Are you also on any teams or retained to assist the city in specifically street-related planning on the parkway?
Yes, I'm part of the team that was selected, the international team that was selected for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, often in civic engagement, describing the project to folks.
And that project has a major safety element and pedestrian orientation element to it. That's going to be very exciting.
Have you worked specifically in terms of evaluations of using the City of Philadelphia's Vision Zero and Complete Streets policies and protocols?
Yes, I have. I've been working with that system. As I said, the civic engagement element is a favorite part of the work that I do in going into communities and working with people to understand the issues, the safety concerns, issues around speeding in particular, and ways to reduce speeding.
We would like to certify Mr. Cromey as an expert witness for today's clearing.
mr phillips you have any comments uh my first this is a question is uh for mr masters what
uh specifically uh is the proposal to accept him as an expert witness and what are we talking
city planning are we talking traffic what exactly is the scope of his proposed expert testimony
his scope of his expert testimony was shared with you mr phillips in his report
He is going to be testifying as a city planner to the issues concerning your your your client's project and whether or not it is it it it meets the criteria in the zoning code for for approval.
So then we're talking planning, not traffic.
it includes it includes impact on uh on traffic in in his in his uh expert opinion all right uh
in in his in his uh expert opinion all right i would object i don't believe that uh
mr cromey has been has been uh sufficient experience nor has any been uh detailed uh
in terms of traffic studies traffic engineering or traffic background i have no objection
to mr cromey's uh credentials in terms of city planning no so mr masters i'm going to
accept him as an expert witness, and Mr. Phillips, you'll have the ample opportunity to cross-examine
him. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Cromey, we're going to go through your report that's
dated November 9th of this year. Can you first tell us, describe how you went about
designing the evaluation of this project
when we retained you for this opinion?
Yes, I reviewed the background materials,
including the previous exhibits
from other court appearances and testimonies.
I visited the site with my colleague,
Nicole Finchian Sheehan,
And I reviewed the plans for the current plan and the current state of the development, and I conducted online research, including a Google Earth view, which shows what the property looked like before development, as well as reading substantial materials on the zoning code and the zoning guide, as well as complete streets and the city's bicycle pedestrian plan.
and Complete Streets and Vision Zero documents and reporting as well.
Did you also review transcripts of prior hearings in this case,
and specifically the testimony and the report of Mr. David Horner?
Yes, sir.
In your background and context section,
Would you would you share with the board your your belief of what the proviso is that governs the the this property in terms of the prior variance?
Yes, the high the the indented line here, no parking on Pastorius Street, parking curb cut on Tulpa Hocken only, no additional curb cuts on Pastorius.
That is the original proviso, which I support.
So in this proposal of 15 parking spaces along Pastoria Street, in your opinion, does that proposal, how does that proposal square with the proviso that you just stated?
Well, rather than zero curb cuts, it goes to, well, 16 curb cuts with 15 parking spaces and an opening for egress ingress. So, yeah, it's contrary.
um your sex the next section of your report um concerns the city of philadelphia's pedestrian
safety and accessibility policies can you review that for the board and explain why that was
important to your evaluation of this project yes uh and rather concisely there's a there's a good
line here from the a good uh indented uh section from the uh vision zero annual report that came
out earlier this year. Essentially, the line that, you know, how much loss of life should we
accept? And, you know, in modern life, people just tend to shrug and say, you know, car accidents
happen. But it is, in fact, the city's policy and many other municipalities throughout the country
that, you know, traffic crashes that result in injury and death are unacceptable. And so the
The city is investing hundreds of millions of dollars and integrating, as we heard earlier, Vision Zero policies into, you know, throughout the policies and budgets of the streets department and other departments to make the city safer.
In part through civic engagement projects like the one I mentioned earlier that we've been involved in and the investment in infrastructure.
And the recent report, the same report, which I recommend for everyone to read, is that, in fact, this is a very successful program.
And we've seen a significant decline in injuries related to traffic.
In in injuries related to traffic speeding and crashes as a result of these programs in the areas where these investments have been put in.
So it's doing a lot of good and having a high standard for pedestrian safety is, I think, essential for quality of life and length of life in the city.
when you as we scroll down here um you after you are reviewing and and showing the this the
significant gains and um and positive impact of of the vision zero uh and complete streets policies
um then did you make specific uh references and and findings concerning um the this this block
at pastoria street and how it relates to these policies yes we see uh the the the bottom um
indented bullet at the bottom of the page now uh three speed cushions actually since my site visit
in september three speed cushions have come up on pastoria street indicating an awareness by the
streets department of a concern for speeding on pastoria street and that is a a good but not
in and of themselves sufficient uh measure for reducing harm on the on the street all right are
we looking now at photos of two of those cushions yes two of the speed cushions and there's one
uh as you get closer to green street as well okay but you just um testified that you said
it was good but not sufficient um yes you're saying that you're saying that the story's not
over with these speed cushions that they're that you still have concerns as to adding these parking
spaces to to this project um as in even even with these speed cushions yeah i mean the image to the
right it illustrates the crux of the issue is that you see that there are there are some sidewalks
and some places for people to walk. But it is widely, it is inconsistent across the block. And
to a large extent, you know, there are areas with average, you know, I would say to the right,
you know, acceptable, you know, historic sidewalks and to the left, sort of leftover
space that a person could walk on, but no easy curb cut there. It's a very high curb there.
