COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 28, 1998 3:17 p.m. - - - Bills No. 980170, 980171, 980172, 980173, 980176, 980194, 980195, 980196, 980197, 980198, 980199, 980200, 980201, 980202, 980205, 980206, 980207, 980208, 980209, 980226, 980387, 980410, 980411, 980412, 980413, 980414, 980415, 980416, 980417, 980418, 980419, 980420, 980421, 980447, 980449, 980453, 980461, 980545, 980547, 980551, 980615, 980617, 980618, 980619, 980647, 980648, 980649, 980650, 980651, 980652, 980653 and 980654 (Wording of bills attached to testimony.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing I N D E X Catherine Confair, Analyst. . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Parking Authority Charles Trainor, Streets Department . . . . . 34 Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 City of Philadelphia Planning Commission Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager . . . . . . 42 Michael Longshore, Streets Department . . . . 48 Forest Aegiano, President . . . . . . . . . . 55 Wissahickon Neighborhood Civic Association Richard Shickling, Near Neighbor. . . . . . . 58 Manayunk and Seville Louis Agre, Democratic Committeeman . . . . . 62 Delores Hamilton, Private Citizen . . . . . . 66 Hubert Reid, Lebanon Avenue Block Captain 70 Lorenzo Cruger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 President of the Coalition Block Committee John Holland, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . 78 Bernice Bush, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . 80 Lydia Carbone, Private Citizen. . . . . . . . 83 Dutch Eichorn, Asst. Dist. Traffic Engineer 88 Pennsylvania District 6 Office Yvette King, Black Coalition Member . . . . . 110 Richard Auerbach, Esq., Phil. Law Dept. . . . 111 3 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing P R O C E E D I N G S
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. A quorum is here to begin a public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. With me today are Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Cohen, Councilman Mariano, and I am Councilman DiCicco. I'm the Chairperson of the Streets and Services Committee. There are a significant number of bills today -- I think we have about 52 bills to be heard today. What I would like to do is, and I think it's already set out that way. There are -- the majority of the bills deal with parking regulations. And we will do those bills. I think -- just give me a minute now, I think we're going to do those first. (Councilman DiCicco briefly confers with his chief of staff.)
Okay, okay, we will do the parking regulation bills first. They make up the bulk of the bills that we have here today but they are -- also because they are all are relating to the same kind of issue, we can 4 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing probably go through those rather quickly. The clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 980117, an ordinance establishing -- Cass, is that yours, no 7 truck parking?
Bill No. 980194, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Tenth Street, both sides, from Catherine Street to Christian Street.
Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Confair. I'm an analyst with the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Bill 980194, introduced by Councilman DiCicco. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Tenth Street, both sides, from Catherine Street to Christian Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 5 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommend s favorable consideration of this bill.
Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 980195, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Eighth Street, both sides, Bainbridge Street to Fitzwater Street.
Bill 980195, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 16 establishes a parking regulation on Eighth Street both sides, Bainbridge Street to Fitzwater Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 20 apparently problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? 6 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980196, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fitzwater Street, both sides, Eighth Street to Ninth Street.
Bill 980196, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Fitzwater Street, both sides, Eighth Street to Ninth Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 16 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority favorable recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980197, an 7 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Wharton Street, south side, Ninth Street to Passyunk Avenue.
Bill 980197, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 7 establishes a parking regulation on Wharton Street, south side, Ninth Street to Passyunk Avenue. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 12 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980198, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Ninth Street, both sides, Bainbridge Street to Fitzwater Street.
Bill 980198, introduced 8 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 3 establishes a parking regulation on Ninth Street, both sides, Bainbridge Street to Fitzwater Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 8 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980199, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Second Street, east side, Fairmount Avenue to Green Street.
Bill 980199, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 23 establishes a parking regulation on Second Street, east side, Fairmount Avenue to Green Street. This new regulation has been in effect 9 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing for a period of at least eight months, with no 3 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980200, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fourth Street, west side, George Street to Cambridge Street; and on Fourth Street, east side, Cambridge Street to a point 200 feet south of Cambridge Street.
Bill 980200, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 20 establishes a parking regulation on Fourth Street, west side, George Street to Cambridge Street; and on Fourth Street, east side, Cambridge Street to a point 200 feet south of Cambridge Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 10 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980201, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fourth Street, west side, Green Street to Wallace Street.
Bill 980201, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 17 establishes a parking regulation on Fourth Street, west side, Green Street to Wallace Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 21 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on 11 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980202, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on East Girard Avenue, south side, Frankford Avenue to Shackamaxon on Street.
Bill 980202, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 12 establishes a parking regulation on East Girard Avenue, south side, Frankford Avenue to Shackamaxon Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 17 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill. 12 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Bill No. 98205, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Ritner Street, south side, from 13th Street to Juniper Street.
Bill 980205, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 8 establishes a parking regulation on Ritner Street, south side, from 13th Street to Juniper Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 12 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980206, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Alder Street, west side, Ritner Street to Wolf Street.
Bill 980206, introduced 13 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 3 establishes a parking regulation on Alder Street, west side, Ritner Street to Wolf Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 7 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980207, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on 13th Street, both sides, Jackson Street to Wolf Street.
Bill 980207, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 22 establishes a parking regulation on 13th Street, both sides, Jackson Street to Wolf Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 14 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980208, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on 13th Street, both sides, Morris Street to Moore Street.
Bill 98008, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 17 establishes a parking regulation on 13th Street, both sides, Morris Street to Moore Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 21 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on 15 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980209, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Clarion Street, west side, Jackson Street to Wolf Street.
Bill 980209, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 12 establishes a parking regulation on Clarion Street, west side, Jackson Street to Wolf Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 16 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980226, an 16 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Park Avenue, west side, Allegheny Avenue to Clearfield Street.
Bill 980226, introduced by Councilwoman Clark by request. This bill 7 establishes a parking regulation on Park Avenue, west side, Allegheny Avenue to Clearfield Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 11 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 908387, an ordinance establishing parking regulations on East Passyunk Avenue, from Wharton Street to Latona Street, both sides; Ninth Street, from Wharton Street to Federal Street, both sides.
Bill 980387, introduced 17 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 3 establishes a parking regulation on East Passyunk Avenue, from Wharton Street to Latona Street, both sides; Ninth Street, from Wharton Street to Federal Street, both sides. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 9 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980410, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fifth Street, both sides, Catherine Street to Queen Street.
Bill 980410, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 24 establishes a parking regulation on Fifth Street, both side, Catherine Street to Queen Street. 18 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 4 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980411, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Seventh Street, both sides, Fitzwater Street to Catherine Street.
Bill 980411, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 19 establishes a parking regulation on Seventh Street, both sides, Fitzwater Street to Catherine Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 24 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of 19 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
At this time, I would like to offer an amendment to this bill. And the language would be -- the change in the bill would be that the two-hour parking be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thank you. Anyone else here wish to see testify for or against the bill? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I have a question about that.
You have to come around, sir, and take a seat at the table. (Unidentified person comes forward.)
Frank Russo. Frank Russo. The question I have is: There is a city-owned lot between Fitzwater and Clymer Street, and the parking along Seventh Street, you're trying to amend that between those two 20 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing blocks?
We're trying to put a regulation in based on calls and a petition. I believe there was a petition that was circulated in the community where the residents and the business people have requested that a parking regulation be implemented along Seventh Street, from Fitzwater to Catherine.
Between Fitzwater and Clymer, are they trying to change the hours? Is that correct?
I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the signage today is 8 a.m. to 12 midnight. And that was done in error, I believe. What we're doing now is amending the legislation that I originally introduced which called for two-hour parking on Seventh Street, both sides, from Fitzwater to Catherine, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., except Sunday. And what I'm doing now is offering an 21 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing amendment to the two-hour parking from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., except for Sunday.
Okay. Is there an hour-limit on that parking lot? It's a city-owned lot, is there a --
I'm not -- I'm not familiar with -- I know the lot but I'm not familiar with any time -- with any regulations regarding time there. I don't know.
I don't think there is. Generally, in a public parking lot -- and correct me, Cass, in case I'm wrong -- there is no time limitation.
Yeah, and it would 22 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing have to be posted if there were.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980412, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Catherine Street, both sides, Seventh Street to Eighth Street.
Bill 980412, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 22 establishes a parking regulation on Catherine Street, both sides, Seventh Street to Eighth Street. This new regulation has been in effect 23 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing for a period of at least eight months, with no 3 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980413, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Clarion Street, west side, Tasker Street to Morris Street.
Bill 980413, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 18 establishes a parking regulation on Clarion Street, west side, Tasker Street to Morris Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 23 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill. 24 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980414, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Clymer Street, north side, Seventh Street to Eighth Street.
Bill 980414, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 14 establishes a parking regulation on Clymer Street, north side, Seventh Street to Eighth Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 18 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 25 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980415, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Front Street, both sides, York Street to Dauphin Street.
Bill 980415, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 9 establishes a parking regulation on Front Street, both sides, York Street to Dauphin Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 13 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 908416, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Howard Street, both sides, Girard Avenue to Thompson Street. STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Bill 980416, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 4 establishes a parking regulation on Howard Street, both sides, Girard Avenue to Thompson Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 8 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980417, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Juniper Street, both sides, Dickinson Street to Tasker Street.
Bill 980417, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 23 establishes a parking regulation on Juniper Street, both sides, Dickinson Street to Tasker Street. 27 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 4 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980418, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Kauffman Street, south side, Passyunk Avenue to Fifth Street.
Bill 980418, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 19 establishes a parking regulation on Kauffman Street, south side, Passyunk Avenue to Fifth Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 24 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of 28 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 908419, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Queen Street, both sides, Fifth Street to Sixth Street.
Bill 980419, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 15 establishes a parking regulation on Fifth Street, both sides, Fifth Street to Sixth Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 19 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
In order to 29 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing sustain a quorum here today, the Council President, who I just spoke with on the phone, has appointed Councilman Nutter to be a member of this committee for today. The clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980420, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Tasker Street, both sides, 13th Street to Juniper Street.
Bill 980420, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 14 establishes a parking regulation on Tasker Street, both sides, 13th Street to Juniper Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 18 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 30 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980449, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Torresdale Avenue, east side, Wellington Street, to a point 187 feet north of Wellington Street.
Bill 980449, introduced by Councilwoman Krajewski by request. This bill 9 establishes a parking regulation on Torresdale Avenue, east side, Wellington Street, to a point 187 feet north of Wellington Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 14 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980453, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fitzwater Street, both sides, 19th Street to 20th 31 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Street.
