in from outside the city. Those dollars should stay here and then fund grocery stores, small stores, things like that. With the casino located where it is, next to the neighborhood, with very troublesome access to it along Delaware Avenue, a higher proportion of the casino revenue will come from Philadelphians soley because of the location. These are not -- they're not near the -- the casinos are not located near where the out-of-towners are, so every dollar spent in the casino really is no longer being spent at existing businesses in Philadelphia and existing entertainment places in 357 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Philadelphia. Instead, if the CED zoning were given to locations where out-of-town money already exists -- and I'm not going to speculate on those locations -- you could imagine a higher proportion of the casino revenue will come from outside the City and region, becoming a base economic item. In addition, much like putting smoke stacks on the edge of town, the pollution goes into the neighboring state. If you attract out-of-town gamblers, they take their social problems home. I don't really recommend we get a lot of social problems, but at least they go home at the end of the day. So if not casinos, then what? There are also neighborhoods representative for the waterfront plan that you heard from Mr. -- that you heard from the PennPraxis folks 358 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 earlier today, where I helped craft the plan principles and vision there. As part of that, NABR got together and created our own waterfront charrette, you might call it, where we invited anybody and everybody, members of the public. We had a team of planners, architects, urban designers, and engineers come and look at the two sites. And you can from the last or two of the Foxwoods site -- you can see that folks are not anti- development. There's clearly a large mixed-use, mixed-density development shown there. And that is ultimately what fits into the vision for the waterfront. And let me remind also, Council, that wage tax is our largest source of City revenue, slightly less than half of the revenue pie in the City. So if you're really want to increase City revenue, putting new 359 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 people at this site.
People that don't live in Philadelphia or work in Philadelphia, you want them there at this site. Well, luckily, waterfronts are seen as ideal places for people to live especially nowadays, especially luxury residential development. Every city knows this and is remaking waterfronts to capture these new residents, these new high-income residents that pay more in wage tax. You see from our vision plan a mixed-use, mixed-density community. It's community-driven vision includes open space and extension of the street grid, it's walkable, it's healthy, it supports existing transit infrastructure, all low-cost items for the City. There's over one thousand units of housing proposed there, over 60,000 square feet of commercial space. 6 million in real-estate transfer fees alone, about 3-and-a-half million in property taxes every year, and more as tax reassessment goes forward, and 2 million in new wage-tax revenue. This is even if only half of the residents there are from out of the City. This doesn't include construction jobs. And, of course, a complexed, mixed-use, mixed-density project like this will have construction jobs lasting much longer than any single box with slot machines in it. So I guess to sum up really, the opportunity that you see presented before you is really being lost. And the fact is that this could be under construction today if it weren't for the casinos, that this could also be 361 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 completed today if it had been started four years ago instead of casinos. And, moreover, unlike the casino projects, this development will actually spur additional investment in nearby neighboring properties. So I give you the answer. The answer is simple: We can have our cake and we can eat it, too. Zone the casinos elsewhere; you still get the revenue, you still get the problems, but you also get this site to become what its potential is, a mixed-use residential and commercial development. And if you choose to zone this site for CED zoning, you're basically choosing less revenue for the City and less chance for future development in that area of South Philadelphia.
