June 8, 2000

Kevin Smith
Venice Island Opposition
293 Hermitage Street Philadelphia, PA 19127

RE: Venice Island Residential Development
. . . . Manayunk Neighborhood, City of Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mr. Smith:

In accordance with your request, I have completed a review of the potential traffic impact of development of three proposed residential developments on Venice Island in the Manayunk Neighborhood of the City of Philadelphia. It is my understanding that the three proposed residential developments include the Realen Development (270 DU) the Dranoff Development (160 DU), and the Neducsin Development (88 DU). The Realen Development would take access via the Cotton Street Bridge across the Manayunk Canal, while the Dranoff Development and the Neducsin Development would take access via the Flat Rock Bridge across the Manayunk Canal.

To conduct this review, you provided certain documentation for my use including:

• a copy of your testimony, dated March 13, 2000 before the Zoning Board;
• a series of photographs taken on the approach and circulation roads that serve Venice Island, including a photograph of parking lot flooding on the island during Hurricane Floyd;
• a copy of Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) count data taken at various locations in June, 1996 by TriState Traffic Data, Inc.;
• a copy of a peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) traffic count of the intersection approaches at Main Street and Cotton Street taken on January 4, 2000 by Boles, Smyth Associates, Inc.;
• "Summary of Climatological and Hydrological Records for the Venice Island area on the Schuylkill River", prepared by G.C. Henricksen, Jr., Consulting Meteorologist, dated February 2000;
• Area Map and Flood Map - Venice Island;
• A copy of a letter addressed to Michael A. Nutter, Councilman - 4th District from Carole A. Blessing, Human Resource Manager of Smurfit-Stone, dated January 13, 2000 concerning safety and congestion across the Flat Rock Bridge;
• Draft Findings of the Opinion Survey of Manayunk Residents, dated February 1998, prepared by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission;
• Summary Report for the Traffic and Parking Study related to the Manayunk Area: Philadelphia. PA, prepared for the PIDC/Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation by Boles, Smyth Associates, Inc., dated April 1997;
• "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment" in the case of Trafalgar Associates v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia, New Manayunk Corporation t/a Manayunk Development Corporation, Manayunk Neighborhood Council, Friends of the Manayunk Canal, and Darlene Messina, July Term, 1997
• a series of additional photographs taken on the Green Lane Bridge, along Main Street and along Flat Rock Road including the Flat Rock Bridge showing traffic congestion and effects of overflow parking, taken on the evening of May 5, 2000 coincident with the Cinco de Mayo special event held at the Arroyo Grill on Venice Island;

(1) Trio Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of .Transportation Engineers, .Washington, D. C, !997.

(2) Trips per occupied dwelling unit (DU)

Design Year Base Traffic Conditions - Existing peak hour traffic volumes should be projected to the anticipated completion date of the proposed development(s). This should include a combination of background traffic growth as well as the specific traffic generation characteristics of other nearby development proposals. Background traffic growth is usually based on historical traffic growth patterns on the surrounding streets A second volume/capacity analysis is then completed for future peak hour traffic conditions without development and levels of service are quantified to determine the adequacy of the streets and intersections in the study area to accommodate future traffic even with no development of the site. For comparison purposes, an analysis of future peak hour traffic conditions with a by-right development of the site(s) can also be considered in examining the impacts of a rezoning request.

Design Year Traffic After Development - The assignment of new traffic generated by the proposed new development(s) are added to design year base peak hour traffic volumes. A third volume/capacity analysis is then completed for future peak hour traffic conditions after development of the proposed residential development(s), and levels of service are quantified to determine the adequacy of the streets and intersections in the study area to accommodate future traffic after development of the site, and to assess the need to construct improvements to accommodate the increase in traffic volume generated by the proposed new development(s). This analysis will also result in a determination of requirements to facilitate safe and efficient ingress and egress at site access points.

Conclusions and Recommendations - A listing of recommended improvements should include, but not be limited to, the following elements; internal circulation design, site access location and design, external street and intersection design and improvements, traffic signal improvements including coordination of signalized intersections along corridor, and transit design improvements. The conclusions and recommendations should be documented in a report that will also include a copy of all data collected, documentation of the various assumptions used in the analysis, a copy of all volume/capacity analysis worksheets, and any other information used in the formulation of the results and findings of the study.

