you can stipulate that there are sidewalks on top of hawk and would be glad to pull up the
photos to move things along or an area can you tell me what page it's on i was just going to
pull up atlas to make it easy oh but
and i agree i i looked in my notes uh and that does confirm there are sidewalks on
topahawken street okay so we have sidewalks on topahawken street and and we have i didn't i
didn't get what because you were both talking over each other i believe you didn't let him
finish answering a question what was the end i just said there's also some sidewalk on pastoria
street as well which i didn't recall uh where is there a sidewalk on pastoria street and how wide
is that um i believe it appears it's between green street and this site on the other side of
the street, there's a sidewalk. The width, I'm not sure what that is.
Are you looking at a photo now yourself?
I'm looking at photos that are in my file, yes.
Okay. Did you give those photos to the attorney?
Okay. All right. I can't find, I don't know your binder.
So, all right.
so did you walk um in the interior of the property during your during your study i did
okay did you notice that there were any parking spaces in the interior of the property
uh yes there are um did you notice how many
I did notice and I have documented, I believe it's approximately 20, but I could be off by a few.
You could, there could be more.
If you give me a second, I can get the actual number.
All right, sure.
Again, I don't know why we're belaboring issues like this.
We can stipulate there are 22 existing parking spaces on the site.
The plan clearly shows that.
All right.
Mr. Horner, did you notice if there's any open space on the interior of the property that could accommodate more parking spaces?
uh no i did not see any logical areas for more part i didn't ask you for logical areas i asked
you did you notice that there are spaces behind the new townhouses objection beyond the scope of
the expert report he testified that he walked around the inside of the public mr masters how
much longer do you think you need? I have more questions, Mr. Chair. Okay, so in four minutes,
we're going to break. Okay. Mr. Horner, in your professional opinion, is there any barrier to
the property owner creating more parking spaces on the interior of his property?
Renewed objection. I can't speak to that. I did not study that.
Were you instructed to only look at parking along Pistorius and not to look at parking
on the interior?
I was, my charge was to evaluate the parking spaces, the curb cuts on Pistorius, as that
was the subject of this hearing, I understood it to be.
I was not asked to evaluate whether more off-street parking could be provided anywhere.
That was not my assignment.
So it's it's not your so your testimony is not is has no conclusions.
So your testimony has no conclusions as to whether or not there could be additional parking spaces on the interior?
Correct.
Is that what you're saying?
Correct.
But you did testify around the availability of on-street parking in the surrounding area.
I did, yes.
But you specifically omitted the possibility of more interior parking to address the, if we don't have these 15 parking spaces along Pastorius, if we just put them in other parts of the property, we would also not have additional parking on street.
Would that be correct?
I'm not sure I follow your question, but I believe that, well, I'll just state that I did not look at on-site, off-street parking options. I did not evaluate that in any way.
Why would you recommend that West Pastorea Street become one-way?
Well, the width of West Pastorea Street is more conducive to one-way flow than two-way.
More conducive for safety reasons?
um yes okay so you have a street that has a two-way street that is not completely safe
what what i didn't say that but so mr masters let's mr masters how much longer do you think
you have um i think maybe five minutes okay we'll stay with five minutes then mr phillips
we'll do redirect the next time okay so let's do mr masters for another five minutes
so i mean mr horner it has to be if you're saying that there's safety issues that would
um that would suggest to you that it should be a one-way street that means that there are safety
issues with it being a two-way street now right i did not say that i just asked you and you said
you said it was for safety reasons that was a reason why you would make it go one way
No, what I said was, the width of one-way streets are typically 14, 15 feet wide, which is what Pastoria Street is.
That makes it conducive, we'll say a candidate for being one-way.
It's also a candidate for being one-way because it basically ends between green and wane, and it's not serving a through-street purpose.
When you ask the question as to why would one way be better than two way?
Yes, it would be safer as one way, but it doesn't make it unsafe as two way.
There's a difference.
Can you quantify the amount of safety that you save by making it one way?
I cannot quantify it, no.
So if a client comes to you and says, look, I'm thinking about making something one way,
but it's going to cost me a bunch of money. Do I do it? Or is it better to just make it two-way
and have some people hit each other from time to time? Objection.
He's already said he can't quantify it. Mr. Horner, are you aware of a traffic fatality
that occurred at the foot of Pastorius and Wayne? Objection.
what's the if he knows
uh no i'm not aware
would the information about about traffic fatalities in the vicinity that you're
studying be important to you when you're making uh determinations around safety and traffic safety
objection
i think he can answer the question
uh no it doesn't and here's the reason there's a lot of reasons why a fatality may occur
uh what i focus on what traffic engineers have to focus on is is that reason have to do with
the configuration or the safety aspects of the road itself not whether a driver was impaired
or whether the pedestrian was not looking or whatever the case may be.
