Good afternoon, Mr. Emerson. Please set your name for the record and begin your testimony on the bills.
Good day, Council Chairman. My name is Lester Emerson, deputy manager for the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Thank you for allowing me to testify before Council regarding bills two 240183, 240184, and 240191, establishing parking regulations. The Philadelphia Parking Authority has no objection to the ordinances previously read before Council and recommends favorable consideration. Should I go by the other ones as well? Okay. Thank -- once again, thank you for allowing me to testify before Council regarding ordinance 240334, amending parking permit District 40 to allow additional streets to participate in the residential parking program and ordinance 240335, amending temporary parking permits. This amendment will increase the amount 240119, ETC. of days residents can apply and will increase the fee. The Philadelphia Parking Authority has no 4 objection to the ordinances previously read before Council and recommends favorable consideration. Thank you again for your time. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Are there any questions by members of the committee on these bills? Seeing none, is there any member -- any other person in the chamber that's looking to testify on bill number 240183 or 240184, 240191, 24034 or 240335? Yeah. Mr., Mr. Emerson, thank you for your testimony. No 15 questions for you.
Mr. Pullin, would you please call the witnesses for 240335?
The next witnesses to testify are Derek Lombardi, senior planner at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and Michael Fichman, associate professor of practice in the Department of City & Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania's Weitzman School of Design. 240119, ETC.
Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I'm Derek Lombardi, senior planner at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
I'm Michael Fichman. I'm an associate professor of practice.
Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Young, Committee Vice Chair Squilla, and other members of the committee and Council. As I mentioned, I'm a planner at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, also known as DVRPC. We serve as the metropolitan planning organization for the Greater Philadelphia region, working with five Pennsylvania counties, including the City of Philadelphia and four New Jersey counties. DVRPC manages the region's Transportation Improvement Program, Program or TIP and its long-range plan, both of which are federally-mandated resources to ensure orderly 240119, ETC. growth and development in the region. And as a member of the Office of Smart Growth, I support the goals and vision identified in that long- range plan by performing analyses and producing planning studies at the request of our members. In 2020 and 2021, our office conducted research on residential parking management strategies at the request of the City of Philadelphia, specifically the Planning Commission. Much of this research focused on residential parking permit programs and what reforms can help the city respond to changing conditions in its neighborhoods. The study named Spot Check, strategies for managing residential parking in Philadelphia, was published in 2021. And the purpose of my testimony is to highlight trends and share key takeaways from our research as it relates to bill 20 number 240335. I should begin by noting that street parking is a key part of our city's transportation system, and it needs active management to ensure it works effectively and adds value to the community. Yet, insufficient residential parking 240119, ETC. was identified as a serious issue in Philadelphia as far back as 1962 and remains a particular challenge here due to the fact that many residential areas were built up before vehicle use was common. Today, as it was then, on-street parking policy is fundamentally an effort to manage demand for an unchanging supply. Population growth and other factors have escalated parking challenges in Philadelphia. The city's first Residential Parking Permit or RPP districts were established in 1982. And the program functions much as it always has in of these changes. Signs that a given RPP district may be under stress include high occupancy rates, despite the widespread adoption of permit restrictions, long parking search times, and the need to park far from one's destination. Local examples of this have already manifested. A 2013 analysis by RCOs covering Parking District in Southwest Center City suggested that there were nearly two parking permits issued for every one permit regulated space. Other recent Planning Commission research 240119, ETC. found nighttime parking occupancy rates of 107 percent in Fairmount and 97 percent in Fishtown. During the course of our study, three themes emerged. The first is that demographic, socio- economic, and development trends have led to a significant increase in the number of cars owned by Philadelphia residents. The parking permit program was established in an era of declining population. Conversely, at the time of our research, the city was experiencing its 13th consecutive year of population growth while average household size, rates of vehicle ownership, and development activity, as measured by building permits, also ticked upward. Between 2010 and 2018, 0 car households declined by almost 13,000, despite overall households increasing by nearly 33,000. Furthermore, we estimated that the number of cars in Philadelphia increased at a faster rate than the number of people. The second theme is that parking demand varies across neighborhoods and permit districts and depends on 240119, ETC. historic development patterns, the distribution and character of new residential development, household size and composition, income, travel needs, and proximity to transit. As such, RPP policies may need to incorporate more flexible standards.
