Good Question.
 |
Colley Cibber as Lord Foppington
in The Relapse (John Vanbrugh, 1696). |
Years ago - say 1696 - a fop was an overdressed and empty-headed person. But today it seems to mean a person who lives in Philadelphia and hates loading zones.
Why do these people hate loading zones? I think they hate them because they're useful and very popular, and because they effectively block a return to an older design for our parking system where the fops had a very sweet deal. They, like the Bourbon royal family in the French ancien regime, were very special people.
But we're not here to discuss eighteenth century France. Let's focus on modern Philadelphia, and something called Friends of Pine & Spruce, or FOPS.
The Basic Problem: Too Many Cars
Since the 1980s, Philadelphia has used a zoned system of residential parking permits to regulate parking in the residential areas of Center City and other densely populated parts of the city. The problem with this system is that it fills all the regulated blocks with parked cars, effectively leaving no space for people who seek access during the day - delivery drivers, plumbers, electricians, or friends and relatives visiting from out of town or another neighborhood.
This is called denial of access. It leads directly to illegal parking in crosswalks and fire hydrants, and also double parking that frequently ties traffic into knots.
As a response to this issue, Philadelphia decided to install loading zones that operated during the day and reverted to regular parking spaces at night. The first of these loading zones went in on Pine and Spruce streets, west of Broad, in 2024. The next year, the system was expanded, and Pine and Spruce streets east of Broad were included.
In June 2025 a new organization called Friends of Pine & Spruce sued the City, seeking to block installation of the loading zones, claiming, among other things, that the City administration had exceeded its authority because there was no ordinance authorizing the loading zones. In August the judge issued a temporary order in favor of the plaintiffs. Today, City Council passed legislation that authorized the loading zones. (Bill number 250718.) This might mean the end of the lawsuit, but there may be other claims in the complaint that the plaintiffs will wish to pursue. (I'm not a lawyer, but I've done my best here.)
A little while ago, I decided I would read the plaintiffs' complaint. I thought it might be useful to look for insights into their thinking about the underlying street design issues.
In previous articles on this blog I have gone into considerable detail about a number of these issues. If you're interested in learning more, I suggest you start with Loading Zones Are the Key (September 2024), which provides links to many of the earlier articles.
I'll be quoting from the Amended Complaint, filed on August 19, listing paragraph numbers, and also commenting.
Paragraph 33e. In its enabling legislation for the residential parking permit system in 1981, City Council found that the existing arrangements on the street were harming residents "by effectively denying them access to curbside parking ordinarily enjoyed by residents." Plaintiffs add, in paragraph 36, that the legislation "embodies a clear legislative directive to protect residential curbside access in the City’s most densely populated neighborhoods." Paragraph 35 quotes the enabling legislation as seeking to protect "residents of areas of the City who suffer adverse effects from vehicular congestion resulting from the existence of limited numbers of curbside parking spaces and large numbers of non-residents competing with residents for curbside parking spaces..."
We have here, I think, a pretty clear statement that the City thought the problem was outsiders. And that may have been the case in the early 80s. Today, however, our basic problem is too many insiders - and too many insiders with cars. (See Parking Permits and Musical Chairs.) We can only be grateful the great majority of them have found - or made - places to park off the street.
Plaintiffs then turn to the famous Rina Cutler letter of August 12, 2009, which states in part:
"We do not plan to change the current permit parking program for religious institutions, although we do want to better regulate such use to assure that the permit parking is only used as authorized. We recognize that taxis will continue to stop to pick-up and discharge residents as they do today, and that residents will stop to unload groceries, etc."
(The letter is Exhibit B in the amended complaint. Rina Cutler was deputy mayor for transportation and utilities.)
I think it's important to recognize that Cutler's letter was simply a statement of current intent. It is imbued with a tentative quality appropriate to people who are doing very new things. And it is not a contract, or an ordinance.
Since the letter was written, two people have been killed on this corridor, many more have been injured, and a very large number have been intimidated by the thuggish behavior of some Philadelphia drivers. I think it's fair to say that the Rina Cutler design for these streets has been shown to be dangerously defective, because it is based on the principle that all Philadelphia motorists will never behave like Visigoths. In my opinion, this design needs to be replaced with a better, safer, less intimidating design. This is the process that the Fops oppose. (For more on intimidation see Intermittently Terrifying.)