Hi. I'm Caryn Hunt 362 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 from PNA and from Passyunk Square Civic Association. The question of the day is: Will Foxwoods bring more economic benefit to the City than harms? And the answer is: Not at its current locate. The port industries will be harmed, we'll be playing catch-up with the infrastructure problems for years to come, and in the process, destroying thriving neighborhoods. Their impacts will be felt citywide and, therefore, they should be measured citywide. These are not destination casinos that we're talking about; these are convenience casinos, so called because they'll be conveniently placed near large populations so that the discretionary wealth of an area is made available to them. But it's important to keep in mind that it's not going to be very convenient to get to the Foxwoods 363 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 location. In Colorado, Central City Casinos suffer because folks from Denver don't -- won't drive the extra mile to get to them; they'll go to Blackwood because it's closer -- by one mile. It will take years of infrastructure improvements to make the Foxwoods location work. In the meantime, gamblers in the vicinity will find it faster to travel to Harrah's or Philadelphia Park or maybe even Atlantic City rather than navigate the traffic tsunami that the Inquirer predicted -- has predicted. So far, the idea for these casinos, especially Foxwoods, seems to be: Build now, pay later. On the jobs and revenues. The job-opportunity claim for local residents is a myth. Using statistics from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board's recent diversity report, only 364 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 208 out of 1,098 Harrah's employees are residents of Chester City; that's less than percent. Fifteen percent 5 of their employees live out of state. 6 Apparently, Harrah's did not provide 7 that many jobs to residents in Chester 8 City, where they really need 9 employment; they hired from Delaware 10 Montgomery, Philadelphia, and Chester 11 Counties. 12 The numbers are similar at 13 Philadelphia Park. The diversity 14 report indicates that there are 15 Philadelphia residents that currently 16 work at both locations. These 17 Philadelphians don't need casinos in 18 their neighborhoods to get these jobs. 19 The seven other Pennsylvania 20 casinos that are up and running are not located in densely populated urban neighborhood, and they're exceeding their revenue projections. Foxwoods, Philadelphia, and the State of Pennsylvania will receive the same or 365 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 better revenues no matter where in Philadelphia it's located. Although Econsult is a reputable company and used many solid numbers in its report, its study is essentially a sell document for Foxwoods. And as such, it glosses over some serious issues. For instance, Professor Fred Murphy, who has spoken before you before disputes Econsult's ancillary spending numbers. The effects of the diversion of local discretionary dollars to casinos has been well documented elsewhere. And other studies exist that show casinos detract from historical tourist sites. Econsult does not account for negative consequences of casinos such as social costs, Foxwoods assumes no 22 value to the riverfront property without their casino project. Additionally, there is no way that Phase III of Foxwoods' project is 366 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 going to be profitable enough for them, given the current State percentage rate. Are they counting on that rate to decrease? You know, what is the basic assumption there? Other assumptions Econsult used derived from Mayor Street's Advisory Task Force, certainly not as independent an inquiry as it could have been. This study was a first- round attempt to grapple with issues of casino impacts on the City, again glossing over costs.
The Innovation Group, which has played such a key role in the State's gambling expansion, has said that the adoption of slots in Pennsylvania should create a reverberation effect in the region, enticing other states to step up competition for gambling dollars, perhaps even causing New Jersey to build casinos outside of Atlantic City. What will casinos in Camden do 367 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 to Foxwoods' numbers? Casinos are posting revenue declines all over the country -- in Connecticut, in Illinois, in Atlantic City, even in Las Vegas. And this is all just to say that projected revenues over time are impossible to accurately predict; just as is the consistency of state transfers. Nonetheless, the PNA is not here to advocate turning away any of those casino revenues, neither the one-time construction monies, nor the long-term casino jobs benefits, or whatever nontaxable, charitable benefits are slated to flow into our communities. We are only advocating taking a sober, rational view to the cost-benefit balance. A build-now-pay-later scheme is not going to work. We've looked at the costs, and that's why we advocate re-siting. In order to truly assess the 368 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 economic impact of Foxwoods on the City, the effect would have to be measured citywide. Let's see if other locations would not work better. A study would have to include: A comprehensive costs-benefits analysis on the impacts to the City for every stage of the buildout of the proposed location, as has been mentioned before. In this case, including: The impacts to the port industries, to local businesses, bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues throughout the City; An analysis of the costs associated with negative public health effects; An analysis of the financial impacts to Medicare and Medicaid; Consideration of the economic well-being of seniors; A survey of our social service agencies' readiness, like they did out 369 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of the University of Pittsburgh to assess the readiness of the social service agencies in Pittsburgh; A finding that the project will impose additional law-enforcement costs relating to the apprehension, prosecution, imprisonment, and rehabilitation of compulsive gamblers in the City of Philadelphia of no more than half the $14 million host fee paid by the casino, or let's at least know what that number is; And an analysis of the lost opportunity cost of developing riverfront real estate for casino operation, including an assessment of property values from alternative developments, long-term tax revenue and economic benefit to the City that such developments would bring It should also demonstrate a net addition of jobs and revenues to the City over a period of ten years, not a loss. 370 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Such a study would then be reviewed by an independent economic consultant, with additional commentary provided by consultants representing Foxwoods and the affected neighborhoods, and should, for some period, be open for public comment as well. This is the way to look forward, to plan, and to prepare for the casinos that are coming to our city. The sooner these casinos are re-sited to minimize harms, the sooner they can be operational. The State will get its revenues, we'll get the jobs, everybody wins. But the problems represented -- or presented by the current location are unmitigatable; and that's why we recommend voting no for at this location. And the last thing I'd just like to say is, Professor Murphy did a 371 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 really good independent report based on the Econsult numbers, and I do have a copy of that report here, along with -- there's a bunch of other stuff.
