VOLUME II COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:30 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A NUTTER, CHAIRMAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER RESOLUTION 050148 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities to hold public hearings to investigate the operations of CSX Transportation [CSX] in and around the City of Philadelphia and their impact on the public health, safety and welfare of the residents... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 110
This is the Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities. This is a continuation of a hearing regarding Resolution No. 050148. I'm Councilman Nutter, Chair of the Committee. Committee members in attendance presently are Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Kelly. This is a resolution 11 authorizing City Council's Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities to hold public hearings to investigate the operations of CSX Transportation, also known as CSXT, in and around the City of Philadelphia and their impact on the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Philadelphia, and authorizing the issuance of subpoenas by the Chair of the Committee to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under Section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter. We have a witness list. The 111 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 first person to speak today will be Mr. Richard Glazer. Mr. Glazer, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. I'm Richard Glazer, Senior Advisor to the Managing Director. I'm here today in connection with a request made by you, Mr. Chairman, at the October 18th, 2005 hearing with regard to convening a committee to study and report back concerning transportation of hazardous materials. In that connection, a status report today. At this time, the Law Department, specifically attorneys from the Regulatory Affairs unit and specifically the Environmental Division of that unit, are meeting with and exploring with an existing committee, Philadelphia Local Emergency Planning Committee, under the Director of the Office of Emergency Management, and in that connection, a report will be 112 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 forthcoming from those folks. The second part of this is, later on in the hearing, Mr. Chairman, you had expanded the request to relate to odor, noise issues and other Health Department issues. In that connection today, present to provide testimony are two witnesses from the Department of Public Health, Mr. Fey and Mr. Ferraro, and I would request, with your permission, that they be able to provide that testimony at this point.
Absolutely. Why don't you have them come up. We've also been joined at the Committee by Council President Verna.
Good afternoon, Chairman Nutter and members of the Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities. My name is Roger Fey, Engineering Supervisor, Air Management Services in the Department of Public Health, and with me today is William Ferraro, Director of Vector Control 113 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Services. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the resolution on CSX Transportation operations in Philadelphia. One of the responsibilities of the Department of Public Health is to investigate environmental conditions that will lead to the spread of disease or injury or creates public nuisance. In this role, we respond to requests from the public and other City agencies to investigate complaints of odor complaints and insanitary or unsafe conditions in public places. Under the Philadelphia Health and Air Management Codes, the Department of Public Health has jurisdiction in public places on matters concerning environmental and air pollution nuisances and conditions such as rodent infestations and the emissions of odors. Environmental regulations associated with the storage, transportation and disposal of solid 114 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 waste are enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which is the permitting agency for solid waste handling entities under the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Act. The following are issues the Philadelphia Department of Public Health has had during recent years with CSX. Location: East shore of Schuylkill River near 25th and Locust, south street siding. The Department of Public Health, Air Management Services Division, AMS, in response to odor complaints performed inspections for this location on the following dates: September 1st, 2nd, 3rd, October 28th, November 1st, 2nd, 19th, and December 8th of 2004. No violations issued. However, on July 16, 2004, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, PADEP, responded to a complaint regarding rail cars spotted at CSX Transportation's south street siding. During this investigation, PADEP observed a strong 115 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 putrescent odor and issued a Notice of Violation, NOV, to CSX on July 28, 2004. It is our understanding that CSX responded to this NOV on September 3, 2004, in which CSX indicated they requested the shipper to increase the amount of odor enzyme to be applied to the municipal solid waste, MSW, and they informed the trainmaster to no longer locate these types of rail cars near residential neighborhoods when operational considerations allow. In addition, PADEP performed a second inspection in response to a complaint on September 1st, 2004. During this inspection, PADEP once again observed strong odors and issued an NOV to CSX on September 3rd, 2004. In the CSX response to this NOV, CSX agreed to continue to move the trains to areas that do not impact the community, but they also indicated that it is their belief that CSX falls only under certain federal regulations and not 116 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 under PADEP solid waste regulations. Location: 15000 Liberty Lane, far Northeast. The Department's AMS issued odor violations to CSX on December 28th, 1999, February 19th, 2000 and March 30th, 2000 for odors coming from rail cars that contained municipal solid waste, MSW. On May 25, 2000, CSX submitted a remedial action plan and agreed to pay a fine of $1,250 to settle all of the violations. This remedial action had three parts. One, CSX Transportation's operations have been substantially modified to minimize impacts on Philadelphia, including elimination of the Byberry siding for trains transporting MSW. Two, CSX has a high standard for municipal solid waste shipments, requiring shippers to apply enzymatic odor suppressants and regularly clean containers. And, three, CSX has implemented 117 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES.