In recent years, increases have occurred in both the number of commuters who drove alone to work and in the share of Philadelphians who work outside of the city's boundaries. Moreover, much of Philadelphia's population, housing unit, and income growth has occurred in denser areas where parking challenges were already more acute. The third theme is that attitudes and approaches to parking management have changed since the RPP program was initiated, providing our city with an opportunity to review and amend its policies to reinforce recent transportation and sustainability goals. Where once the parking program was identified as too little -- too little supply, it is now increasingly viewed as an inadequate management of existing supply and perhaps even too much supply in some places. Our study examined parking policies in 240119, ETC. nine other North American cities. And our report outlines eight potentially relevant policy changes across three, permit eligibility, permit cost, and the process of establishing or modifying districts. The proposed amendment considers three such changes, a household permit cap, higher permit fees, and a new visitor or temporary permit policy and fees. First, the proposed amendment would establish a cap of three permits per household. Five of the nine cities we surveyed had implemented some, some sort of household based permit cap. Baltimore and Seattle limited all households to four permits, while Austin, Texas, and San Francisco enforced different restrictions based on neighborhood context. Portland, Oregon restricted households in some districts to one permit per licensed driver and three per housing unit. Based on Philadelphia's 2018 permit data, enacting a citywide cap of three permits per household would theoretically remove 232 vehicles from permit- restricted streets. Since the vast majority of 240119, ETC. participating households only obtain one or two permits, restrictions that reduce eligibility to fewer than three permits would have a more dramatic impact. A cap of two permits per household would remove another 1,200 additional vehicles. The second provision under consideration is raising the cost to obtain parking permits from $35 for the first permit, with a graduated pricing scheme for each additional vehicle to a flat fee of $75 per minute. Pricing reforms are popular. However, setting effective and fair prices can be complex. Here are some ways to think about it. Permit holders typically pay only a fraction of a parking spot's market value. The existing $35 annual fee means that users pay less than $3 per month. By comparison, parking on a metered street costs nearly the same amount for an hour, while the average cost of a reserved monthly parking space is $275, translating to roughly $3,300 a year. The typical disparities in cost for transit or bike share passes also raise equity concerns and 240119, ETC. incentivize vehicle travel over other modes. Currently, a monthly SEPTA TransPass costs $96 over $1,100 in a year. And an annual bike share membership through Indego is $230, still more than six times as expensive as a street parking permit. The average permit cost in the cities we surveyed was $61. Our $35 fee is more expensive than Austin, Baltimore, Boston and Pittsburgh but cheaper than Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Toronto. At 200 -- $626, the cost of a second permit in Toronto was more than three times greater than the, the cost of the first permit. Our study advisor suggested that the current fees do not even come close to covering the cost of the program, particularly as the number of permit streets and users have grown. This suggests that raising permit prices in the name of cost recovery and more effective parking management may be feasible. We further commend the bill amendment for offering a fee waiver for the first permitted vehicle in low-income households. The amendment also proposes updated visitor or temporary 240119, ETC.
parking fees with a $7 single-day pass and 15, 30, and 60 day passes that cost $5 per day. In pier cities, visitor parking accommodations varied widely. Some offered annual visitor parking passes to residents, ranging in cost from $1 in Pittsburgh to $75 in Portland. Most offered residents daily or other short-term visitor permits, as would continue to be the case here in Philadelphia. C. to $35 for one week in Toronto. Several cities also placed caps on visitor passes. In Austin and San Francisco, the limit was 20-day passes per month, while in Baltimore the limit was just 4. Toronto limits temporary permits to a maximum of eight consecutive weeks at a time. To conclude, no single parking management strategy can solve Philadelphia's challenge of too many cars competing for too few curbside spaces. Parking issues are multifaceted and require a comprehensive approach in combination with land use and transportation planning. And instituting any reforms will require trade-offs between efficacy, convenience, 240119, ETC. ease of administration and enforcement, and importantly, equity. Our report includes several other strategies that could be incorporated into the RPP program and concludes by presenting a series of guiding principles that can help Philadelphia decision-makers optimize parking policy. They include establishing clear, clear criteria for how potential changes will be evaluated, engaging stakeholders and the public, differentiating or layering different strategies in different parts of the city, and starting small. DVRPC supports the city's efforts to engage with parking management at this time. And we encourage everyone to review the report online or in the hard copies provided today. Thank you for your time. And I look forward to your responses or questions.