But the Professor Murphy report you really should take a look at because he just -- he uses a lot of their numbers, but he changes the assumptions and he comes up with different conclusions, and it's very interesting to get a different perspective.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the witness? (No questions.)
Thank you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel is the Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners and Steve Mullin 372 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of Econsult. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Steve Mullin. I'm a principal with Econsult Corporation.
Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today about the potential economic impacts of Foxwoods Casino, as my firm has studied that. I also -- on a quick side note, I was very happy to hear one of my former students, Shawn, comment about base economics, which is a 373 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 course I taught him. And so even though we don't necessarily see eye to eye on the conclusions there, I was very happy to hear him report and come up with the points that are very, very important, too. So it makes that part of me feel good to see a good former student working. And I appreciate the comments about Econsult and our work, and I'd like to note what we did present. I thought I'd give a very brief overview of the work we did as part of the submission and the application. And then, since I know that in the most recent legislation that's being proposed, you're talking about a two-mile radius, and talk about -- so just some comments about that, even though we didn't do any direct -- in our earlier report, we didn't do any direct analysis of that two-mile radius. We did a little bit in one mile, but that was really more for 374 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 characteristics of the site there. What our potential economic-impact study was, we found significant citywide and statewide impacts in the -- basically the three areas that have been talked about in one way, shape, or form: economic spending, overall economic spending; overall employment; and earnings by both direct employees and earnings by employees and indirectly affected businesses there. And we also forecasted positive tourism and riverfront revitalization effects of the Foxwoods Casinos. And, actually, Foxwoods Casino, with SugarHouse, are what a lot of people have referred to as "bookends" along the riverfront. I would note that as we look at a two-mile radius, we -- the impacts could be on commercial, whether it's office or retail or entertainment businesses, hotel and 375 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 hospitality venues, and port-related development. And the other types of impacts that are non-sectoral will be employment and property values, including residential property values. These are all things that we have looked although didn't include in our study, but I would like to note our views on those in general here. We think that the overall business impacts will be virtually nil for most of the two-mile radius. As you get further west, we think that impacts on commercial and retail businesses in that two-mile radius will be very close to zero and actually somewhat positive for the closest areas. And I'll note part of the reason why we -- the basic reason why we think that's the case is that -- is that the economy is so big inside that two-mile radius. And, remember, it's really only a half a radius 'cause the 376 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Delaware River, it's half a circle there. 2 billion in that area. We also took a look at how many accommodation and food-service establishment and entertainment establishments: 884 in that area. So part of what we were looking at was, what's the impact? There's already a lot, a huge amount, and even the numbers that Foxwoods was talking about relative to that huge amount is fairly small. The numbers are big but they're -- in relation to numbers that are huge, we think that that will be -- that there will be a 377 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 relatively small -- and we also happen to think that's positive, I'll note there -- impact there. We think that there will be no 6 discernible impact on commercial office land use in the two-mile radius, the primary commercial office uses in Center City, both east and west, primarily east in that radius of Center City.