050148 quality control site assessments of MSW customers' facilities, including requirements for procedures for loading MSW, applying odor enzyme suppressants, container inspections/maintenance, et cetera. Location: East shore of Schuylkill River, Schuylkill River Park. The Department Environmental Services unit received numerous calls from citizens concerning odors at this location in July 2004. The Department was advised that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a Notice of Violation to CSX on July 28th, 2004 for transporting solid waste in such a manner as to create a public nuisance and for allowing a municipal waste transportation vehicle to remain in a residential area for more than four hours. There were numerous cars parked on the tracks filled with municipal waste in the middle of the summer months. 118 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 The Department's Vector Control Services, VCS, receives ongoing complaints from residents in various locations throughout the City whose properties are near or adjacent to railroad property. VCS inspects and provides abatement services where needed and attempts in each case to determine the responsible party. Because more than one entity, CSX, Amtrak and SEPTA, often uses tracks in any one rail corridor in Philadelphia, determining the responsible party in many of their corridors has proven to be a difficult task. It is often more expeditious for Vector Control workers to conduct minor abatement procedures without actually determining the responsible party. An example is 4600 block of North Palethorp Street where on August 25th, 2005 several rat burrows were observed. Vector Control workers treated the area, and a Notice of Violation 119 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 notice was sent to CSX for the rat infestation and high weeds on railroad property. There are about additional 6 problem sites with ongoing rodent issues, 7 railroad embankments that Vector Control 8 workers routinely investigate and treat 9 for rat infestations when necessary, 10 whether or not Notices of Violations are 11 issued. Sites most often in this 12 category include Aramingo and Lehigh 13 Avenues, 20th and Lippincott Streets, 5th 14 Street and Champlost Avenue, 12400 15 Academy Road, 12400 Dunks Ferry Road, 9th and Ontario Streets, Front Street and Pattison Avenue, Hog Island, Fort Mifflin, 12th and Cumberland Streets, I and Tioga Streets, 4200 block Clarissa Street, 5200 Rubicam Street, 1800 West Somerset Street. The approximate cost to the Department to provide inspection and treatment of these problem sites is more than $5,000 annually. 120 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. We will now answer questions.
One question about your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Fey. The $5,000, is that per site?
William Ferraro, F-E-R-R-A-R-O, Chief of Vector Control Service for the Department of Public Health. That would be the annual for pretty much all 15 sites for the year.
Okay. Well, let me ask you a couple questions. Mr. Fey, you're saying that 121 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 there are violations that have been issued?
Yes. The violations issued from Air Management Services regarding odor at the Liberty Lane location were issued and were settled, and that's where the plan was submitted by CSX addressing those violations.
Today we haven't received any complaints from odors at that location.
Okay. And what's the latest with the east shore of Schuylkill River, Schuylkill River Park?
After the violations 122 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 issued from the Department of Environmental Protection, we haven't received any odor complaints at that location either.
My staff is, with Palethorp Street and the problem site areas. Palethorp has been rectified. Normally the problem is an ongoing problem. The residents call there a few times a year because the weeds and the problems just reoccur.
So is there an ongoing method of dealing with this or is it just basically when the neighbors get tired of it and start making complaints, then that sets the whole system back in motion again?
Is there any regular protocol? Is there an agreement about how these issues are going to be dealt with?
No. We rarely get to contact CSX. We usually send the violations to them.
And so, in essence, the City ends up being the entity that always has to follow up on this activity?
And have there been any discussions with CSX about their role in this or recovering some of these costs or some mutual agreement or anything of that nature?
No. The difficulty always is is determining -- it seems like most of the violations that my inspectors investigate or issue, they come back with, We're not sure who the property belongs to. It's not CSX, it's not SEPTA, it's not Amtrak's. So it 124 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 becomes very difficult for our staff to protect the public. We're basically trying to make sure that they're protected from the rats. So we actually provide the service, but it's difficult to get any response.
So the bottom line here is, the one party that I think we can probably be fairly certain is not the owner, which is the City --
Yes, in most cases. There are some areas that are public, but we take care of those.
But in the others, it's not our property, there's a danger to health, safety and welfare of citizens, we end up on the public side engaging in remediation and basically are left holding the bag and the cost?
Okay. Have you or through the Department or through the Managing Director sought to develop such a protocol or even the analysis of 125 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 what we believe, the City government believes, to be the ownership issues? Have we asked either the Survey Bureau or Records or anyone to do the kind of analysis that would lay out for us who owns what?