Thank you so much. Mr. Fichman, proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Hello. My name is Michael Fichman. And I'm an associate professor of practice, Department of City & Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania. As a 240119, ETC. matter of disclosure, I'm involved with the city in a couple capacities. I serve on an advisory board to the Commerce Department's nighttime economy director, member of city council's arts and culture task force. I'm not here in either of those capacities, but I just figured I'd mention. And I've always appreciated working with you when it comes to those other issues. I'm here to offer my observations as a researcher and city planner who -- I'm familiar with transportation behavior and evaluation of parking programs. And I want to explain why I think curb congestion is occurring and offer some ideas for finding some appropriate goals. My sense is the core issue that we're talking about here is not that the curb is too congested. It's that too many people own cars, and there's not enough place to put them. And so, the question we should be asking is, what, what are our goals? We should be trying to get cars out of the city. What do we need to do to get cars out of the city? Do we need to change prices or do we need to offer more transit 240119, ETC. alternatives? My colleague from DVRPC has done fantastic research. I really encourage you to, to read it. It details a lot of this parking issue from, like, soup to nuts, tail to snout. A couple facts that I pulled out of reading that report, that, you know, Philadelphia's population is growing. The number of cars is growing faster than the number of people is growing. But the job market is very regional, so a lot of people have no choice but to drive. So you own a car because it gets you where you need to go, and it gets you where you need to go better than whatever your alternatives are. And you're willing to bear that cost. The costs are not high enough to depress the rates of car ownership or the -- or the alternatives are not good enough. So what happens when we have too many cars? People cruise around looking for parking. They cause street congestion that can be up to 30 percent of traffic in cities, in some cases. Sometimes cities put in place, like, mandatory parking requirements, which drive up 240119, ETC. the cost of land. They induce more driving. They're really bad for the environment. Fortunately, we're getting away from that sort of thing here. Some people respond to congestion by moving. " "I'm going to leave this neighborhood. " Those are, obviously, things we'd like to try to avoid. And some people will switch to taking the bus or the train. And the question is, really, what do I do when I need to get somewhere? Does something get me from my door to where I work or where I need to go, buy some groceries, efficiently, cost effectively? People make very complicated calculations, and they vary from household to household, depending on how much money you earn, where you need to go, where your job is. So this curb problem is a symptom of auto dependency. And the core issue is the lack of alternatives. Addressing this requires SEPTA services, rideshare, bike infrastructure, car infrastructure, things that give you a good 240119, ETC. alternative to buying a car or bringing a car to a neighborhood that you want to move to because you have some place of, you know, employment that requires you to drive. So we need to consider where jobs are going. They should be in transit, accessible places. So this is a broader question, maybe, than, than just pricing. I honestly don't know, from -- based on my research and reading literature, whether small upticks in fees of 10s of dollars or even 100s of dollars are enough to affect the choices of car owners. Are those enough to make you sell your car? Are those enough to dissuade you from moving into You do a neighborhood with your car? And so, the market -- we know the market costs to store a car. In some neighborhoods it can be thousands of dollars, right.
That's what parking, parking garage operators are willing to sell you a parking space for in some places. How large a fee is needed for someone to sell their car? I, I don't know. We don't know how sensitive drivers are to these costs. If the optimal fee is really high, you have to -- or even if it's just 10s or 100s of 240119, ETC. dollars, you got to think, what does that do to the household who has no alternative but to drive? That's essentially imposing some sort of fee or, or tax on them. And they have no 7 flexibility with their demand to drive. They have a job in the suburbs. They have to be there. So I suggest the city and its transit partners try to set goals. How many cars should there be in Philadelphia? How congested should the curbs be? You could set goals district to district. And then you can estimate the fees by surveying drivers and doing other kinds of research. What are the fees? What are the transit alternatives that would cause you to move from a car to something else? And that is one car that comes off the road, if you can optimize that correctly. So good parking management programs have optimization goals that they strive for with their -- with their funding formula or their fees. Lastly, I, I urge you to dismiss arguments you might hear from parking, that 240119, ETC. market pricing parking is a revenue opportunity for the city. The city is not a parking garage. The city is -- the government of the city manages public goods. They're trying to manage the curb for access, to make people's lives better. If we just wanted to make money from the real estate that's under city control, we'd turn the parks into, like, steel mills or something, right? The park -- the curb is a public good, and we should try to manage it in a way that makes people's lives better and makes -- you know, provides for more equitable outcomes. So my hope is that the city can act, you know, sort of deliberately and holistically and think about how fees and management and coordination with transit partners, using fees to fund transit alternatives, whether these kinds of things are feasible to come up with a long-term solution to the problem. Again, I encourage you to read the research that my colleague provided. I think it's really great. And I'm happy to provide any answers or support on these matters that I can. Thank you. 240119, ETC.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions of this -- of these witnesses by members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you so much for your -- I'm sorry -- I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Ahmad. Sorry.