We also believe that the immediate neighborhood businesses are likely to have no negative impact via loss of demand as the casino venue generates spending from outsiders and imports substitutes. Now, that's what Terry had mentioned and several of the other speakers too, and it's always worth another look to see what those numbers are, and we say new spending from outside of Philadelphia and from Philadelphians who are spending, doing the same type of expenditures, primarily Atlantic City before. 378 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 And our view is that the numbers that the task force came up with, saying 75 to 90 percent of new dollars for -- when I say "new" and including import substitution, we think that those numbers -- we thought originally that they were reasonable. We used those in our Foxwoods picture and our study. And we also think that that's -- we don't see any reason to say that that's radically different now. Now, people could study that and take another look -- and take a look, but we don't think that they'll find a significant difference there. We also think that the -- unlike -- sometimes people will say, Well, you put a large department store or a large venue someplace and that will draw from others. The types of venues that -- non-gambling venues that would be included at Foxwoods would not sort of run the gamut, and 379 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 we think that the impact there would be relatively low because, once again, we think it will be a very small portion of those almost a thousand food-service establishments in the two-mile radius, and even less as you go further away. We also think that there would be a positive impact in the -- for basically three source of positive impact in the neighborhoods and to neighborhood business. First will be the payroll that's spending nearby, generating demand for neighborhood retail and restaurants. We note that -- it's our view that the development -- and Shawn had it exactly right -- and economic base development of neighborhood retail is primarily serving the current neighborhoods. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't people who say, We want to try to get customers from outside, but primarily serving the 380 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 neighborhoods. The way that those types of businesses thrive and do well and start up in the first place is based on the income of the people in the neighborhood. So a portion of the payroll that will be spent nearby, we think, will be a positive impact on those businesses. We also think that there will be some indirect spending by Foxwoods to -- directly to businesses in the neighborhood, and we don't know exactly what that percentage will be, but to the extent it's greater than zero -- and we're pretty comfortable that it will be greater than zero -- there will be other money going into the immediate surrounding area that will generate income for people, which will then support -- help support other businesses. It's our view that the neighborhood -- once again that the 381 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 neighborhood economic -- the neighborhood retail is a function of income of the people in the neighborhood, not a function of the businesses that go in there. They follow. And then, finally, in that Special Services District proposal and expenditures on that -- by that in the area is also something that we think will generate additional demand in the area. We also think that employment in nearby businesses will have little to no negative impact, and that's primarily a function of what I've just talked about, about the estimate -- our estimate of the economic activity. We think that the indirect employment will be positive, and that's the spending -- that's the jobs that are supported by the spending of both payroll and indirect and induced spending in that area.
382 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 We also think that they're looking at little or negligible impact to expanded port operations, including PRPA's planned RFP for the container port further south there and primarily due to location there. And also, when looked and talked to people at PRPA about what they were looking at, their view is that -- or at least some there think that the casinos -- that potential casinos further north would not be a hindrance to the proposed port expansion. And, finally, in one of the areas -- oh, yes. Finally, in one of the areas that is considered -- one of the areas considered... a real -- I'm trying to think of the word. Something that generates a lot of anticipation and nervousness and uncertainty, and that is the impact of the casino on residential property values, which is something that is 383 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 absolutely a legitimate concern and absolutely an economic impact. We've taken a look at many of the studies that have been done in other cities, especially one that was done in Henderson, Nevada, that has sort of circulated around, and I know that people have said, And here, because of this, based on this sort of information, we'll have property values decreasing. It's our opinion that the property values in the -- as you get further to the west, there will be little or no impact, but even in the residential areas immediately to the west of I-95, there will actually be a positive impact on property values for the following three reasons: One is that it will react -- the property values and demand will react positively to the elimination of blight and underutilization along the riverfront. )
We think that that will ripple out from the immediate adjacent neighborhoods. And it will be augmented by the induced development that the casinos will bring along the riverfront too. We do not think that the Henderson study that's been used is applicable at all here; and that is, once again -- and some -- and other people have noted that we've got to be careful about studies from Atlantic City and others, where you're looking at an economy that is predominantly casino and casino-related but not necessarily -- and which Philadelphia would not be at all in this case. We also think that this scenario is even more likely now, given the current state of the real estate market, where inducements along -- say, along the riverfront here would be even more necessary with 385 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 the -- with the -- I won't say "collapse," but at least the slowdown of the residential and not as much slowdown of the commercial office markets. So that -- so I just wanted to sort of step through some of the points here and know that they're probably not necessarily the same points that you've been hearing most of the afternoon. But I also do want to note that when Terry was talking about taking an independent look, we do think that an independent look will support the findings that we have.
