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.