Bill 980453, introduced by Councilwoman Verna by request. This bill 5 establishes a parking regulation on Fitzwater Street, both side, 19th Street to 20th Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 9 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980461, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Catherine Street, both sides, Sixth Street to Seventh Street.
Bill 980461, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 24 establishes a parking regulation on Catherine Street, both sides, Sixth Street to Seventh 32 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 5 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The clerk informs me there may be a change to another bill?
Yeah. That's the one prior -- yeah, prior to the one I did the amendment on.
Okay, we will 33 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing revisit 980410.
Bill No. 980410, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Fifth Street, both sides, Catherine Street to Queen Street.
Bill 980410, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill 9 establishes a parking regulation on Fifth Street, both sides, Catherine Street to Queen Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 13 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
The paperwork was fine. It was just the pink copy, that it has Thursday through Sunday, but all the paperwork and the signs are posted Thursday through Saturday.
Okay, so it should read -- give me the times again so I have that correct.
Okay. Two-hour parking, 34 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Wednesday; 8 a.m. to midnight, Thursday through Saturday.
Saturday, okay. 5 Thank you. 6 Now I believe all of your bills we've 7 gone through. 8
Thank you, thank you for your time today. The clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980710 is being held at the request of the sponsor. Bill 980171, an ordinance establishing a no truck parking regulation on Cayuga Street, both sides, from "G" Street to Castor Avenue.
I believe the Streets Department is here to testify on that? (Charles Trainor comes forward.)
Please state your 35 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing name for the record.
Charles Trainor, Streets Department Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer. The Streets Department has no prepared testimony on this ordinance, but we have no 7 objection to the passing of the bill.
What a day, huh? What a day. The clerk will read the title of the next bill -- excuse me, unless there's anyone else here who wishes to testify on that bill. (No response.)
The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980172, an ordinance establishing a no truck parking regulation on "M" Street, both sides, from Erie Avenue to Cayuga Street. 36 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Councilman, the Streets Department has no prepared testimony on this ordinance, but we have no objection to the passage of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 980173, an ordinance establishing a no truck parking regulation on Castor Avenue, both sides, from Erie Avenue to Cayuga Street.
Councilman, the Streets Department has no prepared testimony on this ordinance, but we have no objection to the passage of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill. 37 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Bill No. 980176, an ordinance establishing a no truck parking regulation on Hunting Park Avenue, both sides, from "G" Street to Castor Avenue.
Councilman, the Streets Department has no prepared testimony, but we have no objection to the passage of this bill.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on that bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 980421, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307 by widening a portion of Juniper Street on the easterly side, between Arch Street and Cherry Street, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City of the widened portion of Juniper Street.
Paul? He's not 38 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing here? All right, why don't we hold that and we'll go the next bill till Paul -- is the next Paul's also?
Bill No. 980447, an ordinance to amend Chapter 12-2400 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Towing and Immobilizing of Parked or Abandoned Vehicles" by revising towing zone locations.
Is that Paul's also? No? Is there anyone here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980545, an ordinance granting permission to Edward Wilson, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 16th Street and John F. Kennedy Boulevard to construct, use, and maintain a conduit for fiber optic facilities in and under the north footway of John F. Kennedy Boulevard, the west footway of 16th Street, and the south footway of Cuthbert Street, for the purpose of 39 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing supplying telephone service to said newsstand.
Is there anyone here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980547, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 187, by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally opened portions of Belgrade Street, from Butler Street to Castor Avenue, under certain terms and conditions. (Marty Soffer comes forward.)
My name is Marty Soffer, from the City of Philadelphia Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff has reviewed and tentatively approved this action. The recommendation is approval for Bill No. 22 980547. Thank you.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? 40 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing (No response.)
Do you have any other bills here? While you're sitting here, do you want us to go through them?
Okay, Bill No. 980617, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 295, by striking from the City Plan and vacating Codorus Road from Hendren Street to Spring Lane, and by reserving and placing a right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes within the lines of Codorus Road from Hendren Street to Spring Lane, all under certain terms and conditions.
My name is Martin Soffer from the City of Philadelphia Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff reviewed and tentatively approved this action. The recommendation is approval for Bill No. 980617.
Is there anyone 41 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing else here who wishes to testify on the bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 980618, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 295 of the area extending generally northwestwardly from Spring Lane to the Philadelphia and Montgomery County line, between Bigonet Lane to the southwest, and Hendren Street to the northeast, by striking from the City Plan Muncy Lane, Ayrdale Road and Buffalo Lane; by placing on the City Plan Sycamore Lane, Lantern Lane, Green Hill Lane, and Buttonwood Place; and by reserving and placing on the City Plan certain rights-of-way for water main purposes and drainage purposes; all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances, of 42 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing the beds of Sycamore Lane, Lantern Lane, Green Hill Lane, and Buttonwood Place.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plot of subdivision, which includes the proposed streets. Excuse me -- which included the street action on March the 5th, 1998. The Planning Commissioner recommended approval for Bill No. 980618. Thank you.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (Paul Lonie comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie. I'm a survey bureau manager. I'd like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 19 980618 for the Department of Streets. This is not an administration ordinance 21 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Neil Andrew Stein, Esquire, of Kaplan, Stewart & Meloff, 325 Sentry Parkway, Bluebell, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to place new streets on the City Plan to facilitate the building of 78 43 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing single-family detached homes in a new development. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Is there anyone else here wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980619, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Sycamore Lane, Lantern Lane, Green Hill Lane, and Buttonwood Place, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Lonie of the Department of Streets. And I'd like to give the following testimony on 980619. This is not an administration ordinance 20 but it's requested by Mr. Neil Andrew Stein, Esquire, of 350 Sentry Parkway, Building No. 640, Bluebell, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to pave the new streets required by the Spring Lane Housing Development. This ordinance is supported by the 44 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Is there anyone else here who wish to see testify? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, this is a project that has had an extensive amount of neighborhood hearings and meetings and discussions. The developer, at every possible turn, I believe, tried to address the many legitimate concerns of the neighbors adjacent to Spring Lane. And while he may be in a position of having made a number of adjustments and amendments to his plan and possibly for every person that lives in the surrounding neighborhood, it has not completely satisfied them. I would say that they have done a tremendous job at cutting down the number of properties to be built at the location so as to address community concerns about traffic flow and density and the like. And so I do support these three bills. 45 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Thank you.
Is there anyone else here wish to testify. (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980421, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307, by widening a portion of Juniper Street on the easterly side, between Arch Street and Cherry Street, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City of the widened portion of Juniper Street.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonnie, I'm a survey bureau manager. I'm representing the Department of Streets, and we'd like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 21 980421. This is not an administration ordinance 23 but an ordinance requested by Mr. David Grasso, Esquire, Metro Development Corporation, 232 North 22nd Street, Philadelphia. 46 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the legal authority to revise the lines and grades Juniper Street, between Arch and Race Streets. This would allow the unloading of passengers along the proposed Hampton Inn Hotel. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980551, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 17 No. 1119) approved July 24, 1995, entitled "An Ordinance Authorizing the Striking from City Plan No. 58 and Vacating Shamokin Street, from 11th Street to Ridge Avenue, and Reserving and Placing on the City Plan a Certain Right-of-Way for Drainage Purposes and Water Main Purposes, Under Certain Terms and Conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein to December 31, 1999. 47 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonnie, I'm a survey bureau manager. I'm representing the Department of Streets, and we'd like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 7 980551. This is not an administration ordinance 9 but an ordinance requested by H. Jeffrey Brahin, Esquire. 152 North Main Street, Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the expiration date of an ordinance 14 approved July 23, 1995. The purpose of that ordinance was to strike from the City Plan and vacate Shamokin Street so that the abutting property-owners may eradicate the problems with loitering and littering that exist in the area of their business. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and it is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) 48 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980615, an ordinance authorizing Joseph and Angela Schmidt, owners of the property located at 3100 Knorr Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19149, to construct and maintain various encroachments onto and over the south footway of Knorr Street and the east footway of Hawthorne Street adjacent to 3100 Knorr Street, under certain terms and conditions. (Mike Longshore comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco. My name is Mike Longshore, representing the Streets Department and the Chief Permit Officer. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 19 980615. This is not an administrative ordinance 21 but an ordinance requested by Joseph and Angela Schmidt, owners of the property located at 3100 Knorr Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19149. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the legal authority to 49 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing construct and maintain various encroachments, which includes: a retaining wall on Knorr Street, which encroaches 2-foot-8-inches onto the south footway of Knorr Street; a fence, elevated deck and concrete patio, all of which encroaches a maximum of 7-foot-4-inches onto and above the east footway of Hawthorne Street. The plan of this property has been approved by the Board of Highway Supervisors. Therefore, the Department of Streets has no 12 objection to the passage of this bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
The clerk will read the title of the next bill. I think we had to go a little bit out of order, Mike, so just stay over. We're going to go back to that one bill.
Bill No. 980545, an ordinance granting permission to Edward Wilson, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 16th Street and John F. Kennedy Boulevard to construct, use, and maintain 50 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing a conduit for fiber optic facilities in and under the north footway of John F. Kennedy Boulevard, the west footway of 16th Street, and the south footway of Cuthbert Street, for the purpose of supplying telephone service to said newsstand.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the board. My name is Mike Longshore, representing the Streets Department and the Chief Permit Officer. In reference to Bill No. 980545, this is not an administrative ordinance but an ordinance requested by Edward Wilson, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 16th and John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the legal permission to install, use, and maintain certain fiber optic conduits and appurtenances in and under the north footway of John F. Kennedy Boulevard, the west footway of 16th Street, and the south footway of Cuthbert Street for the purpose of supplying telephone service to said newsstand. A fiber optics connection to a newsstand is required in order to link up with the 51 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing state lottery system. In turn, the resulting lottery activity causes queues in the sidewalk areas. This makes for an unsafe condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. For this reason, the Streets Department does not recommend passage of this bill.
Is there anyone else here wishes to testify on this bill?
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980647, an ordinance establishing a no motor home parking regulation on 51st Street, Overbrook Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, both sides. (Charles Trainor comes forward.)
Good afternoon. I'm Charles Trainor, Streets Department Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer. The Streets Department has no prepared testimony on this ordinance, but we do not oppose the passage of it.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to wishes to testify on this bill? 52 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of next bill.
Bill No. 960648, an ordinance establishing a no motor home parking regulation on 51st Street, Overbrook Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, both sides.