Thank you. And may I say that your student is sitting back there shaking his head, and I don't think he agrees with you at all.
But 386 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that's beside the point.
On your last point about the independent study, I just want for the record -- it's obvious that we do have different points of view on this Foxwoods Casino site. Would you have any objection to an independent study that would examine your findings?
No, not at all. As I mentioned, I think that they will find our assumptions reasonable.
Okay. You mentioned something about the PRPA. For those of you who are not familiar with it, that's the Philadelphia 387 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Regional Port Authority. Their mission is to encourage port development. What was it you said about them?
Yeah, I was at a -- I attended a talk where John Estee (sp?) was talking about the planned expansion that the State is looking at. And one of the questions that someone at the planned container-port expansion, one of the questions someone in the audience asked, who wasn't me, but I perked up, was that did he see any problem with any of the casino proposals there? And he said he did not think that that would be a -- that that would be a problem. Now, as I think about it, I'm interpreting his response to mean that he didn't think there would be a problem if there were a casino. I didn't -- there's a possibility, but I think it's a remote, that he was saying, Well, I don't think there are 388 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 going to be casinos there so I don't think it's a problem. I think he was -- I think he was responding to casino location just north of the port.
Well, you know, for the record, and for those who may not know, Mr. Estee was, up until a couple of weeks ago, Governor Rendell's chief of staff, so I think it's important that we recognize the fact that his boss has been -- and we all know for years, when you were 15 commerce director, he's always been 16 encouraging riverboat gaming or some sort of gaming along the Central Delaware River waterfront.
For the record, I called the executive director, Mr. McDermott, of the PRPA about a week ago to ask if he or anyone from PRPA would be testifying today. They indicated that no one would be 389 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 testifying; however, an employee, whose title I don't recall -- his name is Robert Blackburn, who is a resident of Whitman, speaking as a resident, said that, in his opinion, he would be opposed to the casino at the current site. Again, not speaking as an employee of PRPA but as a resident who would be immediately impacted and whose quality of life would be impacted. But needless to say, there was no written testimony, nor was there anyone here to testify here today. I do have one other question. When you talk about that radius, that half a radius, 'cause the rest of it's the river --
I might subscribe that I would agree that the further west you go, the less impact it might have on businesses the further west you go. How far west, I'm not sure what that line of less versus more 390 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 would be.
