I don't see any difficulty with that. If the Streets Department wanted to be the conduit for which Council approval was granted, that's no problem to the Authority. 151 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
I just want to get some clarity on a couple of other issues. With respect to the cost of police in any City involvement in the process, I think you indicated that we would be reimbursed in terms of the number of tickets that the cops had to review, in terms of -- and I'm assuming the installation of any cameras would to some degree have some relationship with the Streets Department by using their poles.
The Ordinance requires that, as part of this agreement, that we would -- the agreement would specify that the City would be reimbursed for any costs associated with the implementation or maintenance of this program.
Before. Because earlier in the testimony, I think you said the State got its money, then the City would get what's left.
No. The way the system works, both in accordance with 123 of 2003 and this Ordinance, subject to the amendment that you were 152 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 referring to, is that they must enter into agreement with the City before the implementation of this program. We will recover our costs out of that portion of the revenue stream that the Parking Authority gets for their cost. So we will recover out of there. Any money left over goes to the Department of Transportation for a Traffic Safety Enhancement Grants program. And I assume that as a City in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if there is such a grants program, we will make application for grants for the City of Philadelphia too.
You earlier indicated that this will not affect points on your driver's license because it's been decriminalized, so to speak. It's not a moving violation. Would it, in fact, increase the ability to have your vehicle booted? If you got a number, would it be included in other tickets? What's the boot right now, six tickets you get booted?
One of the concerns 153 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that I have, because of the process relating to the hearing -- I'm not sure what it is now with this new program -- is that I've seen, being involved in some of these different programs that we've had in the City, is that an individual's vehicle gets booted while they have a pending ticket, it could be that third ticket that authorizes them to be booted and they have a pending hearing --
If there are hearings scheduled for any ticket, any parking ticket or one of these tickets, it removes that ticket from boot eligibility. So it would not apply to the threshold.
We operate with an online system, Councilman. And that is, if a person were in the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication having a hearing for parking tickets, and a booting crew was going by outside -- and they too are online -- they would punch in the person's license number and go back to the database via radio system. And if the hearing examiner were to dismiss that ticket, instantaneously, just before they would request boot eligibility, it come up not eligible because the hearing was taking place and the matter was 154 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 resolved. It is all online.
Councilman, just to go back to the last portion where you were at regarding Council approval for some of the intersections. I'd like to point out that one of the intersections that the State named is Thompson and Lehigh. There's barely any traffic on that intersection. It's in my neighborhood. I don't know how it got there. It's in Councilman DiCicco's district, and I would think that he would want the Streets Department to review that because I think there would be a more active intersection where there were many more accidents, that the cost of putting a camera there and for the enhancement of the program would be much better. So the Parking Authority -- and I'm speaking bipartisan effort here -- would want Council approval. I've worked for many years with Councilman DiCicco as my Councilman and I would not want to tread on anyone's toes. I believe that would be our program from the Parking Authority.
One last question. Who signs off on state highways? Is the City Highway Department involved in that? 155 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
In the event that there was a request to have a camera on a state highway.
Well, the final approval was from the State Secretary of Transportation.
The selection of the intersection comes from the City and then the final approval is from the State Secretary of Transportation.
Regardless of the jurisdiction of the particular highway?
Councilman Goode first and then Councilman Cohen. We're still on the first round.
Thank you, Mr. 156 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Chairman. Mr. Dickson, you seem to suggest that the choosing of the intersections is not going to be driven by issues of traffic safety?
No, sir. What we anticipate happening is that the Streets Department will identify intersections that have a high incidents of traffic safety issues, whether they be red light running, accidents, those kinds of things. From that, they will do a study to determine which are the most affected by traffic safety issues. From those we will together make a recommendation after consultation with members of Council to send to PennDOT for the final approval of the Secretary of Transportation.
But that's not written within our legislation. The streets are not based on issues of traffic safety.
It's based on, I believe, a traffic engineering study, I believe it says there.
Excuse me for interrupting. We have two more witnesses, one from PennDOT and one from the Streets. 157 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 I assume you gentlemen may have heard that last question. Would you be able to answer that when you come up here? You might want to wait. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Dickson. Any further questions for this panel? Councilman Ortiz.
