Well, they are at it again, pinheads proposing legislation that would do minimum good with maximum harm. Even for Philly, this one’s hard to believe.
It’s a bill from Councilmembers Kenyatta Johnson, once a moderate, and Jamie Gauthier, a happy progressive, to prohibit stopping in bike lanes.
Sixteen of 17 Council members co-sponsored. Missing was Mark Squilla. I asked him why. Because parking is already banned in bike lanes, he told me.
But this is no stopping.
Squilla promised to look into it, and did. Quoting the Philadelphia Parking Authority, he said motorists are allowed to stop for up to 20 minutes in bike lanes that are marked with no-parking signs.
Johnson’s proposal would end that.
Here’s the obvious problem, as I wrote in an email to Johnson: “For people who live along Spruce and Pine streets, HOW are they supposed to get out of their car, taxi, or Uber, if the vehicle is prohibited from stopping?
“Millions of Americans shop by mail. How can the FedEx, UPS, USPS, and DHL trucks deliver their parcels?
“There are many small stores and groceries on these arteries. How are they supposed to get supplies if the trucks can’t stop?”
I can’t walk a block without seeing a truck making a delivery to a grocery or restaurant.
The response from Johnson’s communications director Vincent Thompson was to send me a link to the handout and a copy of the bill, both of which I already had.
I felt like I was being gaslighted.
My reply to Thompson: “I have that announcement. If you think it answers my questions about the consequences of the no-stopping bill, please cut and paste that passage, because I do not see it. I also do not see it in the bill.”
Thompson got back to me not with a direct answer, but a political one. The bill is designed to “change the long-accepted behavior of Philadelphians that think that all stopping, parking and standing in any bike lane in the city is acceptable behavior.”
I am not talking about “all” anything. Anyone who reads me knows I am, and always have been, an “obey the law” guy. And current law permits brief stops as noted above, something most arrogant bikeheads are ignorant of.
Thompson says other cities, such as New York, have local laws that prohibit stopping in bike lanes. My reaction to that ia this: Are the bicycle lanes on streets as narrow as Pine and Spruce? I don’t have much of a problem with bike lanes on very wide streets like Market and JFK.
—-
I live on Spruce and if no stopping is allowed, I can picture my 95-year-old neighbor rolling out of a moving taxi, like a Hollywood stunt woman, to reach the front door.
How can you buy your groceries if a truck can’t deliver them? You expect the driver to find a nearby parking space in Center City and use a hand cart?
Or an Uber pulling up? Or a FedEx truck making a delivery? What are delivery trucks supposed to do? Shall taxis and trucks stop in the traffic lane — stopping traffic and causing a hazard?
These are serious questions, I don’t care what New York does, and, according to this map, most of its bike lanes are on much wider streets than Spruce and Pine. (Next time pick a city where I didn’t grow up.)
Under the proposed law an Uber stopping to pick up an invalid could get tagged with a $125 fine in Center City, up from $75.
That is the side of the story not reported, as usual, by Inquirer reporter Anna Orso. She ignores any possible opposition to the proposed legislation because when you are full-blown woke, and she is, you are relieved of normal journalistic jurisprudence. And the Inquirer copy editors, such as they are, must be in hibernation.
I have mentioned the Inquirer’s one-eye blind reporting before, notably on illegal immigration, which amounts to Open Borders, which Orso supports. It almost never reports the opposing side, as if it doesn’t exist. This willful blindness is not journalism, it is propaganda.
It’s not just the Inquirer. In a much more substantial piece, WHYY also neglected any possible opposition.
Curiously, neither outlet linked to a copy of the city bill, although WHYY did link to a state bill.
Why?
This legislation — cheered by a few dozen Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia cultists in Council chambers — follows the tragic death on Spruce street of a bicyclist killed by a drunk driver, Johnson noted in his handout.
But this horrible incident had nothing to do with parking, or stopping, in bike lanes. It is a completely different issue. I don’t like the way her dead body is being used by the ghouls at the Bicycle Coalition.
And yet some on Council — like Johnson, who in the past was not warm to expanding bike lanes — seem to have been sent to progressive re-education camp and have fallen under the spell of the Coalition.
As I reported the other day, the Coalition has a measly 2,400 members in the 5-million Greater Philadelphia area. In numbers, they are fewer than left-handed Albanians (estimated at 3,200).
In his self-serving press release, Johnson gives a hat tip to the Coalition (for another victory that victimizes residents with the misfortune to live along bike lanes).
This bill makes as much sense as taking a Zoom course conducted by Jeffrey Toobin. The lack of thought is obvious. The stress of no-stopping could be greatly reduced by creating loading zones, or curb carve-outs for stopping, such as in front of Pennsylvania Hospital.
So why did 16 other Council members line up like lemmings to put their names on an ill-conceived bill that will inconvenience and put in harm’s way many thousands of Philadelphians who just want to live a happy, safe life? What’s behind this group think?
Probably they didn’t stop to think about it. They probably just felt it sounded like a good idea, under the trance of the Svengali Bicycle Coalition.
A good idea, like the bike lanes on the left side of Spruce and Pine. What’s that? They are on the left side, you say? Not when they were first installed. They were moved from right to left in 2019 because genius planners — with dozens of cities to study — screwed the pooch. They blew their claim to speak from authority.
Well, it ain’t a done deal yet.
The bill has to come out of Council’s Streets and Services Committee, which will have a public hearing. You can bet the Coalition will turn out its usual jeering squad. Too often, they are the only voice Council hears because the opposition is not organized.