I'm Charles Trainor, Streets Department, Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer. The Streets Department has no prepared testimony on this ordinance, but we have no 14 objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Oh, we're going to skip over five bills and go to the last bill on the list because there are a number of people here from Councilman Nutter's district who are obviously prepared to testify here on several bills.
Mr. Auerbach, I 53 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing don't think you had been called up to the table. We're quite comfortable with you sitting in the audience there, and we'd be glad to see you just continue to sit there. (Laughter.)
Bill No. 980654, an ordinance establishing a no tractor-trailer parking regulation on 33rd Street, from Allegheny Avenue to Westmoreland Street, both sides.
Charles Trainor, Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer with the Streets Department. The Streets Department has no prepared testimony on this ordinance, but we have no 17 objection to the passage of it.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on that bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 980649, an ordinance authorizing the installation of stop 54 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing signs on Manayunk Avenue at the intersection of Seville Street and Kingsley Street.
Mr. Chairman, if I might ask, because we do anticipate that both Mr. Trainor and Mr. Auerbach will have their own testimony. In recognition of the time this evening and that we have members of the public here who wish to testify on a number of different bills, what I'd like to ask is if Mr. Trainor and Mr. Auerbach could excuse themselves from the table for a second and allow the members of the public to give their testimony about the various bills. Much of our discussion for Mr. Trainor and Mr. Auerbach will be pretty much similar items of discussion, so why don't we at least get public in so that they can give their testimony. Thank you.
Whoever from the public is here to testify, please come forward.
Mr. Chairman, that would be Mr. Forest Aegiano and Mr. Richard Shickling on Bill 980649.
Thank you. 55 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing (Messrs. Shickling and Aegiano come forward.)
Please state your name for the record, pull the mike as close as possible to you, and speak directly into it. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Forest Aegiano. And as President of the Wissahickon Neighborhood Civic Association, I appreciate the opportunity to voice our request that you approve the installation of stop signs on Manayunk Avenue at the intersections of Kingsley and Seville Streets. I'd like to provide a brief summary of our request and ask that a more lengthy detail of the history of the (unintelligible) problem also become a part of the record at these hearings. As a summary, the stop signs used to be in place at these two intersections and they helped slow traffic. The signs were apparently removed by the crew that was resurfacing the roadway several years ago. After that, the Streets Department refused to put the signs back. Without the stop signs, speeding on 56 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Manayunk Avenue, both cars and buses, has become a serious problems for the near residents. With an increase in the traffic volume in the Manayunk area, the problem has increased. Drivers try to avoid the stop and go traffic on Ridge Avenue by using Manayunk Avenue instead. Many cars and buses use the nearly half-mile straight of way between Pensdale and Salaignac Streets as an uninterrupted speedway. Downhill speeds on this narrow residential street frequently exceed 50 miles an hour. The negative impact on the daily lives of near residents on these hazardous is grievous and wearing. We can cite innumerable vehicular and pedestrian near-misses, sideswipes, demolished sidewalk planters, and the like. Over the last several years especially, near residents have brought their concerns about this situation to our civic association on many, many occasions. We have done everything we can to resolve the problem by working with city and state agencies, but we wind up here in City Council today asking for your help. Common sense and the experience of near 57 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing residents suggest a simple solution. Put the two stop signs back where they belong. To the contrary, the Streets Department maintains that there is not a sufficient accident history at the two intersections to justify having stop signs. On the other, the 5th Police District, hands PennDOT, SEPTA tell us that putting the stop signs up again would reduce the speeding problem on Manayunk Avenue, but the Streets Department has the say, and they say no. 12 Many of us are left feeling that the City is driven more by bureaucratic formula than by common sense and practical solutions. It appears to us like the City is waiting for pedestrian or driver fatalities before the stop signs are deemed officially justified. Waiting for tragedy to provide an accident history at these two intersections should not be necessary. Therefore, we are asking that this legislative relief be a last resort. In conclusion, we ask you to implement a practical solution to our problem by putting the two stop signs back in place. Thank you. 58 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
My name is Richard Shickling. I am a near neighbor at Manayunk and Seville. I just want to voice my opinion that we have an apartment complex at that corner that has 108 apartments, sometimes called the "3901 Manayunk Apartment Complex." There are numerous children that live in the, it's a two-bedroom apartment complex. Children often cross the street corner to go to the nearby store. We have a row house neighborhood where there are many children playing. And the idea of cars and trucks -- and now we have wheelers on our street -- going in 18 excess of 50 miles an hour at times. But at a normal time, it's 35 to 40 miles an hour as a speed on Manayunk Avenue. And this would be slowed considerably if we could have our stop signs back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Aegiano, in your testimony, I think you did mention that all 59 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing of the governmental agencies agreed that there should be some form of traffic signal there, preferably a stop sign. And I think that you said that the state -- do you mean PennDOT or --
Yes, that's my understanding, that Kathy Ripson (ph.) or Kathy Mandarino (ph.) has spoken with PennDOT officials, and they see no reason that it should not -- they should not be -- my understanding is that there was a question of why they were removed in the first place.
And since they were removed, we're simply having difficulty getting them back. And the PennDOT official was saying that there probably was no good reason that they were removed in the first place.
So they -- PennDOT is agreeing that they should have never been taken down, they should be replaced, but the City's saying -- the Streets Department is saying no. 23
Once they were down, they reevaluated their necessity and ruled that they were not necessary. 60 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Okay. 'Cause sometimes when we get into these issues, we are often told that under the state regs, they can't do certain things, and here it is the State is agreeing.
Right, we've been back and forth for a year now; that's why we're here.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we will at least be able to get some additional information from a PennDOT official. There is a PennDOT person in the audience, and we'll get into some of the city-state issues in the course of the discussion after the public testifies. Let me just make sure, one, for both Mr. Aegiano and Mr. Shickling, you are the neighborhood leaders of the Wissahickon Neighborhood Civic Association; is that correct?
That's correct. 61 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
And your testimony today reflects the views and the concerns of the neighbors of the Association.
And, lastly, your primary concern is one of public safety, both to motor vehicles and pedestrians.
And you're concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the adjoining areas.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, I will read the title of the next bill. Bill No. 980650, an ordinance 25 authorizing the installation of stop signs on 62 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Acorn Street at the intersection of Hazelwood Street. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify? Please come forward and state your name for the record. (Louis Agre comes forward.)
My name is Louis Agre. I live at 530 Acorn Street, I'm the Democratic Committeeman in the neighborhood.
I requested stop signs on the corner. I live three doors down from the corner. For that whole area, it goes from Little Henry to Ridge Avenue without one break. People speed down there. It's a single-lane street, with cars on both sides. The high school's at the end. And in the morning and the afternoon, students, teachers, parents that use as a thoroughfare, and nobody stops. As you come around -- you come up Acorn and make right onto Hazelwood, it's where the kids in the neighborhood play street hockey. On a nice 63 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing day, there's to kids out there every day. There are school bus stops on the corner, there's school bus stops in the neighborhood. People come through it at a high rate of speed. They go through that stop sign, they pass the school buses, and they have no 8 consideration for the residents or the children in the neighborhood. There was a kid a couple years ago hit by a -- on a bicycle. There's -- people pass school buses all the time. You know, every year, people ask us to get involved in politics and help out our communities, and when we do, we ask for something -- we don't ask for -- I'm not asking for bond work or a job for my brother-in-law; I'm asking for something that helps every neighbor in my community.
Do you want him to leave his name anyway just in case? (Laughter.)
It's a danger to the people in my community, and it's an important thing to us. When I spoke to the Streets Department, 64 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing they says it doesn't warrant it. I said, "Did you go there at 8:30 in the morning?" I must yell at people times a week, "Slow down." I must yell 5 at -- 6 You know, I spoke to the Fifth 7 District; they said they'll send a car by. When I 8 spoke to the principal of the high school, he 9 said, "What do you want me to do about it?" I 10 said, you know, "We're neighbors. I want you to 11 act like a good neighbor." 12 When I did speak to the Streets 13 Department, again, they said, "Well, why don't 14 you call the police." I said, you know, "The 15 police have things to do in this neighborhood. 16 When's the last time you saw somebody get stopped 17 for running a -- for going down a residential 18 street too fast?" 19 I tried everything I could until 20 Councilman Nutter proposed this bill in order that we can have some kind of traffic patterns in our neighborhood. It's gotten out of control.
Just so that you'll understand, and I guess this is -- goes for everyone who's here today. 65 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing This is not unique to your neighborhood. It is by no way an indication that your City Councilperson hasn't been trying to do something about it. We are all hitting a brick wall when it comes to this -- "all" meaning all 7 members of Council, especially the District 8 Councilpeople. And I've only been here about two 9 and a half years, and it is very frustrating. 10 We had some discussion on this last 11 spring. We brought in people to a hearing that 12 was conducted by the Transportation Committee. 13 Unfortunately, we have not gotten any further than 14 that, and we're going continue to keep doing what 15 we have to do to make the area safe. 16 But I just want you to understand this 17 is my no means a situation that just is in your district or in your neighborhood. It is citywide, and it is just as frustrating to me as it is to Councilman Nutter.
And we will continue to do whatever it is we have to do to get you some relief. 66 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Thank you for being here.
Bill No. 980651, an ordinance authorizing the installation of stop signs on Lansdowne Avenue at the intersection of 58th Street.