Do these -- maybe I'm just gonna write it. It's too hard to -- They would have a place to park their car and those are the automated parking structures that you put one car down.
So Councilmember Ahmad's question is, essentially, have we thought of different ways to alleviate parking in our communities, such as, like, delayed parking and, and things like that, and subsidized parking.
So you can walk to your house, but you still got your car nearby.
Our report does have a number of other strategies. I mentioned the few that relate to the bill language today, but one of the amendments that already went into the legislation a few years ago has a layered strategy, I think, in District 38, where, you 240119, ETC. know, a few different rules are in place that do not allow residents of a multifamily building that has its own structured parking in, I think, the River Wards area to, to receive a, a district permit pass. And we think that there's room for this type of layering and different strategies. And maybe I didn't quite understand the question as it was telephoned towards me, but the -- in terms of the, the pricing, I mean, we, we noted that the, the, the discount or the waiver that was offered for the first fee for low-income households, that was something that we've seen done in other cities with, with different pricing models for different parts of the city as well. Not necessarily based on income, but just based on the, the, the capacity or the over subscription for a certain parking district that may warrant charging different rates or just using different policies in the areas of the city where the parking crunch is most severe.
Can I add? That -- the city has the ability to enable dynamic pricing programs. These are really good in places that 240119, ETC. have some commercial activity where if you're trying to, like, disentangle parking policy between residents and visitors to the neighborhood, you can tune prices up and down to get the right levels of occupancy. It's a little harder if it's super congested with residential vehicles. This has been done in Pittsburgh. And I've had conversations with people at Otis and other places where this is something that people, you know, have shown some interest in doing in some of the mixed-use areas of the city. And that might be able to drive down some congestion.
Thank you. Are there any questions of these witnesses? Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Pullin, will you please call the name of the next witnesses?
The next witnesses testify are William Tung, fire captain for the Philadelphia Fire Department and Russell Richie, associate director of cognitive science at the University of Pennsylvania.
Hi. Good afternoon -- good 240119, ETC. afternoon, Chairman Young, Vice Chair Squilla. I am here on behalf of 5th Square, definitely not on behalf of my day job. Hi. My name is Will Tung. I'm a Steering Committee member at 5h Square and I live in Southwest Philly, in Kingsessing, where I'm the block captain of the 5100 Block of Springfield Avenue. I'm testifying in support of bill 10 240335, which will bring about small reforms to our residential permit parking system. And I want to push this Council body to consider additional changes to more equitably allocate our scarce on-street parking. On my residential block in Kingsessing, at the urging of my older neighbors, I successfully petitioned for permit parking. Before we had RPP, we faced a variety of challenges with parked cars, mostly due to lack of enforcement. Folks with out-of-state plates would leave their cars in our block for months at a time. I had a car abandoned in front of my house for a full year. We had one neighbor that just parked directly in front of the fire hydrant every night. That was his, like, 240119, ETC. personal parking spot. All of these problems disappeared once we received RPP and we received consistent enforcement, but -- and, and to me, solving these quality of life issues is well worth the annual fee of RPP. And stories like these are common. And this is why we at 5th Square believe that RPP policy is an essential tool to supporting Philadelphia's transportation and quality of life objectives. We believe RPP must also evolved to meet the needs of our changing city. Some of the challenges we see RPP policy could address, right? There's a disparity in costs between permits and a SEPTA TransPass. If you own a SEPTA TransPass and you, you pay the monthly cost of a SEPTA TransPass, that's 33 more -- times more expensive than a $35 parking permit. A DVRPC study, Spot Check, which you guys should all have, it showed that between 2010 and 2018, Philadelphia increased more cars than it did people. And we were among the 50 largest cities in the US. We, we saw the greatest increase in cars or greatest percentage increase. Also, in 240119, ETC. Permit Zone 1, in Southwest Center City, it found that for every two permits issued, there's one parking space. There's not enough parking spots for the amount of permits that are being issued. So I, I urge Council to consider using RPP as an essential strategy in reducing parking demand in our most stressed permit districts. So, like, our, our -- the crux of our argument is a parking spot in Kingsessing or Olney shouldn't cost as much as a parking spot in Center City. And you guys should have also received this book, Paved Paradise by Henry Grabar. It's a wonderful book, and it talks about kind of parking science. There's a whole science behind parking and --published last year. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Vice Chair Squilla, and members of City Council. My name is Russell Richie. I'm a Steering Committee member with 5th Square. I work professionally as a data scientist and cognitive scientist with the University of Pennsylvania. But today I'm also - - I'm just here in my capacity as a member of 5th 240119, ETC. Square. So I think the problems that Will described and the previous panelists described and I think that this bill is largely addressed at solving, we think they can be addressed by recognizing that our streets are public land. And that when someone takes that public land to store a private vehicle, they are excluding the rest of the public from that space. That means that the public should be compensated with the -- for the loss of that space, according to what the land is actually worth. And there are various methods to figure out what parking land is worth, which previous panelists have described, dynamic pricing, auctioning off only as many permits as we have spaces, things like that. We can describe and we should -- excuse me. We should discuss which method is best for us. But I want to point out that we already do compensate the public when a private citizen occupies a piece of land. There is a mechanism for this that we can look at that will get us in the ballpark for RPP pricing. And I'm talking, 240119, ETC. 4 percent tax on land that all landowners pay as part of their property tax. 4 percent of the value of the land a parking space takes up, which is about 160 square feet. So in other words, if you owned 100 square feet vacant land in a given RPP zone, what would your property tax be each year? I've analyzed this with both OPA's assessments and my own independent model of land values. I'll be happy to answer questions about the details and differences between these approaches, but they both generally lead to the same conclusions. So if you look at the map that's projected -- and I believe you all also have a copy of this. There's a -- there's a map for OPA and a map for my independent model. But if you look just at the OPA map, you can see that the tax liability on a parking space worth of land in the center city zones starts at $202 per year. In permit 5 -- Permit Zone -- excuse me. Permit Zone 5 is actually over $400. But then in zones in far North 240119, ETC. Philly, the tax liability is between $35. and $44 and other zones throughout the city are somewhere in between. So for me, this all raises the question, why do we so often charge less for storing a personal car, which is often not a necessity in various parts of our city, like Center City? Why do we charge less for storing a personal car than we charge for occupying land for the fundamental human right of housing? Okay. The other aspect here that I want to highlight -- I'm sorry, my notes are a little out of order -- is that the tax liability on a parking space worth of land is much higher than the current RPP price of $35 per year and even more than the $75 in Councilmember Squilla's proposed bill. But also, that liability varies greatly throughout the city. So a flat permit price of $35 or even $75 is therefore a massive subsidy to the richer, whiter residents in Center City and South Philly and a regressive tax on our poorer black and brown residents in North and West Philly. So 240119, ETC. what impact would this or similar methods of pricing have on the problems we identified earlier? Fewer people would use cars, especially in the denser parts of the city that are already congested and polluted, and which are most walkable, bikeable, transit-rich and where demand for parking outstrips supply. More people would use healthier, cleaner, cheaper, and more sustainable modes of transportation. And the remaining RPP holders would have an easier time finding parking in those zones. So to conclude, we, again, express our support for Council taking up this bill.
We support capping the number of permits per residence, raising the permit fee, and allowing the PPA to adjust the fee by regulation rather than ordinance. What we advocate for, however, is that we shouldn't charge a flat, regressive RPP fee. Instead, PPA and Council should consider pricing the RPP according to market indicators of parking or land value in a different RPP zones and update those prices 240119, ETC. regularly, every one to three years. This will lead to a healthier, more efficient, equitable, and sustainable Philadelphia for all. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your testimony. I mean, I just have one question, based on your analysis. You know, it - - for me, this analysis would then create a right to park. If, if we're charging folks to park based on the value of that land, then for me, we, we may then create this right, right? And is parking a right?
-- question. So I think what you're getting at is that -- like, land ownership, which we charge the land and property tax for, that, that gives you the right to exclude everyone else from a particular parcel. And, of course, that's not the way the RPP exactly works at the moment and doesn't guarantee that you can, in fact, find a space at all. If we increase the price of the permit in the ways that, you know, I'm suggesting here or according to auctions or looking at private 240119, ETC. parking, whatever, it would get you very -- you know, it would -- it would make more available parking spaces, right? And thereby make it much more similar to you outright owning a slice of the city street, I think.
So then that will only benefit the most wealthy folks in that city, essentially.
So I think, I mean, based on that analysis, it will only benefit the -- those that are -- that are more wealthier in our city.