No, we have not. I think that's something we need to address.
Mr. Fey, can you add that to your list for these problem areas, that we literally be able to figure out by, I guess it's, metes and bounds who owns what piece of property, and then that would put the Health Department in a much better situation to be able to -- and then put the property owners on notice as to what we believe the various property lines to be, and then give Health the added back-up to know who to cite.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, in cooperation with the Managing Director's office. 126 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
Thank you. I don't think we're really very clear as to how many sites are really troublesome as far as rodents are concerned, and I believe in testimony that was given, it was stated that the approximate cost to the Department to provide inspection and treatment of these problem sites is more than $5,000 annually. How much of that is actually paid by the violators? Do we know?
None of that would be paid. There are problem sites that the Health Department has addressed since rat control has been in existence, where we actually physically abate by using rodenticide treatments. A violation is issued to whoever the owner might be, whether it be a homeowner, in this case a property owner. 127 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
Well, it's not a homeowner. You go out and you find that there is a rodent problem at these locations. I'm sure that you bore holes and put bait into the holes. Who pays for that? The City?
I find that troublesome. When we were doing the excavation at the Vets Stadium, we didn't pay for the test borings and the baiting. I just find it very troublesome. I don't know how any of my colleagues feel, but if it's not City property and we are having situations like this existing because of CSX not being conscious of the community as a whole, why should we pay? Would you agree with me?
Yes, I do agree. However, from the Health Department standpoint, we need to protect the residents. And when these properties, personal properties, residential properties, butt up against there, we're protecting them from being bitten by rats, and that's --
That's our responsibility, to protect the community, but I think that CSX has a responsibility, too, and if in fact we are doing what you say we do, I don't know why the City should be paying.
Well, that's something else we should be looking into.
Right. Or else they should at least be 129 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 reimbursed by CSX. Is there some system in place that the City can maybe confiscate some cars if they don't pay, if they don't do a reimbursement? We do things out in the community to individual property owners and whatnot that won't follow a particular law or policy. What is the repercussions to CSX? It sounds like they can just continue to get away with this. It's been an ongoing practice forever. And I agree, the City ends up doing it because we do have to protect our constituents, and we get many, many, many calls from constituents regarding the rodent problem. There's no enforcement arm or is there some triple fine? I mean, there has to be something. Is there nothing?
The Health Department does not fine people for these violations. That comes under License and Inspections. The problem is, we are not 130 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 the enforcement agent here.
Right. We know you're not enforcement, but I know you guys work together in certain situations. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question I have is, the $5,000 annually that you spend on the cost to provide inspection and treatment of these problems, is that per site or is that a combination of all the sites listed in your testimony?
Now, as far as I know, all the members of this 131 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Council, as far as listening to their testimony, the Chairman and Council President and Councilwoman Miller, we all agree there doesn't seem to be any procedure, any policy to, number one, identify the sites, who owns it, and then, of course, we can take the steps to recoup the $5,000 for clean-up of the site. Do you anticipate any movement in that direction as far as the City is concerned? In other words, you actually take it upon yourself to clean up the site, of course, for the health problems that that entails there for the general public, but what I'd like to see is a policy if we identify who owns the site, then we can recoup some of the costs involved that the City spends for their citizens.
Yes. I think that's something we can actually look into, try to work with other departments.
Okay. 132 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're welcome, Councilman. Any other questions for this panel? (No response.)
Thank you very much. I'm sorry. Mr. Glazer, what was your timetable on the report that we had discussed?
As soon as possible. We're in the organizational mode at this point, Mr. Chairman, but we would expect to get something back to you --
I don't want to press you too much, but "as soon as possible" is kind of between now and never.
I like that. There's a certain definitiveness 133 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 to it. Thank you.