My name is Delores Hamilton, and I'm a resident of the 5700 block of Lansdowne Avenue. My family's lived in that neighborhood for more than 40 years. We have been trying for quite sometime to have a stop sign placed at 58th and Lansdowne on Lansdowne Avenue. Pardon me. It's the only street within about a 20-block radius that does not have a traffic device. Despite repeated 67 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing requests, we were told that that area did not -- the volume of that traffic, pedestrian and vehicular, did not warrant a traffic device in that area. Well, if you have traffic devices every other street, there's not -- if you start from one end of Lansdowne Avenue and go all the way to the end, there is a traffic device at every corner. When you get to 59th Street, if you get a good head of steam and they are coming down there like something I've never seen, you can just hear them going by. On September the 6th, for the first time in history, Lansdowne Avenue was shut down, and we had a block party. At 8 o'clock in the morning, we closed it off. We had a great day, you never saw so many children -- didn't even know they lived in that block. At 8 o'clock, we took the barriers down. Before we could even get them all down, a car came barreling down the street. We could tell the sound, we were used to it. So we all scrambled out of the way, grabbing kids, everybody else. The car barely stopped at the barrier. 68 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing A few minutes, later the trolleys were -- started up the street slowly. Within one minute, there was a head-on collision as a car came from 57th Street, barreled around the trolley, hit head-on from the car going east. Both cars were demolished, including a parked car. I personally have had two cars wrecked on Landsdowne Avenue; I don't even park there anymore. We have had two children who have been hit by those cars. We have helped elderly residents who haven't even been able to cross the street in I don't know how long. The traffic is speeding up. No matter what you do, you don't seem to be able to get any relief. I know that there are a number of streets in that area who don't even warrant a traffic device at all; yet, they have some sort of traffic device there to protect them. In particular, 64th and Haddington, which is a small cross street -- I've never seen a pedestrian there in my life, and I go through there all the time. I don't see pedestrians crossing 56th and Haddington. I don't see any -- and there's practical no traffic at 61th and Jefferson where, 69 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing they're you know, they're going around. There's no pedestrian traffic there at all. So what I'm saying to you is that all of the residents in that area have been begging and pleading for some type of relief in that area. We have a day care center right there at the corner of 58th Street and (unintelligible). In the morning and the afternoon, if you could see -- most of us here are parents, and you know the problems of trying to get a day care child into a day care across the street with the bundles that you have -- the child, you know, your bags, everything else, and you're struggling to get your child across there; you cannot get across the street. We have St. Rose of Lima, which is right there at the block near the corner of Lansdowne and Wanamaker. You have children leaving St. Rose, trying to cross the street to get to the store; you can't do it. You have children coming from the Bluford School, which is a block away, and they are coming up and down the street. You have adults. You have kids coming from Overbrook. So there is a great deal of 70 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing pedestrian and vehicular traffic going up and down Lansdowne Avenue, and since they have no reason to stop at 58th, it's like a race track.
So we want you to know that the residents in that area all up and down 58th, all up and down Lansdowne, Alden, and Wanamaker are -- very much would like to have a stop sign placed there. Thank you very much.
Bill No. 980652, an ordinance authorizing the installation of stop signs on Lebanon Avenue at the intersection of Georges Lane.
Mr. Reid? And if there is anybody else who wishes to testify on the bill, please come forward now. (Mr. Reid comes forward.)
Good evening. 71 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
My name is Hubert Reid. I'm the block captain at the 300 block of Lebanon Avenue. For some time now, we've been trying to get a stop sign or some kind of device for the children. Now, before it was a regular Catholic school, but now it's a chartered school.
And it's now a technology public charter school, right?
Yes, it is. And it's -- well, we've been awfully lucky that we haven't had a serious accident there. But if there's some kind of way you could put some device there, especially when the children are there, it's -- these are like children from kindergarten up until the sixth grade, so we really need some device. I mean, if it's a stop sign or a -- you see coming east -- no, going west on Lebanon Avenue, from 53rd Street up to Georges Lane, there's one stop sign. When you get to Georges 72 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Lane, there's virtually nothing, but there is -- Georges Lane going south, there was a stop sign.
But it should be a stop sign, personally, I think on Georges Lane and Lebanon Avenue.
It really should be because of the fact that -- there is a crossing guard at times; it's not all the time, but there is a crossing guard.
And there was a period of time last year, I believe, when there was no crossing guard.
Yes, yes. And it's -- we've been lucky, but I wish if you would, you would get us some kind of crossing, uh. . .
Mr. Reid, you're concerned primarily about the safety of not only the kids but also of the adults in the area?
Okay. Thank you. 73 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Bill No. 980653, an ordinance authorizing the installation of stop signals at the intersection of 62nd Street and Haverford Avenue.
Good afternoon. My name is Lorenzo Cruger, and I'm the President of the Coalition Block Committee, which is a series of blocks in and around the intersection of 62nd and Haverford. It includes the 61st -- the 61 and 6200 block of Haverford Avenue; 62nd Street, from Callowhill to Master Street; Feldman Street, from Callowhill to Girard Avenue; Girard Avenue, from 61st to 63rd Street. And several of my members are here with 74 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing me.
Could we have the folks who are part of the 62nd and Haverford like situation, could the neighbors please stand? Okay, thank you. Mr. Cruger?
We've been trying to get a traffic control signal at that intersection for quite a few years. The Streets Department has indicated to us that the traffic there doesn't warrant it. However, it's kind of hard to believe that because I have personally driven Haverford Avenue from City Line Avenue down to 32nd Street, at its inception. Every intersection has a traffic control with the exception of 62nd Street. The only other intersection that doesn't have a traffic stop sign there, a lighted sign, is -- I think it's 47th Street, and that's a T intersection. All the other intersections do have that. So --
It's a four-way intersection. 75 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Also to magnify the situation, if you're eastbound on Haverford Avenue, there is an angle in the street, approximately a 30-degree angle to the right, about 150 feet away. Therefore, your sight distance is not even good for people coming west on Haverford to see if there's something in that intersection. And most of the time when you come across the intersection, you have to ease across the street because you can't see the cars coming. It's the only straight two-block stretch along Haverford Avenue. Motorists knowing this are hitting a very good speed when they pass that intersection. So a car coming through there at an angle -- and it's not a 90-degree intersection, incidentally, in the first place. So your sight distance has been reduced because of the angle of the streets. And coming across the street, you have to edge your way out in order to be able to see if anything is coming. And when they're coming at that speed, it's very hard to tell when to stop and when to go. We average an accident at that intersection approximately one to three times per 76 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing month. There's still the corner -- northwest corner of 62nd and Haverford. If you go by there, there's a yard on the corner. You'll notice the fence is laying down from an accident that drove onto the man's lawn. Fortunately, there was nobody on the corner at that time or they could have been killed. But this is a very dangerous intersection. There have been many accidents there. And even though there may not have been a fatality anywhere in the recent past, there are several incidents there where cars are getting hit. Several of my neighbors who live almost immediately in that area have had their cars hit while parked from cars either veering from accidents or being involved in accidents, and therefore, 'cause they're concerned not only with their safety while they're outside, but for their property; they're supposed to be safely parked on the street. There are a couple other of my neighbors who would like to testify if it is 77 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing possible.
While the gentleman is coming forward, why don't I read into the record the names of the individuals who are here; they may not all testify. They are: Yvette Benson; Barbara Goodman, who had to leave; Willy Guess; Jamie Gruber; Ruby Bauknight; Miss Greene; Anne Roberts; Dorothy Nelson; Yvette King; Ella Costone; Delores Blagmon; Edith Bagmore; Mr. Cruger; Chester Bush; Bernice Bush; 78 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing and John Holland. (John Holland comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is John Holland, a resident in that -- I've lived in that particular area for about 43 to 44 years. I have witnessed accidents numerous and numerous of times. Going back to 30 years ago, we petitioned this under the other administrations. We petitioned under each mayor, going back for 40 years -- nearly 40 years. We've never been able to get a red light there. We have petitioned, but we continue to have accidents. We have incidents at least three times a month. And it's sort of frightening to know that our senior citizens and our children, our grandchildren have to cross that corner because it's a blind area, and that is sort of a high-speed area coming over -- going west on Haverford Avenue, and the people going on 62th Street north and south are subject to being involved in these accidents because, like I said, it's a blind area, so to speak. (Loud sirens interrupt testimony.) 79 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Could I ask you just to hold until that fire truck passes.
Just hold off for a second till the fire trucks pass because we're going to have a difficult time hearing you.) (Pause in testimony.)
Thank you. I wanted to make sure that we hear your testimony and that it gets on the record. Thank you.
Yes. As I said before, I live less than 200 yards away, a resident there, from the intersection. So, therefore, each car that shuts the door or opens the door in that community, I'm flinching and I'm wondering if we'll have an accident at the corner because there's been so many accidents at that intersection. And as I said before, we've petitioned several times. Of course, Councilman Nutter is really trying to do so something for us, I believe, and we would appreciate it very much and the rest of the Councilmen here. Thank you very much. 80 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Thank you. Thank you for coming. (Bernice Bush comes forward.)
Please state your name for the record, and speak directly into the microphone.
Bernice Bush. I live in that immediate block that we have been discussing here and I'd like to reiterate that Mr. Cruger said. And also, we have so many accidents there. And the police usually come to these accidents because I don't know whether they're called or just hear it, 'cause they're only a block away. But we are just -- we have -- we and Councilman Nutter have been trying to help us to get relief there. We really need relief in either a light or even a four-way stop sign would help so that the people coming over Haverford Avenue, they have no reason to slow up. And we just can't 81 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing see them at certain areas. When we stop for a stop sign going south on 62nd Street, you cannot see the cars that come through Thompson Street. You see that the Haverford Avenue curves, and you think that's it. And when they -- when you pull out, here's this car flying, coming over a car that -- a street that's entering into Haverford Avenue. So we really would appreciate some help of any kind, of either one of those two things, either a traffic, even a four-way stop sign would be helpful.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Miss Delores Hamilton, who testified on Bill 980651 has shared with Joy, my chief of staff, that she would also like to express her support for Bill 980653, as she was in an accident at that intersection herself. And at least in her personal opinion, it is one of the worst and most dangerous intersections in the City of Philadelphia, by way of her travel patterns. 82 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
And it's an intersection that she's obviously familiar with 'cause she lives in the neighborhood and still gets into an accident. I think that tells you something.
She may be more familiar with it than she wants to be. (Lorenzo Cruger returns to witness table.)
Lorenzo Cruger again. I'd like to add one thing that Mrs. Bush brought out. Thompson Street is something like an entrance ramp going onto an expressway. It's a street merging into Haverford Avenue, which is approximately a block away.
So even though you have somewhat of a sight distance on one street, you can't see the other one too well till you get into the intersection. So it's like going across an entrance ramp going into a major highway, with your sight distance being reduced, so you really have two 83 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing streets coming on the westbound traffic.
And if I may, I also know the intersection of 58th Street, and I do know that is a very dangerous intersection.
Thank you, thank you again, sir. Before we go on with the rest of the testimony in relationship to the bills that we've heard several constituents speak to, there's a lady here -- Mrs. Carbone? -- Who came here a little bit after the testimony was heard on Bill 14 No. 980411, and she would just like to enter a statement into the record. (Lydia Carbone comes forward.)
Good afternoon, ma'am. Please state your name for the record.