The discussion presented above outlines the steps taken in preparing a typical TIA for rezoning requests and new land development proposals. In addition to determining the typical traffic impacts associated with new land development, the TIA must also address particular concerns relative to access to an island with very limited access. Specifically, emergency access and evacuation procedures must be addressed.

As described previously, The Realen Development would take access via the Cotton Street, Bridge across the Manayunk Canal, while the Dranoff Development and the Neducsin Development would take access via the Flat Rock Bridge across the Manayunk Canal. The Cotton Street access to Venice Island also crosses an at-grade railroad track. As I understand it, there is no discussion to construct additional access to the island, or to construct a street on Venice Island to connect the two existing bridges across the Manayunk Canal or, alternatively to construct ramps to the Green Lane Bridge. These developments, and existing development's on Venice Island, are all essentially limited to one access location.

Sound transportation planning dictates that a residential development comprised of more than 20 to 25 dwelling units should have at least two points of access. Desirably, both access points should be fully functional public accesses. In extreme circumstances, the second access point can be limited to emergency access only, or a single access point, if constructed wide enough to boulevard standards (i.e., two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes divided by a wide landscaped median), will serve as long as not constructed on a single deck bridge To my knowledge, none of these features are provided as part of the rezoning plans for the Venice Island properties. It is not difficult to imagine a traffic accident or other catastrophe closing the Flat Rock Bridge or the Cotton Street Bridge, or a simple railroad closure of Cotton Street, and emergency response personnel being unable to respond to a fire or medical emergency on Venice Island because there is no alternative access to a particular part of the island. (This may not have been a major concern of the past when the island population was limited. This has to be a critical concern with the addition of more than 500 families to the island.

In addition, some of the information you have provided for my use indicates that Venice Island is subject to occasional flooding, as depicted in one of your photographs taken in September 1999 after Hurricane Floyd. The Flood Map for Venice Island indicates that the entire island, including the sites for the three proposed residential developments, is within the 100 year floodplain. None of the information provided for my use indicates any measure taken, or procedures evaluated, for the emergency evacuation of Venice Island in the event potential flood conditions along the Schuylkill River.

The two existing bridges available for vehicular traffic are narrow two-way, two-lane bridges. A third bridge is available for pedestrian access in vicinity of Fountain Street, but this location is not convenient to the proposed residential developments. It is assumed that future residents of Venice Island will consider evacuation of the island in the event of impending flood conditions, and will consider removing all motor vehicles from the island. The same can be said for existing businesses on the island, including the removal of trucks and semi-trailers. Since it is not possible to predict the time of day or day of the week for flooding condition the worst-case scenario is probably during the weekday morning or afternoon commuter rush hours when Main Street is already congested.

An evacuation plan should evaluate the time frame for complete evacuation of the island or various times of a typical weekday or weekend day. This will include the time frame for notification of all residents and employees on the island, preparation by residents and employees to begin leaving the island and traffic controls necessary to aid in the evacuation of the island. The number of police and/or emergency personnel assigned to effect an evacuation must be quantified by task and location. Consideration for temporary closure of parts of Main Street and/or other nearby streets to accommodate vehicles evacuated from the island must also be quantified, and the effects on normal traffic operations in the area must be considered . Without an effective evacuation plan, there may be greater risk and hazard for residents of the island due to the unorganized evacuation of the island, than the threat posed by an actual flood.

In conclusion, based on the documentation made available to me, it is my opinion that the potential traffic impacts associated with a residential rezoning of three sites on Venice Island have not been considered. There is no information that indicates that any safeguards to the health, safety and welfare of residents, employees and visitors to the island and surrounding area, are considered. Before any decision is rendered on a rezoning request for the proposed Venice Island Residential Developments, the Zoning Board of Adjustment should have the benefit of having reviewed an up-to-date, site specific Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis must demonstrate the traffic engineering strategies to be implemented to assure that safe and efficient access via multiple access points will be provided to each of the developments, Finally, if residential construction on an island within a floodplain is viewed as appropriate land use planning, an effective flood evacuation plan must be formulated so that the evacuation process does not represent a threat to the residents and employees on Venice Island.

If you should have any questions or wish to discuss this information in greater detail please all me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Andreas Heinrich, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Principal

AH:rh