The next witness is Mary Tracy. Ms. Tracy, I know you have some displays. Whenever you put them together, just go to the witness table and identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Mary Tracy, Council President, Councilman Kelly, Councilwoman Miller, I think Councilman Nutter. I think you're here somewhere. Yes, there you are. I'm the President of SCRUB, Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight. SCRUB is a City-wide organization dedicated to improving Philadelphia's scenic character and quality of life. We work with citizens and community groups to ensure that all residents, regardless of income, education or neighborhood, benefit from laws protecting their environment. 134 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 I commend members of Council for holding this hearing today and providing citizens with the opportunity to work with you and the representatives of CSX Railroad Transportation on a plan to improve the railroad corridors, which have been a source of degradation and blight in so many areas. Philadelphia's history as an industrial manufacturing center has created an urban landscape of industrial corridors, and along our river corridors and our neighborhoods, there are many railroads. And as we look toward the redevelopment of Philadelphia for the next generation, we need to look seriously at how we incorporate those industrial corridors, including freight rail lines, into our overall City planning. Too often industrial areas are viewed as wasteland, a place where ugliness and blight are accepted and too common. But in Philadelphia, our 135 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 industrial areas are intermingled with residential areas. Redevelopment of old warehouses for lofts, redevelopment of river corridors for parks, it necessitates a new way of thinking of blight and community appearance and what we can do with railroad corridors. SCRUB, with the assistance of the Pennsylvania Resources Council, did an assessment of 328 billboards located along railroad corridors in Philadelphia. The exhibit from one of those corridors is there. It's a passenger railroad. We didn't have one of those prepared to bring today, but it just shows you what we're talking about when we talk about what's happening along these railroad corridors. And Lynn McConville, who organized that survey, will speak in more detail about what we found. But one of the things I would like to just point out is that in those areas where the railroad corridors intersect with major roadways, billboards 136 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 proliferate on railroad property. Some of those billboards are licensed and permitted; that is, they exist legally, but for many billboards, we could not find any evidence of licenses or permits, including billboards on CSX Railroad right-of-ways. As part of our survey, we also noticed an abundance of trash, weeds and ditches of stagnant water, with the combined effect of making these rail corridors through our neighborhoods corridors of blight. In the '40s through the '60s, people campaigned for highway beautification to ensure that our major transportation corridors were not corridors of blight. Railroad property owners such as CSX, Conrail, Amtrak and Norfolk Southern need to be more responsible in this area and address the issue of rail corridor beautification or, at the very least, begin working with Philadelphia to remove the blight. 137 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 For starters, CSX should remove all illegal billboards from their railroad property. This unsightly signage has proliferated in our neighborhoods, and residents deserve better treatment and respect from railroad owners. Philadelphia's City government has successfully initiated a campaign for revitalization, and we urge CSX and other rail property owners to move forward with us. SCRUB is quite willing to work with the rail property owners, as it has worked with neighborhood groups throughout the City, to improve community appearance and fight visual blight in all areas of the City.
As part of these efforts, we recommend that CSX provide Philadelphia's Department of Licenses and Inspections with copies of all sign site applications for outside advertising on CSX property in Philadelphia, along with the copies of City permits for each sign. We found in 138 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 looking at the application, which you have in this packet, and Lynn will talk further about that, but in the application for a company who wishes to erect a billboard, they need to get insurance and they need to make sure that it's feet away from the middle rail 9 and all kinds of things that they need to 10 do before they can put up a billboard, 11 but they never are asked to make sure 12 that the billboard is legally permitted, 13 that it's allowed to be there, that it 14 doesn't violate the size and the height 15 restrictions. So we would ask that CSX add that to this application. We'd also ask -- and I think, Councilman Kelly, this might address your idea there -- is that a BRT number be assigned, parcel identification number, to railroad property by individual railroad ownership. For example, everything that's owned by CSX would have the same number, and Amtrak, Norfolk. It's a tremendous problem 139 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 trying to figure out who owns the property and where it's located. And it's been very difficult for us to figure out with the billboards whether they're legal or not because of the problem with identification of the property. And I also ask that CSX would cancel leases and order the immediate removal of all outdoor advertising signs located on their property that are unpermitted and that violate the requirements of Philadelphia's 1991 sign control ordinances. And for those outdoor advertising signs that do not have permits with the City but they would comply with our ordinances, that CSX would require the lessee to apply immediately for a permit and pay all applicable sign license fees. And I think we already spoke about modifying that current outdoor advertising site application form that would include that requirement to abide 140 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 by our laws and all state permits as well. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today, and I'd like to ask Lynn McConville now to go over this packet, and then we both can answer questions, because she's most knowledgeable on this issue. Thank you.