And if you have some indication of that, I would appreciate it, but I look at this as a practical thing, and I've talked about it a number of times in testimony, in previous hearings in relationship to the Foxwoods site, and we have similar problems up at the SugarHouse site as well. But in relationship to the Foxwoods site, which is Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard, two blocks or so off of Second Street, everyone knows that's part of the culture of the environment, which is the neighborhood environment of Second Street, there are a number of bars, and there are a number of venues where people go to socialize. Within two blocks, a massive facility like the Foxwoods facility would be built. I'm a South Philadelphian. I 391 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 started my adulthood hanging out in bars in my neighborhood 'cause that was the social thing to do. I can't imagine those same guys sitting in McNichol's or Jung's or name any one of the bars down there, when they have the availability to be able to walk across the street or two blocks away and spend their disposable income in a place where they think they may have an opportunity to strike it rich and smoke. Well, actually, I can't say -- 'cause some of the -- when we did the smoking legislation, if you remember, that was one of my hang-ups, to let the local bars that were not serving a certain percentage of food to continue to have that choice, and I was specific in that request on the amendment because I was concerned about the what if casinos come, at least you may give those bars, you know, an opportunity to compete 392 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 because it's not that I'm going to run to the casino 'cause I could smoke there but I could still smoke in the bar that I hang in. But there's that temptation. There's that, you know, sitting in the bar, watching the games, watching the Eagles play, watching the sports, the football games, you know, the betting, or whatever goes on, it's all going to not happen, in my opinion, in an establishment that's going to allow the smoking, it's going to allow probably -- I'm not sure what the game plan is yet on the drinks 'cause I think that's still being argued in the legislature and I don't know if that's been resolved yet, whether drinks will be comped or not. Eventually, I think they will be comped, whether that's the case today or not 'cause that's the nature of the gaming industry, to do as much as you can -- and this isn't being critical of them -- to 393 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 keep your patron indoors, in your facility, and not leave until you're ready to go for whatever reason. So I -- at the end of the day, my belief is that there will be free drinks permitted at some point in time. That will all change. And there has to be -- Steve, I respect you, and we've had a great relationship.
But I can't imagine these casinos -- 'cause SugarHouse has the same problem with at Northern Liberties, which is finally being developed and more people are moving in, and there's some great places for people to socialize. That disposable income not -- literally walking two blocks east, I -- did -- was that taken into consideration? And can you even figure out how that would play into this?
Yeah, I think I 394 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 understand -- I think I understand exactly where you're coming from on that. My response would -- I do have to note one thing: Is there a potential that a business -- any individual business might lose customers? The answer is absolutely yes. But in the -- where I think the -- where I would differ with you on your analysis there is to say that if it's a zero-sum game and somebody has to be here in this seat or in this seat, then I would agree with you. But I don't see this as a zero-sum game at all; I see the growth of the pie. So even if there's a slice coming out, it's a larger pie, and I think that that's where -- that's where you can have your story, which is very, very logical, still happen but still have a positive impact. 395 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
I understand your rationale for the bigger picture, but I just mentioned a couple, and Jimmy can probably speak to this better than I can. There are -- there's a significant number of those neighborhood social-gathering places, all right, bars, taprooms, taverns, in addition to the Mummers clubs that rely heavily -- and Jimmy, again, can to talk to this better than I can -- on their members who hang out at the Mummers clubs, and it's a part of that social environment. And they're talking about not a couple of little businesses; you're talking about a large portion of the population and the fabric of the -- the economic fabric of Second Street in particular that I think will have a very severe, dramatic decline in businesses. It's kind of like when the Acme Market -- and I'm not picking on 396 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 Acme, but when the supermarkets started in my neighborhood, it was the beginning of the end for the Ninth Street Market, it was the beginning of the end for all of the mom-and-pop stores, because it just made it more convenient. So if I have the opportunity to walk two blocks, three blocks to a gaming venue to spend my disposable income, drink the same alcohol, watch the same sports game, do all of the same things but still have the opportunity to maybe, you know, score a jackpot, where am I going to go?
There's a certain loyalty, but I think the loyalty may end because it's just too you -- and, look, it's part of doing business in casinos. You make it -- you offer the incentives. I get these things in the mail -- a room for $20 a night or $50 or whatever it is, come 397 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 down. It's all about bringing you in, and that's good business. What's bad business is for the businesses that are in nearby proximity who may fold up and close their doors and then we wind up with a lot more vacant properties. That's sort of a question/ statement, and that's my concern.