All the churches and synagogues that were parking in these bike lanes have altered their behavior and are no longer parking in these bike lanes. All that remains in opposition to the reform of these streets is a small, loud, and wealthy group of egocentric people who are accustomed to getting their way.
The fopsters, however, are in denial. Paragraph 54: "For nearly fifteen years, and counting, this arrangement has worked. Not a single death has occurred on Pine and Spruce from a bicyclist having to maneuver around a vehicle stopped in a bike lane on Pine and Spruce. This successful, unblemished track record continues to this day." This statement would be laughable were it not so painful to so many people.
Let us move on to paragraph 107. "Specifically, the City desires to designate time-limited loading zones at the start and end of nearly every block along Pine and Spruce Streets, as well as mid-block in some locations—effectively converting approximately 25% of existing residential parking into commercial-style, all-purpose curbside access points."
The only objection I have here is to the 25% number. As a quick reality check, I selected the 1700 block of Pine as a convenience sample and did a count. There are 23 parking spots on this block, including four spots in loading zones. My arithmetic indicates that the loading zones are taking 17% of the spots (and of course they revert to regular parking spaces in the evening and overnight).
The blocks in this area are not uniform, and it would take a full survey to determine the exact percentage of spots, by block. However, the hyperfocus on access to individual blocks is essentially a distraction. Residents in this area are rarely able to park on the block where they live. Years ago, I was happy if I was able to park within three blocks of my house, and my observation is that the situation is considerably worse today.
A better comparison would be the number of loading zones as a percentage of the total number of parking spots in the area. Ten years ago, Mike Axler and I counted the parking spaces, both on-street and off-street, in the area covered by the Center City Residents' Association. We found a total of 1,584 Zone 1 parking spots, for people with Zone 1 permits. The total number of curbside spots was 3,161.
If we assume there are four loading zones on each block of Pine and Spruce, between Broad and 22nd (this is the location of the loading zones subject to litigation west of Broad) there are 64 loading zone spots. (Eight blocks on Pine, plus eight on Spruce, gets us to 16 blocks. 16 x 4 = 64.)
For Zone 1 spots, this gives us 64 / 1,584, or 4.0%.
For all curbside spots, this gives us 64 / 3,161 or 2.0%.
I could throw in the massive amount of off-street parking, but perhaps we've done enough arithmetic. Mike and I did find that, on any given day, no more than 13% of households were parking in Zone 1 spots on the street in the CCRA area. Half the households did not own a car, and the rest were parking off-street - 87% of resident households are not parking on the street. Three-quarters of those who own cars park them off the street. (For more on the numbers game see Parking: Storage v. Access.)
The Foppers are fighting to defend a dying system.
Finally, paragraph 177. "The City’s plan – while favoring elite, able bodied cyclists – places some of the most vulnerable in our society in a position where they are exposed, disproportionately, to unnecessary hardship as a result having [sic] their narrow, historic, highly residential street access cordoned off in concrete."
This business of stereotyping bicyclists and then hiding behind grandma really needs to stop.
As for grandma, the old arrangement, without loading zones, only favored the people who abutted the bike lane. The people on the other side of the street were normally looking at a curb that was filled to overflowing with parked cars. The only access for grandma would normally have been illegal parking at fire hydrants or in crosswalks. The loading zones provide access for both sides of the street. If grandma has a wheelchair, she should get into it, and when she gets to the house, I'll leave it to a large, strong grandson to carry her up all those steps to the front door. Which the grandson already has to do today.
Finally, yes, there are "elite, able bodied bicyclists" on our streets. They are a minority. Go to the South Street bridge at rush hour in the morning or the evening, and watch the people cycling, scootering, and walking. They are ordinary people who are going to work or returning home. (See Civilizing the South Street Bridge.)
This is the future of our city, if only we will accept it. If we want people to come here, and live here, raise a family, and grow old here, we need to make our streets safe, useful, and pleasant for everybody.
(The painting of Colley Cibber is by Giuseppe Grisoni. I found it in Wikimedia Commons.)
See also The State of Play on Pine-Spruce, What Are We Doing to Our Truck Drivers? and Quo Vadis, Philadelphia?