Please proceed. MS. McCONVILLE: Thank you. Thank you for having me here today to speak. I work with the Pennsylvania Resources Council. My name is Lynn McConville. We're a state-wide organization that's worked on issues of billboard and outdoor advertising for a number of years. We work closely with Mary Tracy and SCRUB on issues of outdoor advertising in Philadelphia. In the summer of 2003, we conducted a survey of billboards on railroad property in Philadelphia. We 141 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 had the assistance of an intern funded by the Fels Foundation. We looked at all railroad property, both freight lines and passenger lines. The document you have before you is basically some of the information we pulled out that's representative of the billboards that were found on the CSX rail lines in Philadelphia. The difficulty, which has been highlighted by the previous speakers, is, for those of us who are not with CSX in particular, to understand what property they do own, which real corridors they have operating rights over, which corridors they actually own outright. We estimate there's anywhere from 63 to close to 120 billboards on CSX property. However, in working with the Department of License and Inspections, they only have a handful of permits for billboards on railroad property. The issue is, all permits are handled under a partial ID number, and there are no 142 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 partial ID numbers for railroad property. If you look at some of the pictures that we have, these are some of the billboards that we have identified on CSX property. We don't know at this point whether they are legal or illegal. It's difficult for even the Department of License and Inspections to get any information from CSX, even though CSX, if they follow their nationwide procedures, does have a site application for every billboard that's on their property in Philadelphia. You'll notice on the first of photographs, we have an issue of some of the smaller illegal eight-sheet billboards that have been a persistent problem in a number of our neighborhoods. These are often accompanied in low-income areas where there's a fair amount of trash, dumping, weeds in these lower-income neighborhoods. It's very difficult to look at issues of redevelopment when these corridors are 143 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 not addressed along with that issue. When you go back to the parcel base maps, I have on the second-to-last page a parcel base map which shows the area of the one billboard by Bartrum's Garden, Southwestern Philadelphia. You can see just in this parcel map as far as Philadelphia's BRT and ten-code identifications, the railroads are just blank. There's no identification. There's no number. There's no way for a citizen to file a complaint, because if you wish to file a complaint with the Department of License and Inspections, the first thing they ask you is, What is address, what is the BRT parcel ID. And, therefore, there's no way to express some of the issues if you were to see problems with trash, vector control, that type of thing, no way for citizens to address that in their neighborhoods, because it's difficult to identify who owns the railroad and even to file a complaint 144 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 with the City, because there's no way to specifically identify the address. These were some of the things that we found in our survey. We would like to work with the City in getting these billboard locations and some of these other blight issues fully identified, mapped on a geographical information system that the Department of License and Inspections could use. If there's anything that we could do to provide that type of support for the City or for L&I, both myself and Mary Tracy at SCRUB would be more than eager to work with the City and CSX on clarifying some of these problems.
Thank you for your testimony this afternoon. You've given us a lot of food for thought, but, unfortunately, I think, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there's anyone from L&I here, because it seems 145 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 like this is a real job for them to do. They have to do a better job of finding out where these billboards are and to making sure they're legal, number one, and if they are legal, do they have permits even to put them up there. So I think that L&I is the one that we really have to address a lot of your issues that you have brought to our attention today. And I want to thank you very much for that, but I think you're being very observant and, of course, you've been very helpful to this Committee this afternoon.
Thank you, Councilman. Just so that you know, we do work very closely with L&I on these issues. In fact, there has been a recent survey conducted by the State of Pennsylvania, PennDOT, on the railroad, and I think it may have included some of the railroad corridors that are along interstate highways. They actually went in on Saturdays and went through all the 146 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 files pulling that stuff out.
I'm just curious here about the amount of billboards goes from -- your estimation is from 63 to 120. Somewhere in between there; is that what your best guess is? MS. McCONVILLE: On CSX property. And the range is because we don't actually know what lines are all CSX property.
What's happening with a lot of the billboards, that we don't know -- we can see who the billboard company is, and we've been relying sometimes on their information, do they have a permit or do they not have a permit. So I would think maybe that onus could also be going to CSX even here today to ask if they could furnish the information that they have in their records already, and then we could take a look at that and see how it gels with 147 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 ours.
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you.
My name is Al Caporale. I would like to submit these pictures. You can have them.
I want to thank Mr. Nutter, Anna Verna and the other Councilmembers for the opportunity to appear here today. My concern is with CSX Railroad. I live in Southwest Philadelphia. I lived there all my life. And I'm Vice-President of the Community 148 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Labor Refining Tracking Committee, which is commonly known as CLRTC, and we are a local community environmental group which comprise of residents that reside both in South and Southwest Philadelphia, and we meet once a month to address the various issues that affect our communities. And my concern with CSX is, I oppose them carrying the dangerous chemicals through our neighborhoods. And I would like to submit the pictures that I just have of an event that took place on April 12th, 2005. I live approximately one half mile from where those pictures were taken.
Sir, can you just tell us for the record -- I'm looking at one picture, which either this is -- I don't know if this is a house or an apartment building.
It's got ethylene oxide, inhalation hazard. 149 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 What's the location of that, sir?
That is 56th and Gibbons Place. That's Bartrum Village. That's comprised of 41 buildings, and it houses 500 families. And you can see by the pictures, the close proximity to the trains. The trains were approximately -- the railroad cars were approximately four blocks long.