I imagine you studied this in detail and you saw it from all sides. You have studies from both sides that you can make available in terms of -- because I don't think we really have delved into this issue in this Council. Do you have studies from different independent sources outside of the insurance companies and so on?
We have some studies that we've collected, and we have the ability to get some other ones, and we would be happy to make copies of those and submit them to Members.
I just want to know what's the intellectual process that has taken place in terms of deciding that this is a better answer 158 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 against another methodology that might be available. What is the decision-making process that took place that proves that this is really the best process to take in terms of preventing accidents?
I will attempt to get any documentation that we have available to us to you.
Thank you. Why are you bothering with signage and education programs? What's the theory behind that?
What's the theory behind having an educational program and signage at corners? Is it to tell people that the other corners that don't have the signage are corners that are free corners, that people can pass red lights safely? What's the idea of this education program? Why do you need it? Why do you have to have signs notifying people that particular corners are directly involved? I'm trying to get at the theory of this thing. 159 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The principle behind it is to increase driver awareness of the consequences of red light running and the problems associated with that, both in terms of public safety, bodily injury and the number of deaths associated with it. Every time we increase awareness of the problem by a public relations campaign and letting people know that there is another tool available to us in order to confront the issue, whether it be policemen stationed on a corner or remote camera enforcement or any other number of devices that might be available, it increases motorist compliance with the law. And that is the ultimate goal.
It seem to me the tool is education, not the red lights. Why don't you go into a heavy education campaign pointing out what you say are the problems in safety and alerting people at every corner not to pass through red lights and not to get themselves in a position where their car may be blocking intersections?
We absolutely will do that. But unfortunately, Councilman, unless there is a credible deterrent to people doing that, meaning that there's some kind penalty imposed for 160 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 them not abiding by the law, there will be some segment of the population that won't. They are people --
I've seen no program in the City of Philadelphia with respect to the red light running. And the Streets Department is the least efficient department. They always tell you no. And that's why Councilman Clarke, I assume, raised the question. We've had a running fight for many, many years. All the years I've been in City Council, the Streets Department takes the position that it alone has the genius and the understanding as to when a red light should be in place or a stop sign. And almost always when the people in the community want something, the Streets Department's study is, no. No matter what happens, they always find no. They say they are acting for the State and, therefore, they override us in City Council. Therefore, we have begun the policy in City Council of passing Bills and then threatening to withhold money, if our will isn't carried. I don't see anything in this Bill that restores the power of City Council. I tried to follow the discussion between 161 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Mr. Dickson -- and we appreciate your service. None of this is a personal attack. We know your deep, loyal services of the Parking Authority Department all these years and we appreciate that very much. But in this case I think you're dead wrong. I think that any act passed by the State ought to be withdrawn and let us in Philadelphia deal with it. And let us make clear that in Philadelphia, the governing body as stated in the Home Rule Charter, is City Council, not the Streets Department, whether they're wearing a City of Philadelphia hat or wearing a state hat. Because your assurance, Mr. Dickson, it may be given to us in good faith, but I can tell you that the fact that we consult with you and you consult with us will have nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions of the Streets Department. They will put on their state department hat -- incidentally, the states says that PennDOT does not control the Streets. They say they don't tell the Streets Department that they have the authority of the state. But nonetheless the Street Department's engineers do it. And I believe any action first must restore to City Council its powers as the 162 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 governing body. Therefore, I'm very much concerned. I know of no educational program and no 4 educational campaign that's ever been waged in a significant way with respect to red light running. Maybe if I saw a campaign go on for six months or a year and then saw the results of it, maybe that would convince me. Or maybe it might convince you that legislation wasn't needed. All I see is an effort of compulsion and an effort to collect money. And in this case, the collection of money would be bad enough if that were the motive and the City got it, but the money is going to go to the State. On top of that, the State picks the nine places. What's the State got to do with the nine places in the City of Philadelphia? They don't even know we have a gun problem in the Philadelphia. They think the gun problem in Philadelphia is no 19 different than the gun problem in the most rural areas of the state. The State is totally incompetent when it comes to dealing with City matters. So I think that's a basic weakness. Why don't you start your educational program now and let's see where it is three months from now? 163 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 You may have a comment with respect to that, Mr. Dickson.