My name is Lydia Carbone. I live on the Clymer Street between Seventh and Eighth. And what I would like to state is that we have restaurants on the corner of each end of the street and many other restaurants in very close proximity. And we initiated permit parking, 84 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing and I was very supportive of the permit parking. But when it came into place, the time for parking was later than what originally was presented or what was understood. We thought that six -- the real problems are for people coming home from work who choose to park. There's a two-hour parking limit, but if the parking now is till 8 o'clock, so many -- one of the problems was that not only that residents today may have more than one car, but people who worked in Center City, since it's only about an eight-block walk, would park there and oftentimes stay and go to one of the restaurants. So with the 8 o'clock time on the permit parking, people can park, go to work, then go to a restaurant later, so it's really not serving the purpose that it was really intended for. And people feel that their guests -- and they are penalized by the time limit and the permit parking. I also feel that there should be a way to accommodate visitors for residents. I know that you can -- if someone is staying with you for a week or so, you can apply for some kind of a 85 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing special permit but, I mean, what happens is people don't want to come and visit when the restaurants are open, and actually, there's only one that is closed on Sunday. Two others very close are open. So these are problems, and I don't know -- I just wanted to state that because I was one of the people who rallied for the permit parking, but I find now that it really hasn't been working out.
So am I to understand that you're opposed to any parking regulation there?
I'm not opposed to any parking regulation. I know that we indeed have a problem, but I find that the time till of 8 o'clock --
8 p.m. is definitely a problem because it doesn't help people when they return from work to be able to have a parking space.
You weren't here earlier when an amendment to the bill was offered to change the time of the two-hour parking from 8 86 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing a.m. to 6 p.m.
Okay, fine. That's the way it originally was. No, I wasn't here, sir.
Okay, we've made that -- I offered that amendment, and the likelihood is that the amendment will go through.
Okay. Is there any way to accommodate for guests to park or other -- the way it is now, I understand that unless you are a licensed driver at that residence, you may obtain a permit. Other than that, you cannot.
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no other way of doing it that is a regulation that is being enforced through the Parking Authority. I mean it's something we can revisit, but it would have to be on a citywide basis. It could not just be for the -- select enforcement for one block.
We could but, again, those -- I don't know when and who made those decisions as to the procedure for guest permit parking. But whatever change, if any 87 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing change were to occur, they would have to be done through the Parking Authority.
Okay. Is there any way I can get some information as to how to go about that?
Yeah. If you would call our office tomorrow. I have a card, I'll give you a card here, and will be glad to give you the regulations, and we're open for suggestions.
Mr. Chairman, I would -- for purposes of better understanding the interaction between the City and the State, I would at this time like to ask a representative from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Mr. Dutch Eichorn, to come to the witness table so that we can get some information from PennDOT. (Dutch Eichorn comes forward.)
Weren't you here 88 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing for the Transportation Committee hearings last spring?
Yes. Warner Eichorn. I'm an assistant district traffic engineer in our Pennsylvania District 6 Office.
Thank you for coming this afternoon, Mr. Eichorn. And I could say this to you and also to our Streets Department people who I know very well. We have a pure policy disagreement on some of these issues, but also, I am not an engineer, and many of my constituents are not as well, although one is. As we try to understand the various rules and regulations, we know a little bit about the City regulations, we don't know that much about PennDOT regulations. We understand there has to be adherence to these guidelines. But what I would ask of you is what ability does the City have to exercise, as either city of the first class, our charter, and all of those -- all of that ability to exercise municipal 89 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing power? Where is there an opportunity for either a waiver of regulations, best use of engineering judgment or judgment calls at locations based on concerns about safety and those kinds of factors as it relates to trying to make some of these decisions? You've heard the testimony on five different bills. In much of it, the locations are different, but the concerns are all the same. Could you render some preliminary comments. And then I have some direct questions for you.
The City's status as a first-class city entitles it or gives it the responsibility of doing the traffic studies themselves. It does not waive the need for the traffic studies, it doesn't modify it simply because they're a first-class city. We don't do the traffic signal warrants or the multi-way stop studies in the City of Philadelphia, but we use the same criteria. And, again, it is State-adopted criteria that has 90 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing followed the federal guidelines from the manual uniform traffic control devices. So we're all on the same page as far as what criteria we look at. What you're asking me, though, I think is in the neighborhood of engineering judgment. The "warrants," as we call the traffic signals, and the volume criteria and accident criteria for multi-way stops are guidelines. They're a kind of a starting point from which we can do our traffic studies. Part of that, though, is looking at the surrounding area, taking into account who is all using the intersection, because that's really what we're dealing with multi-way stops and traffic signals. We're dealing with an intersection, volumes of vehicles, volumes of pedestrians, accident history, surrounding area as far as other controls and other intersections along the route, site distance or corner site distance. Those are the criteria we're trying to use. The guidelines kind of spell out some of those areas and a judgment takes care of the rest. I believe that, you know, we -- I know Charlie Trainor and myself have been at it for 91 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing quite a few years, and we've worked together on a lot of projects when the City and State money were used on it. And we're pretty -- I think we follow pretty much the same criteria when we look at it. And it is not just black and white as far as you must this magic number; therefore, you get it; or therefore, you don't. There are other conditions to look at. You know, like I said, surrounding area, major school crossings, number of pedestrians, and the age of pedestrians. Because, you know, senior citizens or the young may require additional consideration as far as the amount of time it takes them to get across intersections.
Would you say that -- is it fairly accurate to say that this work, traffic engineering work, for which all of you have special degrees and training, is not only a science but that there is some art to this, that there is some variance for opinion and special circumstances at particular locations, and that it is not necessarily true that two streets, same width, all of those variables held steady, are still not completely the same? 92 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
That's correct. This isn't building a building; this is dealing with vehicles, it's dealing with people, it's dealing with a mix of traffic. Every intersection is really unique. I mean the people that use it, the volumes of trucks and mix of traffic, every one has to be looked at separately.
And based on those judgments and six or seven criteria that you laid out -- sight distance, who's using the intersection, volume, and the like -- is it within the engineer's discretion at some level or with some reasonable range to make a decision about one location under one set of circumstances and a different decision about another location based on those circumstances, and then they have to essentially justify how they made that decision and then it has to stand up to your scrutiny or to the federal standards?
That's correct. That's we -- it's really -- the term is "traffic and engineering study." It's starting with the basic guidelines but then expanding on it to fit the 93 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing situation.
Okay. Let me ask you about a particular location. The bill we have on Manayunk Avenue, Seville and Kingsley Streets, this is a situation where there were stop signs in place. I don't know how they got there; they certainly didn't come through this particular process. But they were this at some point in time. That is an indisputable fact. Because of a resurfacing project using a combination of federal dollars and City dollars, I believe this is the 80-20 match -- and I had some discussions with Mr. Facina (ph.) from the Federal Highway Administration about this matter as well. It is our understanding and there is correspondence in the file that indicates that when federal funds are used in conjunction with City fund to resurface a street, the warrants that are used at that point are the federal regulations. And if the federal regulations require that certain signs not be in place on that street, then they are removed. And that did 94 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing happen. In this particular case now, we have asked the question: If for some reason the street has to be resurfaced, only using city dollars, can the signs in fact go back? The response has been no because of PennDOT regulations and adherence to PennDOT warrants. Could you in general and specifically respond to that?
Yes. Well, there really is no difference between the federal and State warrants. We have adopted the MUTCD warrants, word for word. And, therefore, whatever criteria was used when they were originally installed, Mr. Facina was correct in saying that when federal money is used, they insist that it's only used, that all traffic control devices be properly applied. I've run into this a lot on traffic signals as well where we've looked at corridors for, you know, upgrading interconnection and found that two or three of them do not have warrants simply because of the history of them. And we just can't spend the federal money on it. 95 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing But the guidelines and the criteria are the same, whether it's being studied as a federal project or simply being studied as a new request would be.
So he's right, it can't be put back in if the same criteria that caused them to be put out hasn't been changed. It's the same criteria, both federal and State.
Okay. So your testimony is that if the federal regulations required the signs to come down --
-- because of use of federal dollars, that even after that -- I guess even after that asphalt goes away and the street is resurfaced by City forces with City dollars, that the street is still held to the federal standards?
No, that's the difference. The City is held to the same criteria as anywhere else in the state.
Well, how did the 96 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing signs --
Unfortunately, we have run into this in a lot of projects, and I have had the experience over the years. Like I said, mainly I have dealt with traffic signals, but you can just as easily say that whatever the conditions were that justified it originally, traffic changes caused them not to be needed any longer. Okay, now whether they were appropriate to begin with or somebody else's judgment's being second-guessed, I don't know. But once they're taken out, now you're talking about applying the same criteria several years later to see if they're now warranted, and it's being treated as if it were a new location. There's not a warrant that says, Well, we did it 97 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing before; therefore, we can do it again.
It has to meet that criteria. And it's the same, both state and federal.
I just want to stop you for one minute. The scenario that was just laid out for you by Councilman Nutter with the federal dollars when the signs were removed, assuming that the City, the Streets Department, in their judgment, would say, Well, we really think stop signs should be there but because there's federal dollars, and under the federal guidelines, we can't do that, how do we go up the chain of command, or how do we -- what is the process to appeal that to the federal level so that we can get those stop signs back?
I believe the traffic engineering study, okay, which takes into account the criteria and also the engineering judgment, okay, would be acceptable to the feds if it was acceptable to us. Probably in the case of Manayunk, there 98 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing was no overriding condition that warranted the stop signs. Traffic flow changes over the years the way people go with the opening of new roads. There is a lot of times that if you did revisit, you'd find that, you know, the whole area has changed and the whole traffic flow has changed. So that's not unusual either.
But there are situations when the city, God forbid, would agree that the signs should be put up, that there are alternatives and appeal processes or whatever to get to the federal people and say, We think it's warranted here.
And that can be over -- and they will, more or less the feds and the State, if the State agrees with the City and the State and the City would partner and join up and go to the federal level and say, We think it should be there for these following reasons, then it's not in stone, I guess, and they can make those decisions.
That's right. That's the normal process. That would have been done for 99 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Manayunk as it would be done for any other project so that that process is ongoing. Mr. Facina would be involved. I at one time was involved, especially with traffic signal projects and city traffic. And on those types of projects, the State and the City are always involved.
Do you know of any incidences where the City has come to you with a situation where they thought that a stop sign or a traffic device should be installed at an intersection and it didn't meet the fed lines and they appealed to you to go to the federal level?
Not a formal appeal process, but we have looked -- well. . . Yes. And I guess what we're looking at is traffic signals primarily 'cause that was my field initially, signal design. So I would be involved in a lot of city projects when we upgraded the signals. And in a lot of cases, we would go back and look at whether it was a school crossing, how many students were crossing. We would take other conditions into account, progression warrants, which are all here. But, again, there's further 100 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing judgment involved, and we would make the case.