Despite that, maybe some Council members — or Council President Johnson — will smell the coffee, stop the insanity, and rewrite the bill with protection for residents. Communications director Thompson tells me the impact of the bill will be studied on a case by case basis, and that changes could happen.
.Let’s hope so.
(This column was updated at 9:49 a.m. 9/24, to include remarks by Thompson.)
You’ve got to wonder about “science” that puts its weight behind an experiment to determine…
“I am a Swiftie,” my 30ish restaurant server was surprised to hear me say, after…
At 2:30 this afternoon at WHYY, Vice President Kamala Harris will be interviewed by members…
They call her a lucky ship. And a long-living ship. During her service in the…
Finally, at long last, after precedent-busting preliminaries, we arrived at the Main Event — the…
Dear Mayor Parker: So how did it feel to get booed when you said you…
View Comments
Love it, Stu. Hope you hear something intelligent back from Mark Squilla. I and a lady representing motorists visited with him several times and what we said was heard. Seems like a guy who at least tries to see all sides of an issue.
It's tragic that Bill Greenlee retired. I get the feeling he was disgusted by the way the City was turning progressive. Too bad,. He was a true voice for sanity. As you are.
I have respect and confidence in Mark. I don’t think he yet grasps the problem, in his last email to me. Perhaps my response to him will bring him around.
Love your comments Stu. As a former Philadelphia native, unless they've widened most of the streets in center city, this just takes common sense, and the good of most of the people, and throws it out the window. One solution, which is really an idea I just had as I'm typing (and admittedly have not thought through), take a couple of those streets and make the bicycle only, with the adjoining streets being two way for traffic. Even I'm not sold on that one yet, but it's a suggestion, perhaps a little radical?
Not TERRIBLY radical. One of my friends suggested Sansom as a two-way bike only street. (Itbhas been closed for two years from 16th to. 17th while a new building gies up. Would the restaursnt mind losing the cars? Mahbe not, as there is so little parking. They might benefit from a mall arrangement.
Absolutely, Stu. There is NO reason that bikers can't get in line with traffic and ride accordingly where cars, taxis, and delivery trucks must load and unload temporarily in a bike lane. Bikers need traffic rules, too.
The Coalition is ALL about RIGHTS, not responsibility.
My post disappeared.
Can you retrieve it at you end, Stu?
I see one above. If I can’t see it, I have no ability to retrieve unless I deleted it, and I did not.
Is this legislation an anti business bill. Or is it a money grab through the PPA to punish center city residents? Senior citizens who live in the area this law covers will or could be financially punished because of this law’s enactment. The 2,500 Bike Coalition membership must be donating large sums of money to the city council members who codify this legislation. Hopefully, Mayor Parker will veto this proposed bill. If not hopefully the delivery companies can protest or refuse to deliver items to the area selected for this nonsensical bill. There are very few centrists in City Council today. Hoping this bill fails
I don’t think it is bribery, it is just progressive stupidity. The Coalition have convinced most Council clowns that two wheels good, four wheels bad.
All the morons who hate trucks never sat down to figure out HOW food gets from the farm to the Acme. Answer? trucks, trains, trucks.
Your article above is the practical, expedient and logical point of view, and offers the most sensible solution. Let us all hope Council reads this opinion piece.
Remarkable how often, all the time, the practical, expedient and logic solutions are overlooked or never considered because the correct questions had not been asked.
Here is another example: not parking in front of fire hydrants! Time honored, civic duty for the safety of our communities. Yet, has anyone ever asked if there is a diverter fitting for all hydrants that diverts the water left and right instead of straight out? Ever heard the question before?
We lose two parking spaces on every city block because no one has every asked the most practical, expedient and logic question, nor fitted the fire trucks with that fitting.
I recommend that Mayor Parker hire someone to ask the practical, expedient and logic questions for operating our city before making decisions that are not beneficial for Philadelphia.
Excellent idea. How would the ad read: Needed, city planner whose head is not up his/her ass?
Oh, per hydrants. When car blocks hydrants, firefighters bust the windows and run hose through the car.
I have seen the fire fighters bust through parked cars, as they should; that is why the simple diverter connection makes sense, no need to bust through cars anymore.
Regarding... not asking the right questions:
The millions and millions of dollars and a decade or two on the absurd and painful trek by our Parking Authority to progress from one parking meter on one past to cobra meters on every other post to the PPA cards only available at news stands and on and on. One plane ticket to a London to learn about kiosks that they had decades before our own guys finally heard of kiosks. No one asked, "Who has already invented this wheel?"
Your observations are spot on. In the vein of "never let a crisis go to waste" and "when thinking stops, policy prevails", what seems like a good idea at the time, turns out not to be. "What if...?" or "How will that affect...?" is ignored in the quest to have government fulfil its role as protector of the citizens (or its subjects depending on how one views government).
Your 95 y.o. neighbor might learn to roll on drop-off like a paratrooper. Pickup by a moving Uber from a standstill is more problematic.
Maybe the pickup can be done like special forces — they get into a jumpsuit and a sling that gets grabbed by tailhook of passing aircraft. Adapt to cars?
Oh, the wonderful irony of government. Help yourselves to a store-owner's inventory? That's okay as long as it's under a certain amount. Arresting thieves for less than the threshold would be an act of cruel social injustice. Stop to pick up granny in front of her dwelling? Busted! You're fined!
Solution: Closely inspect our ballots. Find names of all incumbents. VOTE AGAINST THEM ALL. Repeat every 2, 4 or 6 years as necessary.
How are the going to drop people off at the new arena?
I guess fire engines and EMT vehicles will just let the city burn and the injured lie in their own blood.