We appreciate what you've done. We appreciate what Judge Ceremele has done over the years. You both have had very difficult and very uncooperative jobs from time to time. But you've done the work with distinction. We appreciate that. But that doesn't mean we're going to just follow your advice whenever you give it to us. We've got to question it and reach conclusions. And the body that ought to reach conclusions is City Council on City Council legislation, not on legislation foisted upon us without our consent by the State. And to add insult to injury, they told us, you don't even know what streets you ought to begin with, therefore we're going to name nine streets. Oh, you can maybe change them, if the Parking Authority thinks it's right. Well, that's not the way you deal with City Council. We're the governing body. There are 18 people that make the laws in Philadelphia. 17 of them are in City County 164 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 and the 18th is the Mayor's Office. JUDGE KELLY: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond quickly.
Absolutely. JUDGE KELLY: Because I'm going to ask to be excused. I have actual trials. In consulting with Judge Ceremele, I think you raised a good point, Councilman Cohen, regarding the educational programs. In looking back to Judge Ceremele's previous service at the court, I do expect, as the president judge, to work with former Judge Ceremele regarding educational programs and the impact of red light running, what the effect that that does have on the community. I'll respond to you.
We agree that we'll work together on an educational program. Perhaps we should ask the Department of Transportation for one of those grants from this fund that they're setting up to help us with that type of program. Finally, I would say to you, Mr. Cohen, you had a very interesting dialog with the Executive Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania today. I was a little disappointed that you didn't chide him for 165 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 his alliance with the comments of Congressman Dick Army.
Thank you. Any further questions for this panel? The next witnesses are Philadelphia Streets Department, Mr. Charles Trainor; and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Dutch Eichorn. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Dutch Eichorn. I'm with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in our District 6 Traffic Unit. I presented to the Council written testimony given by our Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, and I'd like to read this in at this time. We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide written testimony to the Philadelphia City Council Committee on Streets and Services regarding Councilman Frank Rizzo's Bill 682 and the 166 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 proposed amendments to this Bill, which were prepared by the City Solicitor. As you know, Senate Bill 238, Act 123 of 2002, was approved by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in late September 2002 and was signed by the Governor on October 4th, 2002. It provides the legal authority for the establishment of a pilot program of automated red light enforcement within the City of Philadelphia in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One of the needed first steps for the usage of automated red light enforcement systems within the City of Philadelphia is the passage of an Ordinance by City Council. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation will work cooperatively with the Philadelphia City Council, the Department of Streets, the Parking Authority and other City organizations and officials to ensure that automated red light enforcement systems desired by the City are installed and operated in full compliance with Act 123. Our department has reviewed proposed City Bill 682 and the proposed amendments to it that were prepared by the City Solicitor. We have 167 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 determined that if the City Solicitor's amendments are adopted, the City's Ordinance would be in compliance with Act 123. However, we very strongly recommend that the following revisions be made in the final version of the City's Ordinance. Since Act 123 does not provide the legal authority to enforce Section 3710 of the Vehicle Code with automated red light enforcement systems, delete the second, third, fourth, and fifth "whereas" clauses which relate to spill back and gridlock. In essence, photo equipment can only be done for the red light running program. In paragraph one of Section 12-3002 of the proposed amendments, replace the term "car" with the term "vehicle" to ensure that enforcement can apply to vehicles, trucks, cars, et cetera, and not just cars. This would also more closely conform with the terminology of vehicular traffic used in Section 3112 A-3 of the Vehicle Code. " Number three. In order to more closely conform to the provisions of Act 123, and in light of the material already contained in Section Two of 168 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 the proposed amendments, we recommend revising paragraph one of Section 12-3005 to read as follows: One, automated red light enforcement systems that are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may be used to enforce this chapter at such intersections as designated and agreed upon by the systems administrator and the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation. Again, this is for compliance with Act 123. Listening to the testimony as it's been presented, and having had Charlie Trainor review this prior, I know there's reservations about not including final approval by City Streets or what have you. Now, in the Act it does allow for the recommendations, initial recommendations to come from the City Streets Department. In essence, they are approving their own recommendations. From the other standpoint, since the signals themselves are owned and maintained by the City Streets Department, they have final veto on anything that can be hooked up to it. So if there's not agreement on the City Streets Department, it won't occur at that intersection. Number four. " I again talked to Charlie Trainor about this, because his intention is not to have the City Streets Department maintaining the red light running equipment, that it should be part of the system administrator's responsibility.