Yeah. No, I -- I don't know if you want me to respond, but I do think that I -- I'm not saying that things might not be different, but I think that that impact, that ultimate impact will be a lot smaller than people think on that. And in the -- and I'll note again, 'cause you're -- you are thinking specifically of particular bars and places, and there's no 22 question about that. We found 188 accommodation and food-service establishments in zip 19147, 188 of 'em part, so part of 398 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 when we're looking at things is what's the ripple effect, what happens with millions of dollars more going in and income and stuff like that. So we are looking at a broader picture than that. But I will also note -- and this is a little bit -- a little bit different, because you've identified specific places that have been around for a long time and are a part of fabric, but we also do know that things like taverns, bars, restaurants many of 'em start up and they have a notoriously tough time staying alive to begin with. So there's a lot of turning and, you know, tough competition even with or without. So it's just our thinking that the -- that ultimately, the additional income will generate -- will generate more than the offset. And, again, I don't want to say, oh, you know, that bar is never 399 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 going to close or anything like that 'cause I don't mean that at all in my testimony.
Well, but the 47 and 48 zip codes, I mean, they're next to each other.
So you could take that same example and just extend it as far down as Oregon Avenue, which is zip code 48, and there's probably another couple hundred, so you got 4 or 500 --
Yeah. Actually, 48 has another 140, so you're talking about 350.
And then you get to Passyunk Avenue, which we've been working on for years and it's finally starting to be developed and 400 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 these small, little restaurants are a part of the fabric of that community that's developing. You're ten blocks, you're away only ten blocks away.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. Just on top of that, what is the average financial demographic of a Foxwoods customer? What's the income level on average in Phase I? Do we have a number on what type of person we're talking about as far as what they make a year? I mean, I'm sure that you're not going to have your James Bond guy in there playing baccarat with the white tux to begin with, so you're going to have a person who is probably 401 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 a working person, who has X-amount of dollars in disposable income monthly. Do we know that that demographic is?
I don't actually, but I have to believe that the Foxwoods group does know which --
-- group's there, they're looking at. Jim? (Witness comes forward.)
I'm Jim Dougherty. Councilman, I would like to be careful how I answer the question because some of this is confidential information that, once it becomes public record, I now have --
Well, if you can give me a bigger range, if you 402 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 can give me want to give me large range.
The average income I would -- would be in the neighborhood of between 30 and maybe 75,000.
Okay. So if we take that individual, I would probably be safe in terming that a blue-collar worker of some kind.
And I mean blue-collar and white-collar, office type of people.
So if you're making -- let's go to the high end, you're making $75,000 a year and you're married and maybe your wife's working and maybe she's making another 40, 50, maybe she's making as much as you are, and you got, say, two kids, three kids. That family unit has a certain 403 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 amount of disposal income that they have monthly that's available to them beyond their mortgage and their insurance payments and their utilities and their car payments and all the other stuff -- and tuition and all of the other things. So I don't know what that number is, and you probably don't know what that number is; or if you do, you probably can't tell me. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that that family unit has about 200 to $250 maybe a month, $200 a month in disposal income to spend beyond food and necessities and all of the other things. Isn't that a finite universe of money with all of these people? Don't they have to make choices to be your customer or not to be your customer based on the amount of money that they have a month that they can spend not on necessities? Is that 404 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 fair?
So I go back to Councilman DiCicco's -- and we've had this discussion for a long time, the two of us back forth, as far as the effect it has on blue-collar or working-class, working-class neighborhoods 'cause it's not just blue-collar workers. They have to make a decision on how to spend that money, and they have to make a decision to take that $100 or that $150 or $200 and go to a Foxwoods or a SugarHouse casino to gamble that money and, hopefully, to make -- obviously to hit the jackpot and strike it rich. Doesn't that, Steve, impact those businesses that also entertain discretionary dollars? If I'm going to go to a local restaurant in my neighborhood and spend 75 to $100 and 405 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 all I have is the 200 a month that's my choice to make. If I take my 150, $200 to the casino and spend it there, I don't have the ability -- clearly don't have the ability to spend it at a local restaurant or tavern or other entertainment venue. Is that an unfair characterization?