At the time you took the picture, was the train moving?
It wasn't moving. That's what I plan to describe. The trains come and they stop for 15, 20 minutes at a time, and then they proceed very slowly to their destination. It is a little hub that runs from 58th south of Lindbergh Boulevard to pass Bartrum Gardens. It goes underneath the little 150 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 bridge and it makes a turn there. It's a little hub there. And my concern is -- I've lived in Southwest Philadelphia all my life -- the ties, the railroad ties, are in very poor condition. Most of them haven't been replaced in years. Many of them are rotten, and they're heavily scored. And since 9/11, this is now a great concern to our community, because this was the most recent incident, which occurred on April 12th, approximately between 3:30 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon. I'm concerned because these trains come at any time. They stop for 15, 20 minutes at a time. The reason why they stop is because a lot times they have to clear the tracks, because a lot of the debris, tires are on the side of the tracks and also because the tracks are in such poor condition, the railroad ties. And there's no coordination between the local police and any personnel from CSX. In other words, when 151 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 these trains pass through our community, the local police do not block off traffic at all at 58th Street south of Lindbergh Boulevard or at 54th Street. So if you should have a terrorist or anybody who wants to do harm, it could be very easy for them to do so. This also takes place where historical Bartrum Park is, Bartrum Gardens. It's the first botanical garden in the nation. And there's also people that work there in the administration building, which is very close to where this occurred. And also, the 36th trolley runs on Elmwood Avenue, which is not too far from Lindbergh Boulevard. So if there should be a mishap, there could be many people that would be impacted. And I'm also concerned if we have enough trained emergency medical personnel that would be able to treat 500 families in the 41 buildings where this train hub goes by. And I have this 152 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 concern. This has been going on for years, and I don't know what could be done, but I would like to see someone take some type of action to either have them fix up the tracks or somehow try to reroute this train that goes through our neighborhood at various times. Most of those pictures were taken with a telephoto lens, so it's approximately 600-millimeter lens on there.
Well, I was maybe feet, 30 feet inside Bartrum 17 Gardens when I took the pictures. But 18 the housing projects, the 41 houses, 19 which come under the Authority, the 20 Philadelphia Housing Authority, I would 21 say they were approximately 35 to 40 feet 22 from these trains. So if there were an 23 accident, I don't know how you would 24 treat that many people. 25
All right. 153 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
And we still have many children that tour Bartrum Gardens; do we not?
Exactly. There are many tour buses that visit Bartrum Gardens. There's approximately 8,000 children that go there during the year and they receive training about the environment and about the floral. And there's also tour buses that bring other people from different parts of Pennsylvania to visit the park. So I'm concerned we have a potential dangerous situation here, and I was hoping that somehow the City could address -- try to avoid a future problem and do something to prevent something like anything disastrous to take place.
Thank you. Well, I think we do have a representative from CSX here; do we not?
We do, Madam President. 154 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
So we could discuss with them about their maintenance procedures and about the tracks being in such deplorable condition that gives you great concern, and justifiably so. We will certainly ask them that.
Thank you. You'll be able to stay around for a little bit?
Thank you very much, Mr. Caporale. Lastly, there were a series of photos taken, which I'd like to enter into the record as an exhibit, of what is commonly referred to as the Columbia Bridge. And there are picture displays. These photos were taken by Councilman Kelly's staff person, Holly Maher. Columbia Bridge spans both Kelly and King Drives. It is in 155 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 deplorable condition and is located within Fairmount Park in that part of the Fourth Councilmanic District right near Montgomery Drive and King Drive, that particular intersection. I wish to enter these photos in the record. The steel -- I assume this is steel reinforcement bars, or are often known as rebar, are exposed. Pieces of the bridge have fallen on the ground. If you look at , there is exposed metal. If you look at Page, I think, 3, you see Ms. Maher holding a piece of the bridge in her hand. This is a very dangerous condition. You got a recreational path on that people run and/or ride their bikes under. This bridge is in a very serious condition. Mr. Eichert, could you come up, as well as Mr. Glazer. Mr. Glazer, if you don't have a copy of this pictorial display, we'll be sure to get it to you. If you could have 156 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 your team make an assessment of the condition of that particular bridge, the Columbia Bridge, which, as I mentioned, spans both King and Kelly Drives. The easiest access point, of course, is from King Drive at Montgomery. You can see all of this, which is, I believe, where most of these pictures were taken. I also know from the previous discussions at least, Council President Verna can identify a similar bridge that has its own issues. Council President.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for years, and it seems to be forever, we've been complaining about the bridge 25th Street from Grays Ferry Avenue all the way down, and we have written letters to no avail to CSX. And I assure you there are times when huge chunks of concrete have fallen, and I keep saying somebody has to be seriously injured or killed before people 157 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 are going to take this problem seriously. As I was looking at the photographs presented to us just minutes ago, I said to Councilman Kelly just before, I know the bridge at 25th Street after we had complained and complained, they did send someone out to make necessary repairs, so they said. And it literally looks as though there are icicles that are falling, and it looks just like this. And one of the workers, I guess -- I don't know whether he was being facetious to one of the nearby residents -- indicated that they were using epoxy glue to correct some of the horrible conditions that were really present. I don't know what we're doing. Are we waiting for someone to be killed or seriously injured? It's a very, very serious problem. We have called the City. We have called CSX, who have shown little or no interest other than going out after these hearings, I guess, had 158 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 started to put what they want to call epoxy glue to this concrete monstrosity that's there that's falling by the chunks. It is a very, very serious problem and it should be addressed yesterday. And I don't think that any of us could sit here and allow this to go on, because I will not be a part of something as dangerous as all of that existing in my community and not doing anything about it. I think it's a disgrace, and we have to take action on it.