Well, I would say a few things. I think, you know, as a previous panelist mentioned, we can have certain kind of income-based sort of discounts for the, the price of the permit, like other cities do. I would also point out that, you know, if we think about, again, the streets as public space, right now people who own cars are getting that space for far less than it's worth, right? And that comes at the cost of everybody 240119, ETC. else -- excuse me -- who doesn't drive, who walks, who, who rides a bike, who takes transit, who uses these more efficient forms of transportation. So, you know, I think -- I think -- I think we can -- both of those sorts of perspectives are kind of important here.
So what do you do in, in areas that are gentrified, right, where the values are continually to outpace some of the incomes in certain communities, even if they're not necessarily low-income, right? But the values are still tripling, you know, quadrupling in some places.
I said, so what do you do in instances, right, based on your, your theory here, when the values are outpacing, you know, incomes in certain areas, particularly if they're, like, quadrupling in certain areas? I know I represent areas of North Philadelphia where my property or, or my block is assessed at 35,000, to, to be honest. But there's a house that's being developed that's 240119, ETC. going to sell for 400,000 on that same block. So then what do you do -- under your theory, what do you do then for, for parking?
Yeah. So thank you for the question. It is a good question. And I think part of the solution to that may again come in certain kinds of, like, income-based discounts. You know, we have certain kinds of --
But I'm not low- income, right? So, like, I'm not low-income, so I won't qualify for that discount. But my parking is going to be 120 or, you know, $200 now.
Yeah. Well, we have similar kinds of relief programs for property taxes. And, you know, certain kinds of things for certain kinds of sensitive groups could be triggered here, circuit breakers, things like that. You know, there could be maybe restrictions on -- you know, to a certain percent increase per year. There's various kinds of things that we can tinker wit, I think. I do think, though, you know, the core of this problem, too many cars for not enough 240119, ETC. spaces, right, that's because we underprice the permit right now. So I think as long as we have that, a super cheap permit price, we're going to have congestion.
Thank you. Council -- Chair recognizes Councilmember Bass.
Thank you. So I, I -- just a couple of things that came to mind. And, and you don't have to respond. I'm, I'm not really looking for a response here because we could probably be here all night long. But a couple of things just occurred to me and one is that in, in, in your conversation in the proposals that you offer, I don't really hear what the impact will be in terms of -- like, how are people supposed to move around? I give up my car --
--which is the intended effect. And then -- and then what? Because, you know, if -- listen, I think that 240119, ETC. people have acquired so many cars. And I think that, you know, it's like almost, like, one car per man, woman, and child in Philadelphia. But people have acquired so many cars because they don't want to ride public transportation. And I don't hear in your conversation anything about improving stuff. Maybe it's in your documents. And, you know, we haven't had a chance to read them all, but I just don't hear anything that says, this is what is going to happen. You know, there --
And so, what -- the reaction will be how it will impact all of us. And, and the assumption that, okay, everybody is either going to ride a bike or everybody is going to get on SEPTA are just unrealistic expectations and, and theory. So, you know, like I said, you don't have to go into it today, but I just would like to hear in the future, as we have this 240119, ETC. conversation because I don't think it's going away because we do have a lot of cars on the road. And we have a congestion problem. We have a -- you know, an environmental problem, you know, which requires us to deal with it. But, again, if we get rid of our cars, what are we telling people that they should be doing? And that isn't really a part of what I'm seeing being presented.
In, in the Spot Check report, it talks about parking benefit districts. You know, it's a little bit outside of the scope of this parking permit legislation. The Spot Check report talks about Portland. And, and they created a parking benefit district where folks pay the meter. That money goes to that neighborhood, folks who live in that neighborhood. And it actually goes to subsidize the cost of transit passes for low-income folks 240119, ETC. in that neighborhood.
Well -- and that sounds great. You know, I'm all for that. But I think that the reason people don't want to ride SEPTA is they feel that it's dirty, and they feel that it's unsafe. And so, that doesn't go to address how SEPTA is a partner in this kind of conversation because it behooves them to have more ridership. They have more riders. And they can hopefully, you know, like, better maintain the system that they have. And people will feel safe. And they'll, you know, they'll have the ability to hire more patrol officers to, you know, be on buses and be on the subway and be on the L and all that kind of thing. But, you know, it, it, it -- I think that there's nobody who wants to pay for the cost of a car, insurance, repairs, gas, versus a, you know, $30 TransPass or whatever the amount is for a TransPass, a key card. You would probably prefer $30 over all of the other cars. But with that $30 comes so much that people don't want to ride that system. So I think that that has to be 240119, ETC. a part of your conversation.