That's -- that's completely fair and, I think, very accurate on the micro-behavior of an individual family. Once again, I'll go back and say: If we're talking about a zero-sum game, where the pie -- and, by the way, in the pie on this, I meant number of people with incomes, the inflow and outflow of people moving in and moving out, the aggregate income of the neighborhood, that can increase. And even if both you and I 406 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 didn't go to one place, you know, where we'd go two times a week, now we only go one time a week, that doesn't necessarily mean that that place isn't going to have more customers.
Why would -- see, that's where I think we -- where we -- I guess we fall down on not understanding the premise. How do you wind up with more customers in a local restaurant/bar when you're trying to maximize your customer base across Delaware Avenue? How do those two things --
Especially in the beginning time, where it's really novel and interesting, you're going to really be an attraction away 407 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 from -- I mean, if I'm going -- if I have a $150 in my pocket to spend on a Saturday night and I'm passing McDaniel's Pub on the way to Foxwoods, McDaniel's isn't going to get that money that night.
It may not be getting it for the next six months to a year if I really like it over there.
I -- I -- that -- but it's, again, yours. My estimate would be that the net money that goes into these two zip codes, or into those neighborhoods, exceeds the amount of money that gets -- that will get spent by people in that neighborhood at the Foxwoods Casino.
But it represents a reduction in overall revenue for those businesses potentially. 408 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
If the employees -- if you now have a thousand more people employed and there's more indirect jobs that are created, those people more disposable income that they now can go to some of those outlets.
I don't know -- I mean, I don't know that. And your contention is, that's the case?
My sense is, because of the size of the draw, that the net -- and, by the way, the size of the draw with both direct employment, indirect employment, indirect spending, and spending by the neighborhood services district and anything else, by the way, that might be spent through -- from state or local taxes there, that 409 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 that net -- that that would net positive compared to the amount of money that people in this area would spend at Foxwoods.
But it also assumes that the bulk of the jobs would go to people living in the 19147, 48 zip code, and if that's not --
Well, if you're telling me that there's more disposable income potentially generated by the investment of the Foxwoods Casino, that would assume, in my mind, that the people who are living in those two zip codes would be the primary beneficiary of the new positions created; therefore, their disposable income would be more.
But if that's not -- 410 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028
When you say "primary," I don't know if you mean "primary" meaning they will be the direct employees or that that's where the bulk of the payroll will go to.
Even with a relatively low percentage of payroll, I think that the net would still be positive.
Well, all right. I mean -- well, I'm not going to argue -- we're not going to argue back and forth.
I just want to make sure the record's clear that there's some real serious concern about neighborhood economic development.
Look, if you guys get there, and everybody can be accommodated as best as possible or if it can't be moved, or whatever the 411 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 end is, you know, I wish you well, I hope you kick Atlantic City's butt. But, in the meantime, I don't want to see what happened around Atlantic City to some of those wonderful restaurants and eateries and places that you -- And Frank's right, you want to keep those people indoors; you don't want them leaving. As a matter of fact, when they did Atlantic casinos, it's marvelous -- you can walk from casino to casino all the way down the Boardwalk and never hit the Boardwalk once. So, I mean, we understand the need to keep the people in there at those machines, but I just -- I have some serious concerns, not only on the port jobs, which was another discussion, but on the five, six, ten people working in each of those individual businesses, unless you're willing to guarantee, if they go out 412 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 of business, you can hire them at Foxwoods, I don't know what their future is like. So just to register concern.
Any other questions? Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dougherty. Mr. Mullin, good seeing you.
This 413 3/10/08 - RULES COMMITTEE - 080027, 080028 hearing will be recessed until April 4, '08, at a. 4 M. thank you all very much. 5 (Proceedings end at 5:15 p.m.) 6 * * * 7 8 9 10 414 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Rules are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Monday, March 10, 2008, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)