I talked to our Harrisburg office about this, and they're in full agreement with that. So that provision there can be deleted. We noticed that some provisions of Act 123 were not included in the proposed City Ordinance. These include Sections 3116 D-3 and 4, relating to operating record and insurance points; Section 3116 I-3, relating to the annual report to the State House and Senate Transportation Committees; Section 3116 K-2, related to the reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs and the development of a Transportation Enhancements Grant program by our department; Section 3116 N, relating to compensation to manufacturer or vendor; and Section 3116 P, on revenue limitations. You may 170 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 wish to consider the addition of this material to the Ordinance. Beyond the actual text of the Ordinance, our department realizes that we will need to have an ongoing dialog with the City on the following topics. One, we plan to work jointly with the Streets Department to develop selection criteria for the intersections to be equipped with automated red light enforcement, equipment to determine equipment specifications and to develop a standard design for the sign that must be posted in advance of the equipped intersections. Two, we will need to work with the City to develop suitable reimbursement procedures. Three, we will seek the input of the City as our department develops regulations for the Transportation Enhancements Grant program. Four, we will work with the City to help ensure that they conduct an evaluation of the automated red light enforcement program and file the required annual report to the chairman and the minority chairman of the Senate and House Transportation Committees. In conclusion, we'd like to commend 171 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Councilman Rizzo for his initiative in introducing this Ordinance, as well the City Solicitor for preparing amendments that will ensure compliance with Act 123. We welcome the opportunity to provide comments. Our department will continue to work with the City to ensure that this pilot program to address the problem of red light running is implemented in full compliance with Act 123 and is properly evaluated.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Charles Trainor. I'm the Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill 000682. The Streets Department supports the passage of this Ordinance as amended, which permits the use of cameras to enforce Section 3112 A-3 of the State Vehicle Code. This support is based on the nationwide accident reduction experience of 25 172 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to 30 percent in intersection injury crashes. The Streets Department sees red light cameras as an additional tool to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic. The department believes that their use should be at locations that are engineered in accordance with national standards, where there are demonstrated crash problems, and are conducive to the installation of the system. Signals in Philadelphia provide a yellow phase meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of PennDOT, the MUTCD, the ITE. Additionally, all signals have an all red interval following the main street movement with the majority having an all red movement following all movements. Many main arterial streets have a coordinated system. Signal visibility is increased by the use of larger 12-inch diameter signals for the main street, as well as for overhead signals. These are engineering initiatives that previously have been taken to improve intersection safety. Still, PennDOT accident records from 1996 to 2000 show 259 cluster locations in the City of Philadelphia that experienced eight or more reportable accidents where red light running 173 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 was a contributing factor. A total of 4,728 reportable accidents occurred at these locations. 113, 2.4 percent, had at least one fatality. 2,525, 53.4 percent, had injuries. And the remainder, 44.2 percent, had at least one vehicle towed. Philadelphia crash data show that the enforcement of red light running by cameras should be considered at Bridge and James streets, 51st and Walnut streets, Comly Road and Roosevelt Boulevard, Bridge and Tacony Streets, Grant Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, 58th and Walnut Streets, Devereaux Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, Roberts and Wissahickon Avenues, 12th and Vine Streets, Charles and Levick Streets, Harbison Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, 25th Street and Sedgley Avenue, Front Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, Bridge and Harbison, 5th Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, 15th Street and Vine Street, Front and Luzerne Streets, Levick Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, 8th and Vine Streets, 15th and Cayuga Streets. Red light running is a complex driving behavior that needs to be addressed with a combination of engineering, enforcement and education. This legislation will improve safety 174 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 through enforcement at specific locations and, by its publicity, spill over to non-camera intersections. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Do you have any questions?
Thank you, Mr. Trainor, and thank you, Mr. Eichorn. In proposed amendments, I believe attached to the amendments is a copy or some material concerning Senate Bill 238, which it only identifies the original nine. Mr. Trainor, unless I missed your point, you mentioned many more than nine intersections. Are those recommended?
These are recommendations from the Streets Department to be looked at. These are intersections that, based on intersection red 20 light running contributing factors from police crash records, are the top 20.
Since I do not have a copy of your testimony, or are not able to locate it, are the nine that are in the proposed amendment Bill with the attachment of Senate Bill 238, are 175 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 they included in that list that you just put forth in your testimony?