And you were able to get the federal regulations to be relaxed to get the devices installed?
It's not -- I don't really think we're talking about relaxing it; I think we're talking about using the engineering judgment applied with the criteria that's both in the federal manual and in the state regulations. You say "making the case"; I say "putting the report together that does the justification."
What I took from your testimony, Mr. Eichorn, the most repeat statements, is that you try within reason, apparently, to try to figure out what special circumstance or condition or situation might allow for some type of traffic control device at that particular location based on various circumstances and conditions. Is that accurate?
Oh, yes, yes. What we find -- my experience has been that we -- and I know this happens in the city a lot where we'll be told, Well, we want a stop sign. And we'll go back and say, We don't have any criteria for a 101 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing stop sign, but what is the problem that you're after?
You know, and we'll look for solutions. And that's really what we're saying. It's not often apparent.
And it really needs to be spelled out to us as well as to what are the special criteria, what are the real problems that you're talking about.
Is it also accurate to say that your testimony would be that PennDOT and Federal Highway Administration strongly rely on the engineering judgment of our City's Streets Department and traffic engineering personnel to make these judgments? And is it a fair characterization that you are not necessarily looking over their shoulder every minute of the day to see if each and every judgment fits within the manual and uniform traffic control devices?
That's a very fair statement. 102 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
I mean, you're giving leeway for judgment, and that if our engineers can make the case for whatever the various reasons are by the guidelines and the PennDOT regulations, you would accept that?
Are you aware of any circumstance where PennDOT or FHWA reversed a decision by the City on a stop sign or traffic signal?
I would say no, and it may be because, like I said, this is not a ridged process where we have hearings and what have you. They would submit their analysis, we may question it, they go back and refine it. So it's basically a reiterative process.
So we get down to if there are real problems, where they are. And if there are real conditions that need to be considered. So it may be something that came in, and we'll say, I'm not sure this is right, go and check something or other. And then work it out.
But as a general 103 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing matter of policy in the normal course of day-to-day events, if our people at the local level make an engineering-based judgment within the guidelines and criteria of PennDOT and make a decision that a stop sign, a traffic signal should be at a particular location, in general, you are willing to accept their engineering judgment for that decision.
Sir, if you were in that audience as a resident of a community or sitting up here as a Councilperson, and the Streets Department engineering unit would tell that you upon request, that a stop sign or a traffic signal device was not -- did not meet the criteria and they would approve the installation of the device at that intersection, what would you do, based on your experience?
Well, my experience has been the one telling the people that the device isn't appropriate to be used. And so what I try to do is, I try to talk to 'em about the real 104 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing problems and what options there may be. My last time here, we were talking about the traffic calming, where you talk about one-way streets, you talk about restrictions, (unintelligible) for parking, things that would slow the street itself down as options. Not make it a continuous is what was mentioned in Manayunk. I would also tell them -- and I know I had take some notes -- in a couple of these locations where the people really were concerned with was the neighborhood. They were concerned about the uninterrupted flow, and they felt they needed it to slow people down. And, unfortunately, our response would be, in that case, stop signs. And it does fly, you know, in the face of conventional wisdom, that stop signs are a lousy device to slow people down. Even worse are traffic signals. What our experience has been, wherever you break it, yes, slow down. They don't always stop, unfortunately. But then immediately, they try to make up for the lost time and they wind up, we feel going, faster in between than they would have if they hadn't hit that brake to begin 'cause 105 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing they go from brake to accelerator, brake to accelerator. They don't really have that ability to maintain a constant speed. If it's speed in itself, enforcement is another issue that we get into a lot, and PennDOT is not an enforcement agency, so all we can do is refer them to the police. But there are other measures and we try to work with them, and I agree, you know, that it's not -- you know, it's not readily accepted. It's not the general consensus that these devices don't do this. But the experience that we've had -- and again, we deal in the four-county area. So Delaware County, Upper Darby and that area is not too different than where we're talking about now. Lower end of Montgomery County or the lower end of Bucks County is not much different, and we face the same kind of problems, and I face the same kind of groups and I get the same kind of reaction. And we just try to be consistent on how we apply these devices. That's the whole purpose of the guidelines, that's the whole purpose of the engineering judgment, and we try to take all the 106 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing conditions into account. But sometimes we have to say, Let's not do this, maybe we can try this or maybe we can try that, but let's work towards a different objective, something that would work better.
Yeah. We recognize there is a concern there, we recognize they're talking to us for some reason. This is what they have in mind, but it's not necessarily if this isn't right, there's always something else that could be done. We're not going anywhere, they're not going anywhere so let's keep working towards it.
One last question. Mr. Eichorn, you've been accommodating with your time. You mentioned enforcement, and that 107 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing sparked a thought with regard to -- if for some reason the city were to put up some signal or device or sign and it was believed by PennDOT to violate either the manual or some other PennDOT regulation, what does PennDOT do? One, how would you find out about it; two, what would you do; and at the end of the day, where do you end up with something like that?
If there's not a particular project, again, we don't do the studies for the city. If there is a project involving state or federal money, then we would be looking at the conditions of that road. And then the question may come up.
Say it's an average street out in the city, it's a city street, it's not a state highway --
Yeah, if they're not our project, chances are I wouldn't find out about it unless you told me.
Well, an example could be the Manayunk signals where these were put in. 108 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Normal course, years ago, traffic conditions changed, nobody bothered to check to see if anything was different, everything was the same until we went to do the project, and that's when it got analyzed. Whenever we have a project, we'll do the same kind of analysis and the same results could happen. That's probably the only time the state would be involved unless the city wanted us in.
Any questions for this witness? (Mr. Cruger returns to the witness table.)
Cruger again. And in my profession, I happen to be a registered professional civil engineer. And the one statement that Mr. Eichorn made was the one that we're concerned about. As he indicated, when there's an intersection and there is no control, they speed 109 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing up to make up for lost time. The intersections we're talking about is where they're doing speeding. And we feel that they should slow down there just like they do at all the others, rather than using our neighborhood to be the speed trap and going through there at tremendous speeds. That's why we want the intersection controlled by some means so that it will be the same as the other 40-some blocks along Haverford Avenue and -- as the other young lady indicated -- along Lansdowne Avenue 'cause they're the only once that aren't controlled, and that's where all the speeding takes place.
And even if they're not stopping completely, they are braking, as the testimony said, and that causes them to at least slow down a little bit and be ready to stop if they have to.
We're all arguing the same. Mr. Eichorn, thank you very much. 110 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
My name is Yetter King, and I'm a member of the Black Coalition. I'd like to ask you, you're from the Traffic Department of PennDOT?
How do these engineers -- they are in control of whether we get the traffic signal or not, right?
How do they determine whether or not we need a traffic signal at 62nd and Haverford?
Ma'am, if I could suggest, Mr. Eichorn is from PennDOT. We're getting ready to hear from a city engineer, Mr. Trainor, in second, and he can directly answer 111 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing that.
We can guarantee you're not going to like the answer but have you will have your question answered.
Mr. Trainor, I think you're up next. Mr. Trainor and Mr. Auerbach. (Messrs. Trainor and Auerbach come forward.)
Before Mr. Trainor testifies, I'm Rick Auerbach, senior attorney, Philadelphia Law Department. And I'd just like to put on the record a City Solicitor's opinion from 1993 that sets forth the legal basis under which traffic devices are installed in the City of Philadelphia. I 112 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing think Chairman DiCicco and Councilman Nutter are familiar with this, but just to put it on the record. The opinion notes that under the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, the City may install traffic control devices, which include stop signs and stop signals, and other devices, only in conformance with the rules and regulations of PennDOT. And as has been discussed, that requires that a traffic and engineering study be performed and that the study demonstrate that specified criteria are met. And the opinion -- I'll have extra copies for the committee that I'll be happy to hand up. The last sentence of the opinion is, "Therefore, City Council has no power to enact an ordinance requiring the Streets Department to install a traffic control in a manner contrary to PennDOT regulations."
I have request to Mr. Auerbach. Mr. Auerbach, you were here during 113 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing the testimony of Mr. Eichorn, right?
You heard him say that there are some regulations, criteria for certain intersections and what warrants a stop sign, traffic signal, etc., but, however, there are some situations where the criteria really may not fit the need to put a stop sign there, and it's a judgment called basically by the city engineers. Should a city engineer make the decision, based on his or her judgment, that regardless of the criteria that is sent down by PennDOT, a stop sign, traffic light, what have you, should be install at that intersection, what would be the Law Department's position?
I think under the Vehicle Code, the Streets Department has to follow the criterion of PennDOT regulations. I'm not a traffic engineer, I'm not familiar with all the details of that. But I did hear testimony that it has aspects of an art rather than a science to it, and to the extent that the PennDOT regulations 114 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing permitted an engineer to use judgment and discretion, and it's not a black and white test, obviously, the engineer can make that call. But if the engineer concludes that whatever other reasons there might be for installing a traffic device, that it does not meet the PennDOT criteria, the Vehicle Code is clear that the traffic device may not be installed.
Is it also your opinion, though, Mr. Auerbach, that the PennDOT regulations provide a fair amount of leeway, and this term "engineering judgment" by the local traffic engineer to determine what is in fact compliance with PennDOT regulations, is that true?
I'd have to defer to Mr. Trainor and the traffic engineers because I'm not familiar enough with the regulations to answer that question.
Well, I understand that. I'm talking about based on what we all heard from the PennDOT representative, that there are criteria, there is a judgment factor in the use and implementation of those criteria; and if 115 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing in the opinion of the local person, the situation warrants some device being placed at that location in compliance with PennDOT regulations, that they accept that judgment by the trained engineer locally, with virtually no interference by either PennDOT or Federal Highway Administration personnel from the state and federal level. Didn't you hear the same thing?
I heard that. And if the Streets Department did a study, and in their expert opinion, they thought the criteria were met, then they should approve it. And we would support that, sure.
Does the state pay any part of the salary of our engineers who make the decisions affecting the city but who claim over the years that they're really carrying out their duties as state enforcers? That they enforce the state code and that, therefore, they have the right to overrule the City Council? But I'm wondering, does the state pay 116 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing any of the salary 'cause --
Charles Trainor, the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer for the City of Philadelphia. Councilman, the traffic engineering unit is totally paid by city funds. There are engineers within the Streets Department who are involved with federal aid projects, who are paid by the city, which is then reimbursed by the federal government of their -- I think it's 80 percent of their salaries in some cases. But the traffic engineering unit, which is making these decisions, are totally city employees.