Mr. Glazer, will you have the appropriate agencies inspect these --
I will convene whatever needs to be done to address it, and presumably the Law Department will assist in the enforcement.
-- you'll 159 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 get a report back to us on these two, and there may be others?
Thank you, Councilman. With respect to this issue, is this similar to, say, for instance, a vacant property that's imminently dangerous where it could potentially fall on the street or on an adjacent property?
Can you pull the microphone closer to you, please. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Chief Deputy City Solicitor Michael Eichert. Certainly the risks to life and limb are the same. Whether the jurisdictional issues in terms of what L&I can do with respect to this property 160 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 is the same, I don't know.
Well, L&I is charged with the responsibility for ensuring that issues of safety are dealt with in a reasonable way.
We don't care who owns it. If we see a dangerous condition, it could be privately owned property, publicly owned, we're supposed to go out there and first cite the owner, give them a certain time period to respond to that citation; am I correct?
In the event that it is deemed imminently dangerous, we have on some occasions gone out and abated the problem ourselves over night.
So in a situation such as this that some people would construe as imminently dangerous, if a piece of cement fell on a car or 161 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 window, somebody is going to get hurt. Why can't we just treat that the same way we would treat any other imminently dangerous --
I don't know as I sit here today that we can't treat it the same way. There is a possibility that because it's a railroad and because historically other governmental agencies have been responsible for supervising and regulating railroads, there may be limited --
We're not talking about the operation of the railroad. We're talking about a physical structure that's imminently dangerous.
And L&I is charged with responding to that. I guess what I'm saying is that we can look at that and we can make a determination that this is going to fall on somebody any day now, go out and issue a citation on the spot and say, You have 24 hours, like we 162 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 do with other people, to abate this nuisance or this imminently dangerous situation, and if they don't respond, then we, the government, could take action and place a lien on the property owner for the cost of --
Councilman, I would love to be able to proceed in just that way. I don't know that that is legally correct without going home and doing some research. But I'm with you. I would love to be able to say to L&I that's the formula. And we will check if that is the correct way to proceed.
How long will it take you to check? As I said, this is an imminently dangerous situation.
Again, this is something that would fall within, I guess, the Code Enforcement and possibly Regulatory Affairs units of the Law Department. I will go this afternoon or tomorrow morning and ask the Solicitor to 163 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 get some answers.
I actually had another line of questioning, but, Council President, you proceed, please.
While we're on this, the previous witness testified about the tracks in Southwest Philadelphia.
Whose responsibility is to check the safety of the tracks?
See, I think it's important that we have these hearings. Nobody seems to know whose 164 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 responsibility it is for the maintenance of these bridges, tracks, whatever. Whose responsibility is it? And I think that that will be one benefit from this hearing, if nothing else. Can you find out for us whose responsibility it is?
Thank you. I'm sorry. Councilman Clarke, thank you for yielding. I appreciate it.
I actually had one other question, Mr. Eichert. At the last hearing, we discussed an issue, the signal --
-- shack, for lack of a better term. There was some question about the ownership of the parcel that it was placed on. Can you tell me where we are with that?