So Broad and Washington Avenue, Thompson Street and Lehigh, Aramingo and York are not included in your list?
Are you suggesting that they are not that significant in terms of your statistics warranting a camera?
They are not in the top 14 based on the police crash data for five years, but 15 they should be looked at based on the fact that they 16 are in the State Legislature. 17
I only mention 18 those three of the original nine because they happen 19 to be in my district. Actually, six of the original 20 are in my district, and I don't think they're included in your list. Could somebody explain to me -- maybe I missed the point -- how we came up with this nine, and why is the recommendation for these nine intersections different from the Streets Department? 176 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The nine that were listed are the original nine that were put into the legislation by state representatives. And they are not cast in stone. They are to be considered along with other intersections that Charlie Trainor just identified.
Well, for the purpose of the initial installation of cameras -- assuming the Bill is passed and approved -- where do these nine stand?
They're in the same pot with the ones that Mr. Trainor just mentioned. They get no preference, other than they need to be considered.
But I thought that earlier testimony said that the pilot program would only be nine intersections? Correct me if I'm wrong. I just want clarification. Because personally I think that these intersections -- I'd like to see cameras installed at these 177 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 intersections. They're in my district. And I'm very familiar with Aramingo and York and Broad and Washington Avenue. And I just was curious that they're not a part of the testimony that was just put forth by --
Mr. Chairman, the nine that are in the initial legislation are now part of the list that the Streets Department has developed. Any of those intersections or any intersection that's not even mentioned, if a camera is warranted at that location, the process could begin and the cameras could be installed with the Department of Transportation's --
But Mr. Trainor's testimony only identified two of the original nine. How many intersections do you have total?
Twenty intersections. And only two of them were on the nine. So if we wanted to get the rest of the nine in there, we would bring that number up to 27.
Correct, Councilman. Councilman, there may be additional intersections. What I'm looking at here is based on Philadelphia 178 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Police crash records that we looked at.
I'm not arguing that point. I think that you're doing a good job and I appreciate your testimony and pointing out that those are the higher incident intersections. That, I understand. But I was just curious how we moved from this list to your list and what happens to --
That list is strictly the Streets Department's recommendations, which would eventually surface.
Councilman Goode. And then we'll take some rounds of questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was exactly my question to the Parking Authority, whether this was actually, in fact, data driven. I'll ask the question in a different way. Under the original legislation, local legislation or even proposed amendments, in your estimation should the Streets Department be making recommendation or making a determination as to the 179 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 intersections?
Or a determination? I'm making a distinction between the use of the term recommendation and the term determination.
Determination means that we're looking at criteria that either says, yes, there is a camera or, no, there is not a camera. You're crossing the threshold if you determine that. At this time there is no criteria of that nature.
What we're looking at doing with this phase, we're looking at the intersections ranking both in the Philadelphia Police crash data and also PennDOT crash data as the highest intersections that have red light running accidents, where that is the contributing factor.
It will be based upon that data. It would be based upon the volume and whether we can physically place the camera and the system to 180 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 do the camera at that intersection.
Therefore, your recommendations or determinations would be for the intersections that you named? 6
My recommendation is that 7 we look at these 20, in addition to the nine, and 8 possibly -- 9
But your 10 recommendation would be those 20 before the other 11 seven? 12
I don't have a 15 recommendation either way because I have not looked 16 specifically at the nine that are specifically in 17 the state legislation nor -- 18
You've already made a 19 determination of those 20 are the 20 that you would 20 pick based upon the data that you examined?
These are the first 20 to be looked at because they are the highest in our records.
So you would recommend those 20 before the other seven that are 181 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 also included in the state legislation?
When we look at the state crash records, the data from the state crash records systems, we will wind up seeing a little different aspect. The City's crash records are sorted on one contributing factor out of many. The state puts in at least five. And when they do their sorting, they could wind up coming out with locations that are higher incidences than I have. And also the ones that are on the state legislation could be of a higher incidence. So we have to delve into the actual physical records.
I think that would be a triumph of the Streets Department, PennDOT and the Parking Authority.
That doesn't work for me because it doesn't answer the question. How do you negotiate who makes the actual determination?
