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 --