I'll just add real quick that I, I very much appreciate that question. And I absolutely agree that this --I think there's a broader conversation here about sort of improvements to transit. And I will add, and I think one of the previous panelists mentioned -- and this is also part of the 5th Square platform -- that, you know, if we increase these kinds of fees, right, that's potentially money to go to transport, right. That, you know, can make SEPTA a more viable alternative for more people. And we could subsidize Indego passes, you know. There's various kinds of things I think we could do that make alternatives to cars more feasible.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Is there anyone else here to testify on bill number 240335?
Please proceed. Come up. Thank you so much. Can you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony?
Sure. My name is Jessie Amadio. Good afternoon, Chairperson Young and the rest of the committee members. I'm a board member with Philly Bike Action!, which is a safe streets advocacy group. I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on Councilman Squilla's bill to reform the, the residential parking permits. And I want to just say that I really appreciated the recommendations from the DVRPC, definitely experts in it more than me. This is more of a public comment and just my experience living in Philadelphia. Like myself, according to census data, around 20 percent of households in South Philly don't have 21 an accessory to a vehicle. And neighborhoods in 22 North Philly, that number is sometimes well over 23 50 percent. So while there are a lot of cars in 24 the road, there are a lot of people in the city 25 that can't afford vehicles. They're just priced 240119, ETC. out of that altogether. And we do take SEPTA, and we -- and we walk. And we, you know, we do wish that it was better funded and, and cleaner, for sure. But that's, that's how we live in this city. And yet, valuable public land is sort of being given away for private property storage and this sort of dirt cheap permit pricing. And, like, in some neighborhoods, like where I live, there's not much permit at all. It incentivizes car ownership to the extent that, like, the spots, which are already limited, they're parked to the point that they're overflowing. They're in our crosswalks. They're blocking handicap cut-outs. They're creating, like, a really frustrating quality of life issue. And it sounds like the PPA, as this program expands, like, doesn't have the resources to really enforce it the way that it -- that it should be. So, you know, I have many friends. You know -- you know, I have a -- I have a pretty good job, you know, but my friends, my peers that live in Center City and South Philly, you know, 240119, ETC. they have cars, but they don't really use them. They talk idly about getting rid of them one day because they live in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods and -- but they keep their car for the odd trip, you know, the odd vacation here and there because it's so cheap that -- to get a permit that they can just, you know, use our streets like a permanent long-term storage parking garage, you know. And those are the people who, I think, can -- it's a choice for them, whether they have a car or not when there's plenty of people who live in neighborhoods where it's just not even accessible because the cars are taking over the roads. And it's a real equity issue, I believe. And so, you know, I think that I really support this bill passing. And I urge Council to go further and allow for progressive pricing, you know. $35, even $75 is still effectively free to a middle class household in Center City. And they could bear a much higher cost compared to a household in North Philly. And I strongly support the reform bill. And I hope that you'll 240119, ETC. allow PPA to regulate progressive, equitable pricing that won't overburden low-income residents but can correct for the massively undervalued asset of public space in high-income areas. Thank you very much.
Hi. My name is Mason Carter. Thank you so much for having us today. I would like to also voice my support for this bill. You know, I think that as somebody -- I'm in a single-car household, and -- but I've also had near neighbors that have had up to five cars in the neighborhood. And so, I think that having that cap at three is really important for this bill. I'd even say two, but let's, you know, work towards that. And hopefully or ultimately, the city can really think about getting to that goal of, if we're going to have people who own cars, getting it down to single-car households. And I think that's a really good goal that this city can pursue. Ultimately, $75 makes a lot of sense for the, the onset of this. I think we should work more towards progressive, dynamic pricing. But when you think about it with 240119, ETC. inflation, I mean, we haven't had an increase to the permit for -- since, like, the 80s. So it, it really makes sense, especially when you think of it in an equity issue. You know, transit riders have had fare increases. And, you know, we, as transit riders, spend a lot more than on parking permits. And a lot of low -income people rely on transit. And so, that sort of gets to the point as well that, you know, we need to think about, you know, besides for increased enforcement, for -- being able to -- so that the PPA can do their jobs and decrease the amount of parking. what are the benefits to increasing this? I mean, for drivers, it's clearly not having to circle their blocks for 15, 20, minutes at a time, just to 18 look at a spot and then potentially using those 19 extra funds towards public transportation. 20 You know, we were talking about how 21 people are less inclined to ride the system 22 because it's not clean. It's not safe. But 23 these are also city issues that are spilling onto 24 the transit system where SEPTA has become, with 25 the funds that they have, so overwhelmed with. 240119, ETC. And so, this could be a good potential tool so that the city can increase funding for more frequent cleaning and -- as well as increase in public safety. And then, yeah, finally, I think that, you know, we clearly do see that, you know, in parking. There's neighborhoods where the parking -- there's a big crunch. And so, I think that, you know, we just have to communicate the benefit to the drivers, that, you know, this is something that ultimately you'll get a much better service with your parking permit than currently where it's not a good service. You know, it's -- it takes too long to find a spot. So the price increase will go a long way to help that. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any other questions of these witnesses? Seeing none, again, thank you. Mr. Pullin, are there any other witnesses testifying on this bill?