Again, it will be a combination of the Streets Department, who has to approve it, the Parking Authority, who has to install it, and PennDOT, who has to approve it. 182 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
So your testimony is actually that you can agree upon anything you want to agree upon?
There is no criteria to define when cameras go in and when cameras do not go in.
But per the legislation as its written and/or amended, the Department of Transportation and the Streets Department could just agree upon any intersections they want to agree upon? It does not have to be data driven?
It doesn't require that you abide by that study, though?
Again, there is no 19 criteria as to what requires a camera.
But it does not require that you abide by the study that you conduct. It just requests a study. It doesn't require that you abide by the study. You are, under the legislation, allowed to disagree upon the intersections, whether it's data driven or not? 183 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 That's a question.
Could I respond? I don't think the department would accept a study that the data didn't support. I think that's why it's important to have the different parties involved in it. The list that Charlie started with, the list that was in the Bill, they're basically just starting points. They're based on one aspect of that intersection, which is a red light running violation.
My concern is not with any specific intersections at all, whether it be the that you named or the nine that were in 15 the state legislation. My concern is that it's data 16 driven. And that there's something within the 17 legislation that ensures that it's data driven and 18 that you can't just pick any 10, 20, 30 19 intersections that you want, simply because you 20 agree upon it.
It doesn't say you have to follow an engineering study.
I believe that it requires 184 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that the City Streets Department do an engineering study.
It requests that they do an engineering study. It does not require that they abide by it.
Point of order. Who will make the final determination as to what intersection or intersections will have a camera installed? Apparently there's some communication, or will be communication, between PennDOT and the Streets Department; am I correct on that?
And if one agency does not think that it warrants it, will there be -- does PennDOT have the jurisdiction overriding jurisdiction of the Streets Department? How do we resolve that debate? I'm certain it's going to come up.
I tried to clarify that over the written statement. The written statement and the regulations state that the list would go to the Secretary for approval. Realistically, though, the City Streets Department, who owns the traffic signals, if they don't want that signal hooked up, 185 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 it won't get hooked up. So ultimate veto power is the City Streets Department, as far as the use of red light running on the --
I don't know why you're saying the City. The City has no control over a Streets Department that thinks it's part of the State. That's why we have to threaten to go to court when we want lights put in at an intersection or a stop sign. The Streets Department doesn't give control. Why are you staying away from City Council control? Who made the State -- who made the effort to put in two-thirds of the nine belonging, apparently, to the Chairman of the Committee? Someone must have researched that to say this is how we get control. I think we're being sold the bill of goods here by well-meaning people who don't understand that there are a lot of other methods that could be employed. Why are we rushing into this? Start your education program. That would be very important. Tell people the dangers of running red lights and of the casualties that occur. And 186 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 don't confine it to few streets. We've got hundreds of streets in Philadelphia, don't we? How many intersections are there?
I think, Councilman Cohen, there was earlier testimony -- it may have been Mr. Dickson or someone else on that panel -- that it would be a minimum of about six months before we even get to do the installation of the first camera. So there will be some education leading up to that. Certainly, the public is getting educated before.
As the media will cover this, I'm sure, quite intensively over the next few days and months.
I don't know what the rush is to get into legislation, unless it is to make some businesses happy. That's the only thing I can see. An education program, which is really what's important, can go on without this.
Councilwoman Miller needs to leave. We're going to recess temporarily the hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services 187 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 and go into our public meeting for the purpose of Councilwoman Miller leaving her vote. (Public hearing recessed.) - - - (PUBLIC MEETING.)
Thank you. I'd like to be recorded as voting favorably for this Bill to move out of Committee.
There may be amendments, as well, if you care to leave your vote on amendments.
I'd also like to leave my aye vote on the amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also be recorded as voting aye on all amendments and on the Bill's disposition in this Committee.
Thank you. Councilman Mariano. 188 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to do the same thing. I tried to stick it out, especially when Charlie Trainor was in favor of something. It's the first time I seen him vote in favor of anything. I would also like to vote aye to this Bill and all of the amendments.
We will now go back into the public hearing. Councilman Cohen, do you still wish to be recognized?