I have to tell you, I just don't understand how any city department has the right to overrule the City Council in the guise of enforcing state regulations. And I think that's going to have to be -- if the Traffic Engineering Department insists on doing that, I think we're going to have to be in court. Because I don't think -- I think City Council makes these decisions. We have a right to pass this legislation and we have a right to 117 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing impose the decision of City Council upon every city agency. The mayor has the right to veto these bills, and if he succeeds in sustaining his veto, then it never becomes law. But if it becomes law either by the mayor's permitting it to become law or Council overriding the mayor's veto, that's the law of the city, and I don't understand how any city agency can assert that they have a right higher than the right of the City Council, say, when it overrides the mayoral veto. The mayor has consistently supported the Streets Department by vetoing bills. And generally, because we haven't been ready to undertake the battle, that, you know, the veto has stood. But I think it's time to undertake that battle. I just can't figure this one out. And none of my training, Mr. Auerbach, at Penn Law School ever helped me understand how a city department can overall the government of the City of Philadelphia.
Councilman Cohen, I handed up -- I'm not sure if you were here when I 118 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing handed up a 1993 opinion from the City Solicitor that addresses that exact question and concludes, to the contrary, that City Council does not have the power to enact an ordinance instructing the city to install a traffic device.
But in the courtroom, the City Solicitor's opinion is not worth very much. And I think we're going to have to get a court decision and maybe from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, because everybody knows as a practical matter that a City Solicitor that doesn't write an opinion the way the mayor wants it written probably won't remain City Solicitor very long.
Well, I'm not going to get in an argument with you on it, Councilman.
So I'm just stating that without wanting in any way -- I don't know who wrote this opinion -- to derogate it.
And the City Solicitor has to -- I know they try to do a job full of integrity, but there's also a reality 119 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing factor. The City Solicitor, even though we confirm the City Solicitor in the Council, we've recognized over the years that a city solicitor's opinion is not very effective. In a recent court case that I have involved a concept agenda, the Present of City Council testified that we take the City Solicitor's opinion in City Council and we throw it in the waste basket. That was his testimony 'cause he says it has no legal impact. But it may govern, you know, the lawyers in the department, it may govern the Streets Department. All right. I just think we've got to be ready for the challenge and to raise it all the way because I just think it makes no sense.
I know, Councilman Cohen, you are ready for the challenge. Hopefully, we're just as ready as you are.
That's only because I'm a young pup, that's why. (Laughter.)
I have -- guess it's kind a statement. Let's just assume tomorrow that Mr. Trainor, as a result of the testimony 120 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing today, the witnesses that are here who really represent literally hundreds of people in the area of Manayunk and Seville and Kingsley Street, were to install a stop sign, what would happen?
At the request of the City Councilperson who represents a constituency who has a serious concern for safety issues. You may not agree with the safety issues, but it's something we're asking you to do because, as citizens and taxpayers and people who live there, they want to feel safe. They want to know that when their children cross the street, somebody might at least be braking rather than speeding through an intersection. I mean let's say you did it. What is your fear? What do you think will happen to you or your department that you kind of -- and this isn't personal, but you resist the request and you 121 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing go back to it doesn't meet the state criteria, etc. If you just did it -- and I think I made that same statement back in the spring -- what is it that you're worried about?
If the city hypothetically installed an unwarranted traffic control device, whether it's a stop sign or a traffic signal, the number one thing that could happen is that you could have a decrease in safety. The signal or the stop sign, not being expected, not being where it's supposed to be, can increase accidents. Number two --
Well, Charlie, I have to stop you for a minute if I can. Most of the places where there are stop signs today, 40 years ago, when I was 12 years old, there weren't any stop signs there. Or there may have been a traffic signal, which the city, over the course of the last seven years, has been removing and putting stop signs in place. So people had to get used to change. I don't think that's yet a good enough 122 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing excuse for me. Stop signs go up, stop signs come down. Traffic signals that were at 12th and Federal for as long as I can remember were eventually replaced with a stop sign, but we did it.
And there may be, we don't know if there's a negative, but let's assume in your mind that you went to Manayunk, Seville and Kingsley Street, and you said, Well, you know, I think they're right. The state doesn't think we should do it because there criteria says it doesn't meet these qualifications and not enough people were run over by cars in the last five months, and there aren't 500 cars an hour but there are only 400, but I think Councilman Nutter's right, the people are right, I'm going to put it in. What's the problem?
Again, we could then decrease the safety. Number two, the city could be held liable.
But what if you don't think it's going to decrease the safety?
Councilman, if I figure 123 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing that a traffic signal or a stop sign, or the traffic engineering division figures that a traffic signal or a stop sign is needed at a location based on our study, we will put it in. We do make engineering judgments, we do not go by the -- if we've got 450 vehicles entering the intersection and we've got accidents there in a 12-month period that are reportable, and we've got accidents that are not reportable, and the police department are going there, we will -- or we have made those types of judgments of installing a stop sign at that location based on the totality of the study. It may not meet the letter of each one of those criterias (sic). The locations that we're talking about today, sir, are way below the criteria, both as far as volumes that are concerned and accident history.
Charlie, let me ask you this question. You were getting ready to get into the liability issue. If, in your opinion, there was an unwarranted device at a location, isn't it equally likely that if a person had an accident at a location, that they or others or 124 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing general history of the location might seem to warrant a sign or a signal, but there is none, that the person is equally likely to sue us based on us not having a device or a control at that location?
In either case, we could be sued, Councilman. But in the first case, placing the unwarranted stop sign in, we have no 10 justification for it. By not placing an unwarranted stop sign in, we have justification for our actions, and I believe we will win that case.
Okay. Let me ask you a couple questions on the particular bills. On the Manayunk Avenue situation, I am not aware, other than June 9, 1995 letter, of any further information that indicates why there should not be signs at the two locations in question. There is discussion in this letter from the Commissioner about present-day conditions. There are no traffic counts in this particular letter. And it's also my understanding that there may have been some speed counts that were done at that location, but I have never received any 125 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing update or response to a memo that I sent to the Commissioner dated March 18, 1998, which was probably a second or third request at that location. Can you tell me when studies are done? What time of day are they done and when in other locations you have that you have to have 500 cars through the intersection for an 8-hour period, is that 500 cars for each of the 8 hours in the 8-hour period for a total of 4,000 cars? Or is that 500 cars during the course of just 8 hours? And what 8-hour period of time are we talking about?
The criteria that we're talking about, Councilman, is actually a two-part criteria. And the 500 vehicles entering the intersection basically is an average of the number of -- the 8th highest hours in a 24-hour period of time have to average 500 vehicles per hour. There's a 24-hour --
So you really are talking about 4,000 vehicles going through a particular intersection in an 8-hour in a time period. 126 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Now, how do you apply that criteria to streets that get the bulk of their traffic 7 in the morning till 9, in the afternoon till -- I mean, your basic rush-hour time periods. How many streets in the city have 500 cars going through them in the course of the hour 11 o'clock in the morning 1 o'clock in the afternoon outside of, you know, many Center City locations or, you know, major streets like, I guess, Lancaster Avenue in West Philadelphia or Main Street or Ridge Avenue? I mean --
Councilman, we do take the counts -- we take counts both in the morning and midday, depending on the location. With the morning count, if the morning counts meets the 500-hour (sic) criteria, we will 127 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing then -- and when I say "morning," it could be morning or evening peak. If it meets the 500-hour (sic) criteria, then we will go looking into the midday to see what kind of a count we have at the midday point.
What is midday? Is that noon, at 2 in the afternoon? 9
No, sir, between, I'm 10 going to say 9 o'clock and 2 o'clock, 9 o'clock 11 and 3. We'll pick an hour out there not 12 necessarily a lunch hour, but somewhere between 9 and 11 o'clock, we'll go out and take a count somewhere between 1 o'clock and 3, we'll take the count.
Let me ask you this question. Is it your testimony that every street where there is a stop sign or traffic signal today, as we are sitting in Council chambers, do all those streets out in Philadelphia meet this criteria?
There are intersection controls, stop signs, and signals that were 128 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing installed pre-1976, the change in the state Vehicle Code and at which time the City of Philadelphia was informed that we had to follow the state regulations. Since that time, stop signs specifically have not been installed unless they meet these warrants. Traffic signals are installed with warrants, although there have been a couple that were not.
But is it now your testimony that there are some significant number of either stop signs or traffic signals that are presently in place in the City of Philadelphia that are not warranted and are out of compliance with PennDOT regulations?
The 800 traffic signals that we listed to convert to four-way -- back in 1992, I believe we did 180, so there's approximately another 600 intersections out there that can be converted from signals down to all-way stops.
No, we are not, sir. 129 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Those intersections do not meet state warrants, yes, sir. They were installed before we really had to.
At this time, sir, none. As Mr. Eichorn stated, if a project goes through there, federal funding for the signals will not be provided.
Okay, so there are situations presently existing today where we are out of compliance. And unless there is a state or federal project or someone goes, you know, runs and tells somebody, they are in place today, we are not actively doing anything about them, and the conditions continue to exist.
The conditions continue to exists and the Street Department still hopes to remove those 600+ signals.
I don't have the 130 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing streets exactly, but near the Henry School, people for a number of years clamored that they needed a light at an intersection on one of the main area routes. The Streets Department took the position over the many years that the request failed because there wasn't enough traffic. Like you're talking about. Then one day, the citizen got together, blocked the traffic and blocked it for a couple of hours at the height of the rush hour and made clear that they intended to keep blocking it at least once, maybe twice a week at the height of the rush hour. Within two or three weeks, maybe it was a month but I think no longer, the Streets Department made another study and suddenly, they found that now the corner did meet the requirements, although there had been very recent studies to the contrary. Now, is that what you want us to do? Because, you know, people don't like to be treated like they don't know anything. And when parents have kids going to school and feel it's a danger or other similar reasons, you're not going to be 131 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing very effective as soon as the people understand that they may have to engage in what we call "civil disobedience." Some people call it "contrary to the law." I don't think it's civil disobedience; I think they're reacting to arbitrary decisions. So I joined the protest. I was on the street helping to block traffic, made very clear that -- and I was not the only public official who did that. Made it clear I'd be prepared to be at every demonstration thereafter. Now, I think that's a situation you're going to face. How can you dare tell folks who are absolutely convinced that their lives and the lives of their kids are at risk, and the city arbitrarily refuses to install what they feel is important? And yet you do that regularly, and I don't know what has enabled, you know, your department to get by with it, but I think you're totally out of control, I think what you do is illegal. I know what you do is contrary to the interest of Philadelphians. And I think you ought to take this message back, that the City Council 132 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing is not going to tolerate that any longer. If you feel you need some -- I've spoken to PennDOT officials. They've told me they could care less what Philadelphia decided to do, that they never say that Philadelphia was wrong in making a decision, and I raised specifically with them the question, suppose there's a clear violation of the PennDOT regulation, what would you? Do they said, Absolutely nothing, that's for the city to work out. If the city decides there ought to be a street light or, you know, a signal light or a stop sign, we honor that. And, frankly, I think you're violating your duties, and you're abusing the citizens of Philadelphia by the attitude that your unit or department follows in this.