But throughout the length of the block, it's inconsistent. There are grassy areas, there's wooded areas, there's fences and buildings that come up right up into the edge. So this block and having, you know, my colleague Nicole can testify to herself, but having walked it with her, does not offer a lot of safe, sufficient safe harbors for pedestrians.
So, as you see from the person walking their dog, people are pushed out into the street, and this is essentially a shared street with pedestrians.
So, any diversion of traffic onto this block would decrease safety for pedestrians.
When you call it a shared street with pedestrians, that's something that many people probably have never heard before.
Or is that actually how common is that in the city of Philadelphia to have to have what you are calling a shared street for pedestrians and and vehicles?
It's very uncommon. In fact, I was one of the surveyors for the the citywide sidewalk survey back in, I believe, 2010.
And I looked at almost every street in South Philadelphia. It's uncommon.
And usually it's just a result of, you know, a decline in infrastructure and deferred maintenance.
In this case, it looks like some of the sidewalks were never put in.
And, you know, you have some wilder areas or some wooded areas that come right up into the edge.
And some very old properties that have buildings, like I said, that come right up to the edge.
So a combination of reasons.
So it's not necessarily the preferred status for the road in the long term, but in the short term, the best remedy is to require all developers of the properties to put in five foot wide sidewalks and reduce all obstacles wherever possible and at least incrementally work towards a better street.
so this next section of your report uh is referring to the safe roots philly program
can you describe that for the board and explain why that's relevant to this project
well because safe roots is targeted towards schools and making roads uh safer for children
to walk as well safe roots to school and it's for walking and cycling because we want to encourage
And it's for walking and cycling because we want to encourage an active lifestyle in students.
active
And so it has four components, creating educational modules, training teachers, more involved program support with providing trained teachers and resources for the larger community.
And there are four schools within a half mile radius of this area.
And as indicated here, Lingelbach Elementary, Atonement Academy, a Settlement Music School branch, and a Waldorf School, Philadelphia.
And my discussion with neighbors is that they have seen, they know that children do use this as part of their walk to school, as well as commuters and seniors and people with mobility devices.
All right, we're going to go to the next section of the report. This deals with pedestrian safety and accessibility concerns on both Pestorius and Topahawken Street.
Can you share with the board what your findings and conclusions were on this area?
Yes. So again, the major issue being that it is effectively a shared street.
And when you cut off use of the Tulpahawken or reduce the use of the Tulpahawken ingress, egress, you are pushing traffic around down Pastoria Street and increasing the volume of traffic.
And so, as I said, that's the first issue is that it's a shared street.
It is a narrow two-way street. And so, as I mentioned, people with individual mobility and stroller cannot walk down the street safely and comfortable.
I might add, even though I am personally, professionally pro speed cushions, and they do present improved safety on the street, because pedestrians and people with mobility devices are pushed out into the street, they constitute another barrier as well for folks who, at least might have trouble seeing, and they do, you know, narrow the walkway.
um you're saying that's an aside you're saying that that while speed cushions are have have a
positive impact on slowing cars they also present a hazard to some pedestrians yeah a minor hazard
in aggregate they're a positive i think we would all could agree on that but in this particular
instance where there isn't a place safe place to walk that they're they're another issue uh for
for some pedestrians to be concerned with. So my next point that I would like to make is that the
parking spaces are contrary to city policy as they, as I said, eliminate sidewalk access or
significantly reduce sidewalk. There is a sidewalk there, but they reduce and compromise sidewalk
access, uh, with the curb cut and with multiple turning, uh, uh, turning motions. Um, and it's
visually disruptive. There is an aesthetic effort, um, issue here, I should say, uh, which is not,
uh, not without import in and of itself. Uh, and it does emphasize cars over people
and residential character when you have a line of cars like that uh on a on a quiet street
did you notice in the 2017 transcript of the of the zoning board members when they were discussing
this that they um did you recall what they said about the the um the aesthetics of of what that
would look like uh i i don't recall that individual uh personally uh but i uh i don't recall that
directly now okay um can you can you share with us um these describe these photos and where you
took them and and why they were significant to put into your report yeah i'm not sure i actually
don't believe that that is the same dog walker on the left and uh this was on our site visit and uh
yeah that's two dogs and then uh to the right you see a family with a stroller it's not as easy to
see the stroller i didn't want to be intrusive but they are walking stroll and you see the
conditions of the sidewalk here uh as well uh further down the street this is closer to wayne
avenue um and yeah oh no all right my computer was acting up um yeah
so this is you're saying this is this is down towards wayne avenue yes okay
and you see yeah you see how the the the the wooded areas or or treat trees uh
you know crotch upon any kind of sidewalk or walking area right
you know crouch upon any kind of sidewalk or walking area right
and here we see that you do see the subject property here on the left hand
uh image with uh the curb cuts here and the uh and the the the
of removing or moving one of those a few feet to the right isn't as uh egregious uh you know is not
asking a lot of the developer i think that in and of itself it's a narrow street and not quite five
feet. Sorry, narrow sidewalk. Yes. Okay. And then your last points in this section?
Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, the compound of the circulation impacts and multiple turning
movements um by putting in the uh the landscaping buffer that we discussed earlier uh they you are
cutting off uh through traffic through the site which may or may not be a good thing but also you
are keeping most the virtually all uh of the uh residents from using the topo hawkins street
area and you're pushing um in excess of uh potentially if my count's mistaken i believe
it's 30 vehicles potentially uh on to um on to topo hawkins street that many parking spaces at
least are are counted and when you said toboggan did you mean pastoria i meant pastoria street
yes so you're pushing the traffic onto that street so um so you know despite the issues
that are there already which work currently because of the low level of you know low degree
of uh vehicles a number of vehicles um you know pushing traffic is unsafe for pedestrian pushing
traffic on a posterior street is unsafe for pedestrians and of course uh these all these
issues are amplified when you consider the needs of a person uh with disabilities um and uh
so this is this section going to be addressed by um by nicole um she can touch that touch on
that more directly as she is has experience um working on uh um okay do you want to just touch
on the the basic findings and conclusions here and then we'll hear more yeah absolutely so for
all the reasons stated stated above um we support the original uh per visa um you know uh
uh which is uh but we do uh suggest make the suggestion of adding the following language if
i could just state that uh so i'll uh if you could go up a little bit i believe uh we were just on
that part no no no i'm sorry yes yeah let's go down let's go down and mention that um so no
parking within the required yard on pastoria street uh no vehicle uh no vehicular ingress
or egress from pastoria street is it is it existing curb cut uh to be removed or physical
barrier erected uh vehicular ingress egress from tulpa hawken street and potentially green street
only and sidewalks of five feet minimum with provided along pastoria street frontage where
feasible where obstructions exist provide sidewalks at the maximum where it's possible
all right we did skip a couple of sections that i wanted you to go through so um there was a um we
had in the last hearing we had testimony from susan wright about a pedestrian count and i believe
that you received those that data and that you you incorporated that data into your report so
i i wondered if you could if you could share with the board what the significance of that data was
and how, and then, so we'll start with that.
I don't really dispute the content in terms of the description of the street or the number
of vehicles that pass by, but I would say that that study did not even acknowledge the
presence of pedestrians or have any report or acknowledgement of the absence of safety
and consistent pedestrian accommodations on the block.
I'm sorry, are you referring now to David Horner's report?
Yes, I am.
I'm referring specifically to David Horner's report.
So I would say that that is a significant oversight.
And when referencing the safety of a local street,
you really do need to be concerned about the people who are out and about.
Well, in your view, is the – and Mr. Horner, as we all know,
He conceded in his testimony that he did not take into account any pedestrian issues on the street. Is the absence of pedestrians in his factoring, in his safety analysis, how would you describe the absence of the pedestrian aspect in his study as to the validity of the study?
conceded in his testimony
that he did not take into account
It's a significant oversight. And I would say that to declare the street safe, simply because it's got a wide enough roadway for two-way traffic, among other issues he mentioned, is significantly overstated.
You can question that significantly for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Okay. Have you also looked at the actual curb cut that is on Topolhockin that provides the access to the property from Topolhockin?
and um we know that mr horner characterized the width of that curb cut as 12 feet but have you
seen and evaluated do you have a different number that you believe that the that the curb cut on
on tubal hawken is actually is actually a different width i believe it's a little bit
I'll show you something here.
Oh, yeah.
I believe I'm reviewing my own notes.
So 18 feet.
is the measurement that I have.
Yeah, I think this is a measurement,
this is a video that you reviewed previously.
Yes, yes, you're correct.
And this shows the width of that curb cut.
Yes, it does.
Okay. There is, am I correct that there is some kind of a posts that are in fact 12 feet wide that are inside the curb cut area of the property? Is that your recollection?
Yes. There's a gate. There's a gate there.
but the code code itself is quite a bit larger your test yes okay
the point i'd like to make about that is that they characterize that uh as an unsafe um place to
as egress in the in the horner report right and i i feel like that's wildly overstated i feel like