Thank you. Mr. 240119, ETC. Pullin, can you read the list of those that submitted testimony for the record?
Written testimony has been provided by Jennifer Rodriguez of the Philadelphia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on bill 7 number 240331 and the DVRPC, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission has submitted their report, Spot Check, strategies for managing residential parking in Philadelphia , for bill 11 number 240335.
Thank you. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. We will now end the public hearing and go into the public meeting. I note for the record that a quorum of the committee is present. The chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to bill 19 number 240282.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer amendment to bill number 240282. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to bill number 240282 be adopted. 240119, ETC.
Thank you so much. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to bill number 240282 be adopted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.)
Those opposed? Ayes have it. Bill number 240282 has been adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to bill 13 number 240301.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer technical amendment to bill 16 number 240301. A copy of that amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. And I move that the amendment to bill number 240301 be adopted.
Thank you. It has been moved and properly seconded that bill 23 number 240301 be amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.) 240119, ETC.
Those opposed? Ayes have it. The motion carries, and bill 4 number 240301 has -- the motion has been adopted. Mr. -- the Chair recognized Councilmember Squilla for a motion on amendment to bill number 240302.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer amendment to bill number 240302. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. And I move that amendment to bill number 240302 be adopted.
It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to bill 15 number 240302 be adopted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.)
Those opposed? Ayes have it. The motion carries, and amendment to bill number 240302 has been adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to bill number 240331.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer amendment to bill number 240331. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to 240119, ETC. all members of the committee. And I move that the amendment to bill number 240331 be adopted.
Thank you. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to bill number 240331 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.)
All opposed? Ayes have it. The motion carries, and amendment to bill number 240331 has been adopted. The chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to bill number 240335.
Thank you, Mr. chair. I offer amendment to bill number 240335. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. And I move that the amendment to bill number 240335 be adopted.
Thank you. It is moved in properly seconded that the amendment to bill number 240335 be adopted. All those in favor signify by saying aye 240119, ETC. (Chorus of ayes.)
Those opposed? Ayes have it. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment to bill number 240335 has been adopted. For the record, the Chair notes that -- the presence of Councilmember Kendra Brooks. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on bills number 240119, 240183, 240184, 240191, 240221, 240239, 240240, 240243, 240250, 240282 as amended, 240301 as amended, 240302 as amended, 240329, 240331 as amended, 240344, and 240335 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that bills numbers 240119, 240183, 240184, 240191, 240221, 240239, 240240, 240243, 240250, 240228 as amended, 240301 as amended, 240302 as amended, 240329, 240331 as amended, 240334, and 240335 as amended be reported from this committee with the favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended that the permitted -- suspended to permit the first reading of this bill to next session of Council.
Thank you. It has been moved and properly seconding that bills number 240119, 240183, 240184, 240191, 240221, 240239, 240240, 240243, 240250, 240228 as amended, 240301 as amended, 240302 as amended, 240329, 240331 as amended, 240334, and 234 -- 240335 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit the first reading of these bills at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.)
Those opposed? Ayes have it. The motion carries, and bills number 240119, 240183, 240184, 240191, 240221, 240239, 240240, 24024, 240250, 240282 as amended, 240301 as amended, 240302 as amended, 240329, 240331 as amended, 240334, and 240335 as amendment will be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit the first -- with a request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next 240119, ETC. session of Council. This concludes the business before the Committee of Streets and Services today. Thank you so much for your attendance, everyone. (The meeting was adjourned) 240119, ETC. CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTIONIST I, MARY KARANJA, Legal Transcriptionist, do hereby certify: That the foregoing is a complete and true transcription of the original digital audio recording of the proceedings captured in the foregoing matter. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of May, 2024. ______________________________________ Mary Karanja