I have some limited information about it. It 165 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 appears, after some digging and looking at survey drawings, it appears to be on City property. At least about 90 percent of the physical structure is on City property. I don't know what that means in terms of our legal rights. There is language in the 1979 construction agreement between the City and the railroad that may or may not be controlling in the event that a demand is made to relocate with respect to who pays for the relocation and that sort of thing. The language in the construction agreement is not clear as to whether or not it covers the signal shed, and it's something that I need to look at further. I really was only just able to determine with some assurance where this thing is located, because the property lines are kind of skewed at that location.
So at least 90 percent of the shack is on City 166 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 property?
It certainly seems to be that way from the survey documents that I've looked at, yes.
You're saying that you're not sure if it's covered by some other agreement?
I'm not sure what that means. The fact that it's on our property, I don't know what that means as to rights that we have over that signal shed. I mean, if, for example, we were to make a demand that the railroad relocate the signal shed, it may be the case that the City would have to pay for it under the agreement. That's what I'm unsure about. So that being said, I don't know what our legal options are right now with respect to that signal shed. I mean, we may want to leave it alone. We may want to find out more about what it's really being used for. We may want to try to understand whether we're entitled 167 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 to ask that rent be paid for it. We may want to demand that it be relocated. I don't know which way to really go with that.
So assuming that there is no contractual relationship between the shack and the parcel of land that we own, our options are what?
If it's not covered by the construction agreement in any way and if it is not somehow protected by any kind of federal regulation regarding the railroad operations, if it's not essential or protected in that respect, we could demand that it be removed or relocated at railroad expense.
Again, I would 168 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 ask the Law Department's Regulatory Affairs people to respond to that and come up essentially with some options. A couple of weeks.
Okay. So two weeks you'll have a response to the Chair and the Committee?
As a follow-up to Councilman Clarke's question, is there a lease agreement or any rent being paid?
Why? Do we normally let people put things on our property and do what they want to do?
Historically, no, I don't think we do. I don't know the 169 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 background of it. I mean, I know that when the City -- certainly initially it was on railroad property. Then the City acquired the land and evidently did not address this issue of the signal shed, at least not explicitly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up with what the Council President was saying a little earlier, and it's about the deplorable conditions of the tracks and the bridges and whatnot. If we can identify who owns it and, for instance, if it is the railroad, what kind of, I guess, pressure can we 170 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 put on the railroad to repair and put them in first class condition? Do we do anything? In other words, if we find out it's CSX property, on their lines, what do we do? How do we get them to comply with our request to make that a much safer track and a much safer bridge?
I would think the first options that need to be explored are the usual L&I code enforcement procedures, if there is any code --
I mean, would it just be sending them a notice saying clean up or repair the tracks or repair the bridges? They don't seem to do a very good job as far as answering any of these requests that we make. Is there anything we can do to really force them to do the 171 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 right thing? That's my question.
At this point, I would be looking at, I guess, monetary fines. I mean, I don't think any kind of cease operation or anything that the City could do affirmatively to go in and repair the bridges itself. But I don't know. Again, this is something I would have to --
Again, I just want to follow up with what the Council President was saying. It's going to take probably a disaster. It's going to take someone from being killed or maimed or seriously injured before, I guess, we in the City and a lot of other people really find out what the answers are or how we can get these people who own those tracks and who own those bridges to do the right thing and to put them in first class condition and safe for everyone. That's pedestrian and automobiles and everybody else that's in that vicinity of the bridge. 172 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
Well, my intent is, as I said, to ask the Solicitor to direct the other units of the Law Department, whose job it is to enforce code provisions, to research this.
I would strongly urge you to really get the City Solicitor to see if they can come up with a way that can really put some force behind these requests that we make as far as these railroads are concerned. They don't seem to give us too much time or response to any of our requests. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much. I look forward to your reports.
Okay. Mr. Robert Sullivan, Mr. Mike Hoey, 173 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Mr. Joe Pewdo, Mr. Larry Koster and Mr. Bill Getz. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Sullivan. I'm the Regional Vice-President for Public Affairs for CSX Transportation.
Mr. Sullivan, I'm going to need you to maybe either bring that microphone a little closer or speak up or both.
All right. Again, it's Robert Sullivan, Regional Vice-President for CSX Transportation.
And, Mr. Sullivan, I called the names of four other CSX personnel. Are they here today?
And these four individuals were duly served or their representative was served a 174 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 subpoena, as authorized by the resolution 3 and voted upon by this Committee. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Chairman, I know that I responded to you in a letter and I believe there was another letter that was sent --
I responded to you in a letter that said I would be representing the corporation. They asked me to respond. And I know that there has been subsequent conversation and that we are anxious to enter into a dialogue with you with the appropriate people of authority who are in a decision-making level within the company, and I believe that commitment has been made to try to do that in the near future.