Yes. I think we're all being duped, and I think that the whole plan involves money, and that's the whole purpose of it. What's important here would be an educational program. You're going to concentrate on a few streets when we have hundreds and hundreds of streets in Philadelphia where the problem exists everywhere, where the City Council is again being turned down as being the guiding body of the City of 189 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Philadelphia. We're told that the Parking Authority will intervene on behalf of the City Council. What nonsense is that? City Council ought to make the decision. We're ones that ought to pick the streets. Yes, the Council-At-Large work closely with the district Councilmembers. We all know the City better than any other group. We're also more interested than any other group in making sure that the people in the City understand their rights and understand that they're being protected by the City. Streets Department doesn't listen to the people. They just keep saying, no. And I have no reason why except I expect they want to indicate that it's the Streets Department that runs the City, not the City Council. So I just think we're being duped by the Streets Department again acting in concert with the State, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the case has been made at all. Are there any other methods around? Nobody's told us of other methodologies that are available to control this rampant red light running. Why has Philadelphia had this problem all this time and 190 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 never taken a serious educational step forward? Why do they have to wait until they can find a way to take money from taxpayers and award contracts to get campaign contributions from them?
Councilman, as a former court administrator of Philadelphia Traffic Court, we spent the better part of years at the 9 Philadelphia Traffic Court in a number of different 10 positions. I can assure you that my experience at 11 the court with the majority of the judges during 12 that 16-year period had much to do with education. 13 Many of the judges, including former 14 Judge Ceremele, who is here today, took the time of 15 -- their own personal time -- to visit high schools 16 throughout this Philadelphia community to talk about the safe driving habits and talk about the laws and what the penalties for violating those laws would be if and when they got their licenses in the City of Philadelphia and violated any of the Motor Vehicle Codes. I'm well aware -- again, 16 years is a long time to spend with one agency. Approximately four of those years was as a court administrator. Our whole purpose was not to be a fining mill, as 191 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 some people suggest, even until today. Our whole purpose was to give folks an opportunity to be heard on a citation that was issued to them by a police officer in the interest of fairness and good government, but also an opportunity to heighten the awareness of folks and educate people to the laws governing this Commonwealth as they pertain to the Motor Vehicle Code and safe driving habits. I can expect that we will continue to do that, probably even more so, because I don't think this is the end of this issue. I think it's actually the beginning. Because over the next several months, as the City, with the PennDOT folks and the Streets Department and the Parking Authority and all the other entities, begin to install these cameras, there will probably be more awareness of red light violation issues and what that means to individual voters in the City of Philadelphia than ever before -- cumulatively ever before. This is going to be an educational process in and of itself. And I don't mean that to be an -- it's not argumentative.
Mr. Chairman, let's have an amendment that gives City Council the right 192 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to name the streets. Why do we have to go on our knees to the Parking Authority and have them intercede with the Streets Department? Why don't we say clearly in the legislation that City Council shall designate the streets, the intersections, that will be used in a pilot program. That's our power. We ought to have that.
Councilman, I personally have no problem doing that. I don't know if -- again, you're a lot more familiar with the laws, being an attorney, and I respect that. I suspect that the State's authority to supercede us in many our issues would apply again, but I'm not giving up to that.
Well, let's put the burden on them to do it. Why don't we stand up and say, "This our City." We're 17 of the 18 members that make the laws. This is an important law to the people of Philadelphia. If that's how you feel, therefore, City Council will make the decision on the intersections. Then I'd have more confidence. I don't want to maintain the system in which City Council is having the thumb thrown in its face all the time, being told, you don't count. We 193 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 in the Streets Department are going to make the decisions with the Parking Authority and, oh, we'll consult with you. That's sounds like Mayor Street telling us about things he consults with us in order to convince us that he's right. He never consults with us to discuss a problem and to try to get our input. And that's the kind of consultation we're going to get here. Let's assert our power. We have the right to name these streets and these intersections. Let's do that. We would have the right to do it.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses? Is there anyone else here to testify? Seeing none, we will actually recess for a couple of minutes. We're waiting for another Member of this Committee to return. They should be here momentarily. We will then go into our public meeting for the purpose of voting on the Bill. Thank you. Thank all of you for your patience and your testimony. I think today was one of the better meetings of this Committee in terms of the testimony. Thank you. (Public hearing recessed.) 194 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Tuesday, May 6, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 000682. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER - - - 195
I believe we will now have the public meeting of the Streets and Services Committee.