So what's really pertinent for my analysis is the physical and operational and volume conditions of that roadway, not whether there may or may not have been an accident.
So what's really pertinent for my analysis is the physical analysis.
Okay, I can understand that, Mr. Horner, but you weren't even told about the fatalities, so you couldn't look into it and figure out what caused it and whether there was a concern there.
We're testifying about facts that are totally not in evidence. And Mr. Masters is just, you know, clearly doing this.
So, so, so, so purposes. So, Mr. Masters, you got two minutes left. Can you do it in two minutes? Sure.
you testified um around an access issue with um that was around no safety corners
I wrote that down but I'm not able to read completely right road here I'm assuming you're
referring to my testimony about cars pulling out onto top of hawkins street from this access
that's where i referenced that the site distance is limited because of on-street parking in
particular ah okay um and the site limit the site distances are limited when you're backing up
from from um those new parking spaces onto pastorius also right uh no they're not there's
no sight limitations when you're backing up a car onto Pastorius? There's no sight limitations in
terms of oncoming traffic or pedestrians or bicycles seeing a car backing out or the driver
backing out in terms of there's no obstacles that prevent the driver from seeing in the area that
the driver would need to see to back out. There's no sight distance limitations. Okay. Your test
justifying before that as a best practice,
people should not back out of these new parking spaces.
They should back in and leave by driving frontwards.
And now you're saying that there's no difference
as to whether you back out or come out frontwise
on these new parking spaces.
How is that possible that you have,
that you're ambivalent about something
that you recommended before?
What I was stating was that the back out maneuver
is safe. There's no adverse impact. I did say that consideration should be given to
pulling forward because pulling forward is a more desirable condition. It doesn't make
pulling out backwards unsafe. It just makes the pulling out forward more desirable.
What's the minimum with that? Mr. Manchester, we're going to have to break.
This is my last one.
What's the minimum width of a cartway for two-way traffic in Philadelphia?
I don't have that answer in front of me.
Would you say that it's basically around 14 and a half what we have in Tobahawken?
I don't know.
I'm sorry.
Say that again.
I didn't understand your question.
Are you saying that our streets code allows cartways that are even more narrow than we have in Pastorius to have two-way traffic?
I don't know what the code says.
Clearly, because Pastorius is two-way, it meets the code or it wouldn't be two-way.
But would it be fair to say that it's basically at the limits of the width for a two-way street?
Again, I can't speak to what the code says.
I don't have that in front of me.
in terms of traffic engineering standards in general.
Yes, the minimum for a two-way cartway
realistically is about 14 feet
to allow two cars to still pass.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the answers.
Okay, thank you.
Hillary, can you hear me?
Yes, I'm here, Mr. Chair.
So what we're going to do is
um we'll pick up on redirected the next hearing yes in um chair just you know because we have a
number of you know individuals and witnesses um probably dozens on each side who have been you
know uh at least on my side of waiting today i'm not sure mr masters uh i've needed have been
available today but you know i was just wondering when we could get um you know back before i
understand we have to post for two weeks but i'm just wanting to see if if there was a you know
way to get back on another list as soon as possible. And we'll be happy to work with Tanya
for that. But I think we'll try to get you back as soon as possible, as we possibly can. Okay.
Do you think it could be a Tuesday? So it would be a bit, so we could have a longer special session?
So what I'm going to do is I'll meet with the team and figure out if we could do that, Steve.
What I'm going to do is I'll meet with the team and figure out if we could do that, Steve.
And I just wanted to note, so after we're done with Mr. Horner, we're going to move to Mr. Master's case, and we will be in discussion about the witnesses that will be called in that case, because we still have to have time for public testimony and the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Well, I believe Mr. Phillips has a lot of community witnesses also that you wanted to put in your case in chief. Is that true? Or do you want them as community witnesses, like after the arrest?
I have a number of community individuals as of Mr. Masters. I was going to have perhaps a few testify in the case-in-chief, recognizing that whether they testify in our case-in-chief or as members of the public, that it's within the board's discretion to weigh the evidence and to weigh their testimony.
Hold on. Looks like we lost the chair. One moment.
we we will be in touch about the witnesses there may be um so some of the witnesses on your list
they may need to testify the public testimony part as opposed to your cases in chief just due
to time constraints okay and that would be a limitation on one or two minutes per for each
witness then
Thank you.