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.