That's correct. Thank you, Madam President. The public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services is now back in session. While the amendments are being distributed, I'd just like to once again for the record, earlier this morning Council President appointed two City Council members to the Streets and Services Committee. The reason for those appointments was that yesterday we were informed that two regular members of the Streets and Services Committee did not believe that they would be in session today, so in order to ensure that we had a quorum, those two members being Council Member Jim Kenney and Council Member Michael Nutter were appointed to the Streets and Services Committee. Will the clerk please read the title of the amendments to Bill No. 000682.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The original amendments that we proposed will be changed in certain respects and the 196 following provisions will be added or changed: The original Section 12-3005 entitled Intersections at which this chapter applies, delete Subsection 1 in its entirety and the new subsection will read as follows: Automated red light enforcement systems that are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may be used to enforce this chapter 9 only at the following intersections, and as this list may be amended from time to time by ordinance.
Subsection 1 will read as follows: Automated red light enforcement systems that are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may be used to enforce this chapter 20 only at the following intersections, and as this list may be amended from time to time by ordinance, subject to the designation of such intersections by agreement of the system administrator and the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation: Subsection A, U.S. Route 1, Roosevelt Boulevard at 197 Grant Avenue, at Red Lion Road and at Cottman Street; Subsection B, Kensington Avenue at Clearfield Street; Subsection C, Richmond Street at Allegheny Avenue and at Castor Avenue; Subsection D, Aramingo Avenue at York Street; Subsection E, Thompson Street at Lehigh Avenue; Subsection F, Broad Street at Washington Avenue. Under Section 12-3012, Limitations, Section 2 will add the following provision: Section 11 2, in furtherance of Council's power to amend Section 12-30051 of the Code to revise the list of intersections at which automated red light enforcement systems may be installed, subject to the designation of such intersections by agreement of the system administrator and the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation. We have added a Section 5. Section 5 will read Non-Severability. The provisions of Section 12-30051 of the Code has added by Section 1 of this ordinance providing that automated red light enforcement systems may be used only at the intersections listed in this subsection, and as that list may be amended from time to time by ordinance, are not severable from the remaining provisions of 198 this ordinance, but are essentially and inseparably connected with all other provisions of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of Council that Council would not have enacted this ordinance or any portion of this ordinance unless such provisions of Section 12-30051 of the Code were a valid part of such enactment. That, together with the rest of the amendments that we circulated earlier.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Council Member Rizzo for the motion on the proposed amendments to Bill No. 000682. The amendments that were originally distributed to members of City Council and in addition to those amendments that included deletions and additions that have just been read into the record.
Mr. Chairman, I move for the adoption of the amendments to Bill No. 22 000682 which have been circulated to the members of the Committee. (Motion seconded.)
It's been properly 199 moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill No. 3 000682 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
The amendments are approved. The Chair recognizes Council Member Rizzo for a motion on the amended Bill 000682.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000682 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, with the recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended --
Councilman Cohen, would you please speak into the microphone.
I would request Councilman Rizzo not to include a suspension of rules in order to give additional time for thinking on this. 200
Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of City Council. (Motion seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000682 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended.
I originally had been totally opposed to this as a big brother watching you bill, but I thought the Council acted commendably on the amendments. I'm not quite sure what they achieve, but it seems to me they reassert the authority of City Council and they also limit this to a trial period, and no further step can be taken without the involvement of City Council, but I'm not absolutely certain about that and I want to be able to have opportunity to consider it further. There were a lot of questions raised at the hearings. Information is supposed to be 201 furnished to us. I think the appropriate time for action would be not rush at the next meeting, but two weeks from now. And, therefore, if the motion remains as it is, instead of abstaining as I was intending to do, I will have to vote no on this.
To the sponsor of the bill, there's been a request that you withdraw the motion to suspend the rules for one week. What is your pleasure?
So be it. There's a motion on the floor to report Bill No. 000682 out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Motion seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
Let the record reflect that Councilman Cohen is voting no. 4 Thank you all of you for your patience and time at this hearing. This now concludes -- Councilman Rizzo.
Do we have to vote on the amendments or did we do that?
We did. That was done. Thank all of our for your attendance today. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. (Streets and Services Committee adjourned at 3:50 p.m.) - - - 203 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 6, 2003, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ LISA BRADLEY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)