And I think it's something we're not going to be tolerating.
Councilman, from the PennDOT perspective, I'm not sure which officials you were talking to, and I did hear Mr. Eichorn speak here. But PennDOT's position basically is, if it's an unwarranted control, they will not 133 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing participate; if it's an unwarranted stop sign, it has to go.
That's not the position that PennDOT has ever taken to any member of this body that I know of and the conversations that I have had and repeated with other members of City Council. We think -- we think that there's a small group of folks in your unit that have taken unto themselves power that they don't have, that you just usurp power. We don't understand why you insist on doing it but you continue to do it, and I think we've got to stop that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have one last question for Mr. Trainor. Mr. Trainor, can you briefly explain to us how traffic engineering responds to concerns or complaints related to pedestrian safety? Now, I'm not now talking about what goes on with motor vehicles on the streets, but pedestrians, especially children in any special circumstances around many of our schools. How does that factor into the traffic engineering 134 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing survey that's done?
One of the traffic signal warrants is a school crossing warrant. There is a gap study that can be done on to justify a traffic signal. If the intersection is non-controlled -- I'm sorry, conventionally controlled, in other words, stop signs for one street, we will place continental crosswalks across the street that is controlled. If it is fully controlled, either an all-way or a traffic signal, continental crosswalks will be placed all the way around it. If the school crossing is designated for a school crossing guard, that doesn't mean that it's staffed but as long as it's designated for a school crossing guard, school crossing signs will be placed. If the streets are abutting the school, "school 15 mile-per-hour signs" will be installed.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? Yes, sir. 135 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
While we're waiting for witness to come up, Mr. Trainor, I do wish to ask again, if I could get a response to my March 18, 1998 memo to the Commissioner, which is specifically, this is the only unanswered of all the five locations, the only not recently answered response to a memo with regard to the Manayunk Avenue situation in much more detail than the June 9, 1995 response that I have, which was by a traffic engineer who is no longer a member of the Traffic Engineering Department, including the traffic counts that were taken, it's my understanding, on that particular street.
Yes, sir, you will get the response within the normal format letter that we provide.
Is that the normal format letter that talks about -- 136 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing
Yeah. But it always ends with, at whatever location, "We are not dealing with a borderline situation but rather one that is the prevailing traffic conditions fall short of the minimum required by the Federal Highway Manual and by the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code for the installation of an all-way stop." All of the letters end with that.
That is the standard letter regarding locations that do not meet the criteria.
Right in there. Just change the address. (Mr. Agree returns to the witness table.)
I believe you stated that the City would be responsible if there was a stop sign put in there that didn't meet criteria and 137 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing they could be sued. Well, I don't know but in the City of Philadelphia that I live in, stop signs are safer than not stop sign. And I wonders, is there any criteria or were there any studies done? Where does this come from? Because I know that if this was a stop sign on my corner, people would stop or at least slow down. And at this point, they don't. And I would -- do you want me to ask all three at once and then wait for the response? The second one is: Is there a stop sign on your corner? And the third question I ask is: Is the City of Philadelphia Streets Department willing to take responsibility when someone at their corner or their corner or their corner is hit by a car? Or my corner, God forbid, any of these things happen. This lady over here testified about people getting hit by cars. This gentleman over here testified. I go down that street all the time and there's hundreds of kids on that street and there's hundreds of kids on my street. 138 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing Who's going to take responsibility? The only people I see willing to do anything are the Councilmen sitting here. You know, I've got the form letter too, I've gotten two or three of them, and they say, Ah, it doesn't matter. But, you know, that's my kid, that's her kids, that's his kids, and that's their children.
I'll answer the second question first. The three corners in the immediate vicinity of my home do not have all-way stop sign.
Do they have stop signs? You said "all-way stop signs."
That's correct. The corner of Acorn and Hazelwood has a stop sign for Hazelwood. What we're talking about here is an all-way stop sign request; or, in the last case, a traffic signal request. I do not all all-ways at the three corners in the immediate vicinity of my home.
The third question 139 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing regarding responsibility. If the City is at fault, the City will be responsible. If the driver or the pedestrian is at fault, it is their responsibility. The first question, if someone can help me on it, what was the first question?
Oh, how does a stop sign make an intersection more dangerous or more unsafe than safe?
I can give you a specific example. We had a location, again it was based on a federal aid project that had to go back in and look to see if the stop sign was warranted. Prior to the installation, this had 5 angle accidents in an 18-month period. After the installation, the location had 10 rear-end accidents.
It's hit broadside, 140 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing right.
It had rear-end 4 accidents in an 18-month period of time, so it 5 increased the accidents at that location. 6
And your analysis 7 of that is that people, apparently, were not 8 anticipating that they had to stop, or the second 9 driver didn't anticipate that the driver in front 10 of them had to stop and they rear-ended then.
How long ago was the -- when was the change made that went from the six accidents broadsides to the ten rear-ends?
How -- what was the period of time -- what was the period of time in which the ten accidents took place in relationship to when the new device was put in?
It was a few years after 141 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing that.
And this is this is in the seventies-eighties time period.
I would ask you, based on that testimony and example, then, to get the recent accident history of that same intersection for the past two years.
I have one question. You and I did a walking tour in the Chinatown community several months ago cross from the Hing Wy Yoo (ph.) Housing Development is the school yard, the Holy Redeemer Church. Ridge Avenue comes off of Callowhill and then goes back onto Vine and then there's a cross street in there, the name escapes me.
Wood. There was a 142 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Hearing stop sign installed there but it wasn't installed by the Streets Department for about two months, and then it came down. During that two-month period of time, do you know if any accidents took place?
I do know, sir, that we did post that intersection with a "Pedestrian Crossing" sign, and I cannot say it's been marked, but we have issued a work order to mark Ninth Street, which is the uncontrolled street, with a crosswalk.
But you know of no 16 accidents that occurred during the time that the signage was posted, not by the Streets Department but by some concerned neighbor?
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you, Charlie, for being here. This concludes the public hearing on 143 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting the Streets and Services Committee.
We will now go into the public meeting for the Streets and Services Committee for the purpose of a motion on Bill No. 980171.
I move that bill 8 980171 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, with a request for a suspension of the rules.
With a request for suspension of rules to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly 144 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting moved and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? One second. Could we do a consensus on the language at least so that we could just do the bill numbers? And we all agree that we're going to suspend the rules on all of them?
Okay. Yes, as a committee, we can do that 'cause we've just heard all of the testimony. We've had full discussion on each bill separately.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980172 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that --
We're going to suspend the rules on all the bills? And maybe we can cut the language down.
Can we just read 145 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting all the bill numbers.
All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bills No. 980172, 980173, 980176, 980194, 980195, 980196, 980197, 980198, 980199, 980200, 980201, 980202, 980205, 980206, 980207, 980208, 980209, 980226, 980387, 980412, 980413, 980414, 980415, 980416, 980417, 980418, 980419, 980420, 980421, 980447, 980449, 980453, 980461, 980545, 980547, 980551, 980615, 980616, 980618, 980619, 980647, 980648, and 980654 all be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Before you take the vote, the reason that this is in order is that the Home Rule Charter requirement that there be a single vote for each bill applies only to Council meetings when each member must be recorded so the 146 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting public can look up how each of the members voted. So it has no application to the committee, and I therefore second that motion.
All those in 7 favor, signify by saying aye. 8 Nay? 9 The ayes have it. 10 We will now move to the -- 11
Mr. Chairman, I 12 move that bill No. 980410 be amended. 13
The amendment was 16 read into the record in the public hearing. 17 (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is approved.
No, that was the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I moved that Bill No. 25 980410, as amended, be reported out of this 147 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980410, as amended, be reported out of the committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of City Council. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? No nays, the ayes have it.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980411 be amended as read into the record in the public hearing. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I 148 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting move that Bill No. 980411, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permanent first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for amendments to Bill No. 980649.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980649 be amended to read: "Section 1, stop signs shall be placed and maintained at the following locations in a manner consistent with PennDot, colon. . ."
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980649 be amended. All those in favor, signify by saying 149 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting aye. Nay? The amendment is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980649, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspend so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980650 be amended so as to read: "Section 1. Stop sign shall be placed and maintained at the following location in a manner consistent with PennDOT regulations, colon. . . " (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980651 be amended.
650. 150 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting
Excuse me, 650 be amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980650, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980651, as amended, be approved by this committee.
650, as amended, be approved. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I 151 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting move that Bill No. 980651 be amended to read: "Section 1. Stop signs shall be placed and maintained at the following location in a manner consistent with PennDOT regulations, colon. . . " (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980651 be amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980651, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980651, as amended, be approved by this committee. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 152 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980652 be amended to read: "Section 1. Stop signs shall be placed and maintained at the following location in a manner consistent with PennDOT regulations, colon. . . " (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980652 be amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 908652 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980652, as 153 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980653 be amended to read: "Section 1. Stop signals shall be placed and maintained at the following location in a manner consistent with PennDOT regulations, colon. . . " (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980653 be amended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980653 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council 154 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE - Public Meeting be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 980653 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Nay? The bill is approved. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for sharing your day with us. I'm sure you found this to be a rewarding experience. (Adjourned at 5:41 p.m.) - - - 155 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, October 28, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES Bill No.'s 980170, 980171, 980172, 980173, 980176, 980194, 980195, 980196, 980197, 980198, 980199, 980200, 980201, 980202, 980205, 980206, 980207, 980208, 980209, 980226, 980387, 980410, 980411, 980412, 980413, 980414, 980415, 980416, 980417, 980418, 980419, 980420, 980421, 980447, 980449, 980453, 980461, 980545, 980547, 980551, 980615, 980617, 980618, 980619, 980647, 980648, 980649, 980650, 980651, 980652, 980653 and 980654 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter