The virus and the neighborhoods around Lehigh and Moravian

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

The Lehigh University COVID-19 spike three weeks or so ago has calmed down considerably.

Now only 17 off-campus active cases — the number Gadfly has been more concerned about.

And now we see the Brown and White reporter asking the right question: “How badly did Lehigh’s COVID-19 outbreak affect the greater Northampton County community?”

Gadfly can’t understand why there wasn’t/hasn’t been some notice of the substantial Lehigh outbreak to the Southside community.

Neighbors around Moravian College are reporting a similar concern about their off-campus students.

Moravian has consistently shown next-to-no active virus cases, but neighbors have determined that Moravian does not test asymptomatic students (like Lehigh does), and their efforts to get good information from Moravian have not been productive.

Lehigh

Selections from Nik Malhotra, “Lehigh’s COVID-19 outbreak a few weeks ago reflected in Northampton County data.” Brown and White, October 25, 2020.

Data from both Lehigh’s COVID-19 dashboard and the Pennsylvania Department of Health shows the potential impact the recent outbreak on campus has had on the larger community.

The chart above compares Lehigh’s new COVID-19 cases to those of Northampton County. During the week of Sep. 28, new Lehigh cases made up over 50 percent of all new cases in Northampton County. The following week, Lehigh students contributed to approximately 40 percent of new positive COVID-19 cases in Northampton County.

These figures beg the question: How badly did Lehigh’s COVID-19 outbreak affect the greater Northampton County community?

While there is no clear evidence that Lehigh students directly affected other citizens of Northampton County, the data does suggest that Lehigh’s COVID-19 outbreak played a role in increasing positive cases in the area.

Lehigh said the spread of COVID-19 likely stemmed from large student gatherings at off campus locations.

Although it’s understandable to have social bubbles in a pandemic, she said, these social bubbles are bound to overlap on a college campus. Freed said she has concern about how Lehigh is impacting the greater community in terms of COVID-19.

Virus situation calming down at Lehigh: “it seems like no one is (at Lehigh) anymore”

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

“Cases have since dropped after an initial spike two weeks ago. According to Lehigh’s dashboard, active cases dropped from 82 to 36 in less than one week.”
Brown and White

Lehigh University COVID-19 Information Center

Lehigh University COVID-19 dashboard

After a significant spike, the virus situation is calming down at Lehigh. The Brown and White article below gives some student reaction to the quality of life on campus these days.

10/14/20

Selections from Aliza Lev, “239 on-campus students have vacated university housing as of Oct. 21.” Brown and White, October 21, 2020.”

Of the 1,223 students living on campus at the start of the semester, the majority — over 1,000 — are first-years students. That means about one-fifth of all first-year students living on campus have left housing either temporarily or permanently.

However, there are also 81 Gryphons [student Residence Hall advisors] currently living in university housing. Some of these Gryphons have left campus for the semester and gave up their positions or are considering doing so, according to a Gryphon who requested to remain anonymous in this article for fear of their job security.

The Gryphon said this has been a stressful semester for all Gryphons due to COVID-19 concerns and uncertainties. The anonymous Gryphon is considering not returning to campus next semester and resigning from her position.

“I’ve definitely been very stressed out and anxious over this,” the Gryphon said. “I’m thinking I should go home, but I’m nervous about getting sick and bringing (COVID-19) back to my high-risk parents. I’m torn between staying here or going home and leaving things uncertain about whether I’ll be able to be a Gryphon next semester.”

The Gryphon said other Gryphons have been concerned about the well-being of the first-years that live in their halls. The Gryphon said COVID-19 restrictions have made it difficult for first-year students to make friends, and many of them spend their time alone.

The Gryphon also said while some first-years prioritize their safety, others have not been adhering to COVID-19 guidelines for the sake of social interaction, which puts both themselves and their Gryphons at risk.

“It’s concerning seeing some kids who do care a lot wanting to stay on campus and stay safe, and other kids parading out of the building getting ready to go to parties,” the Gryphon said.

The Gryphon said there is frustration with the lack of communication between the Lehigh administration and the Residence Life staff because it has put Gryphons and other staff members at risk.

For example, the Gryphon said other Gryphons are only notified when someone on their own floor tests positive or residents need to quarantine. But when Gryphons are doing their typical “rounds” checking in on other floors in their residence hall, they could potentially be walking into a hall under quarantine and thus exposing themselves since they are not notified of positive students in halls other than their own.

Amy Zage, ‘24, and Paige Nemet, ‘24, were both exposed to COVID-19 on campus and were quarantined until they received their test results. After they each tested negative twice, Zage and Nemet went home.

Zage said she left campus because she felt scared and restricted living in her dorm.

Earlier this month, several students received letters of interim suspension after allegedly violating the university’s COVID-19 guidelines. Zage said she feared suspension and felt more comfortable temporarily living at home.

Nemet said she felt stressed before leaving campus because the university was not communicating about her situation. She said she called the Health Center multiple times with questions about her quarantine before getting in touch with someone.

“This was definitely stressful and difficult because I found out in only a day that I would have to quarantine for two weeks,” Nemet said. “Now everyone is either quarantined or at home, so it seems like no one is (at Lehigh) anymore.”

Zage also said the limited access to campus facilities, such as the libraries, significantly decreased her ability to interact with other students and maintain some form of social interaction.

Att: Everybody but especially Garrison Streeters, First Terracers, Armory-ers, W. Marketers! Southsiders need our support preserving their neighborhood

Latest in a series of posts on the Southside

Community Development Committee meeting
Thursday, October 22, 6PM

view on YouTube

call-in number: (610) 997-7963

———-

Neighborhoods are worth fighting for, the Gadfly has always said.

And over the last two years he has joined with you in that fighting in various parts of the City.

Now the Southsiders around Lehigh need our help.

An ordinance to regulate student housing in that neighborhood comes before the City Council Community Development Committee tonight.

The proposal is fair, reasonable, well researched, collegially developed, and modeled on national best practices.

It has the imprimatur of the City Administration.

It has been approved by the Planning Commission.

It has been approved by the Zoning Board.

All it needs now is City Council approval.

But we can expect that there will be strong business and perhaps institutional forces opposing it.

Please read the following letter to Council signed by several dozen of the affected neighbors.

And then see the ways in which you can help.

To show your support, you can:

  • add your name to a letter to Council from affordable housing advocates throughout our community: CLICK HERE to read and sign.

and/or

  • speak at tonight’s Community Development Committee meeting in support of the proposal: you can sign up in advance or call (610) 997-7963 when the chair asks for public comment. If you would like to sign up to speak, email the following information to the Bethlehem City Clerk’s office (cityclerk@bethlehem-pa.gov) no later than 2:00 PM on October 22, 2020 (a) name; (b) address; (c) phone number; and (d) topic of comments. If you are signed up to speak, the Committee Chair will call you from (610) 997-7963.

———–

Lehigh refines reporting of COVID cases, 63 active off-campus

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

Lehigh University COVID-19 Information Center

Lehigh University COVID-19 dashboard

Lehigh Brown and White Oct. 14: Lehigh’s COVID-19 dashboard is now reporting active and cumulative cases. There is currently 26 active cases among students living on-campus and 63 active cases among students living off-campus, for a total of 89 active cases. There has been 60 cumulative positive cases among students living on-campus and 129 cumulative cases off-campus for a total of 189 cases since Aug. 7.

Hello! Calling the Health Director!

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

Lehigh University COVID-19 Information Center

Lehigh University COVID-19 dashboard

“We were discussing this. My concerns revolved around the community surrounding Lehigh. Do many of the students frequent local businesses? The same businesses that many residents frequent? Are they places that older residents would frequent?”
Denise

Saturday 155 total confirmed coronavirus cases at Lehigh, 101 off-campus.

Tuesday 177 total confirmed cases, 119 off-campus.

According to the B&W Weekly, October 12, “Lehigh has expanded its surveillance testing to include both on and off-campus students. However, students who are not selected for testing have found difficulty receiving help from the Health Center. Students who have been in contact with a positive case have been denied testing.

WTF?

See also:
Students encounter challenges while in isolation and quarantine on-campus, B & W, October 7.

Hello! Calling the Health Director!

“Cut the secrecy,” says Lehigh editorial, criticizing handling of virus precaution

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

How does a school expect its students to act responsibly, honestly and openly if
they do not model that same behavior themselves?

Lehigh University Brown and White, October 7

Gadfly reported a few posts back that at City Council a week ago the Mayor reported on what sounded like a high number of confirmed virus cases at Lehigh, doing so without context.

He said that the Health Bureau director would forward more information to Council the next day.

Here is that email to City Council.

There were 96 positive cases counted at Lehigh as of the writing of the above memo, 155 counted by last Friday, two days later.

(Note that Moravian is “clean.”)

The Bethlehem Health Director provides pertinent factual information to City Council, but Gadfly was also interested in commentary on what the impact of this outbreak (the dashboard seems not to have been updated on Monday) on Southside residents and businesses. It looks like Lehigh is a “hot spot” — should there not be some publication of that fact? But there was no comment on that.

Should the Health Department be more than a passive reporter in a situation like this?

Gadfly might expect — because of the outbreak — some commentary on the quality of Lehigh’s policies and procedures. Have they been operating properly during this pandemic? Are proper safety precautions being taken? Are there recommendations for changes in their practices? The Health Director is silent on that too.

Which is interesting because of this October 7 critical editorial in the student newspaper. The B and W points to serious deficiency in Lehigh practice and attitude.

Shouldn’t the Health Director be on this ?

Selections from “Editorial: Cut the secrecy.” Brown and White, October 7, 2020.

When it comes to testing, Lehigh’s administration has been taking a page out of the playbook of the White House.

During the first two weeks of the fall semester, Lehigh University administered thousands of COVID-19 tests to gauge the health of the campus community. Within those first two weeks, there were fewer than 15 positive cases, as indicated by the Lehigh COVID-19 dashboard.

After the first two weeks of surveillance testing, no more tests were administered on a routine basis. Students who felt sick were administered a test from the Health and Wellness Center, and were sent on their way.

Six weeks later, throughout the last week of September and first of October, case numbers rose exponentially to 100, as of Oct. 7. The number of students in quarantine between on and off-campus is at 269.

During the week of the initial spike in cases, more students learned of possible exposure to positive cases and attempted to receive testing from the Health and Wellness Center, further spotlighting the struggle for students to gain access to a test. This forced students to find off-campus facilities to administer tests, some of which have turnaround times as long as seven days.

Indeed, the numbers don’t lie: 40 of the 100 positive cases were reported to the university after having been identified through tests administered by locations unaffiliated with Lehigh.

While it is on both the student’s and the administration’s hands to emphasize the importance and practice of COVID-19 safe behaviors, it is a team effort that stems from the top. When the school no longer preaches the importance of testing and staying on case numbers, the apathetic mentality trickles down throughout the student body.

It feels as though after having relatively low numbers during the initial testing phase, Lehigh administrators wiped their hands, said “that’s good enough,” and left the student body to handle the risks of the pandemic on their own.

But that isn’t what played out throughout September.

First of all, any plan to include further surveillance testing after the first two weeks of the semester was never communicated to students. So the argument of “we were always going to do more” is made in bad faith.

This increasing spike could’ve been mitigated by transparent and consistent communication. We have said this time and time again when it came to discussing reopening plans, which while frustrating, did not cause any imminent threat.

But this time, it does.

How does a school expect its students to act responsibly, honestly and openly if they do not model that same behavior themselves?

While we are frustrated with how the administration has handled the pandemic since our return to campus — and before — we understand that the responsibility also lies on us. There is a social contract that all students returning to Bethlehem signed, agreeing to take part in socially responsible behaviors amidst a very difficult time.

But at the end of the day, it shouldn’t be the university’s newspaper to serve as the only bridge between the administration and the student body.

The inability for the administration to hold themselves accountable during a time when its community is the most reliant on them it has ever been is disheartening to say the least.

Be open with us. Keep us informed. Let us know where the administration’s head is at. It can only go to assist student and staff decision-making to make our campus healthier as a whole.

Upward numbers continue at Lehigh; Moravian stats

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

Lehigh University COVID-19 Information Center

Lehigh University COVID-19 dashboard

YESTERDAY

TODAY

Now 101 off-campus students with confirmed cases.

Lehigh’s October 9 update indicates starting the spring semester later and canceling spring break.

Gadfly still looks for a public statement from the Bethlehem Health Bureau Director.

———-

Moravian stats:

These figures are cumulative. Moravian shows no active cases on campus, 3 non-residential cases.

The Lehigh spike spikes

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

YESTERDAY

TODAY

That’s a 50% rise in confirmed cases in one day.

147 confirmed cases is 10% of the 1,500 students tested.

There are 94 confirmed cases in students living off-campus. Gadfly is not sure if the Southside Commons at Brodhead and Packer is considered off-campus, so he is not sure how many of the 94 are living “in” the Southside community.

But Gadfly is concerned about the impact on the Southside community and wonders what has been done to inform that community of the spiking spikes. He is not aware of newspaper coverage, for instance.

The Lehigh October 8 update says this to off-campus students: “For all off-campus students, we urge you to exercise great care in visiting essential establishments in the greater Bethlehem community, such as the grocery store or pharmacy and implore you to wear a face-covering both en route to, and when visiting, another location other than your residence and to practice social distancing. This guidance is important for your safety and for the safety of others in the South Bethlehem community.”

Again, Gadfly wishes good luck with that “urging” and “imploring.”

Again, Gadfly looks for a public statement from the Bethlehem Health Bureau Director.

Lehigh University COVID-19 spike: a City concern?

Latest in a series of posts on the coronavirus

Lehigh University COVID-19 Information Center

Lehigh University COVID-19 dashboard

The main item in the Mayor’s report at City Council Tuesday night was, of course, the approval of Michelle Kott as the new Chief of Police.

After the applause on that important action died down, the Mayor went on to the routine business — an announcement about the budget, report on the opening of a playground, news about a voting box in City Hall.

Ending matter-of-factly with “Lehigh University began an active testing of their student body today . . . and as of this afternoon [Tuesday, October 6] we have 75 positive, and once we get the full scale of what the tests show, I’ll have Ms. Wenrich send out a memo to City Council” (video min. 30:32).

Why would there not be mention of an announcement to the public?

No context was put around this comment by the Mayor, President Waldron asked for more complete data, and later in the meeting Councilwoman Crampsie Smith passed on concerns from residents around Moravian College about the coronavirus status there.

Gadfly wonders if there isn’t cause for concern.

The above graph shows a spike in the last week.

100 confirmed cases, 66 off-campus, almost all living, one would suspect, in the adjacent Southside area.

On October 2 the University sent out a letter to the campus community indicating a “concerning increase” in cases and “scaling back” measures being taken. Athletics were suspended a few days before. The spike may have started with athletes.

Was the public not alerted too?

An update October 5 doesn’t indicate concern.

According to University regulations, “Students living off campus are required to self-isolate in their off-campus residence.”

Gadfly wishes good luck with that.

As of yesterday, there were 63 in isolation off-campus, 155 in quarantine off-campus.

We know how fast the virus spreads.

This is concerning.

We hope Lehigh University has been adhering to best practices and will continue to do so.

We’d like to hear more.

Gadfly looks for a public statement from the Bethlehem Health Bureau Director.

———–

“All Lehigh sports ‘shut down’ for undefined period of time, first on-campus cases reported.” Brown And White, September 29.

“Lehigh University temporarily suspends sports programs due to coronavirus,” Morning Call, September 29.

“22 new cases of COVID-19 in 24 hours causes Lehigh University to take almost all classes online,” Lehighvalleylive.com, October 2.

Lehigh goes all the way — online till end of semester: Packer closing study ends for now

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Lehigh has bowed to the virus and decided to go online for the rest of the semester. The traffic study that began March 9 is scrapped for now. Interestingly, people such as Councilwoman Van Wirt suggested the study be put off till the fall while talks about use of the road space might develop. Ironically, that might happen now.

If the temporary closure of Packer between Vine and Webster is renewed this fall, these recent follower ideas and questions should be remembered:

  • A public meeting with the City/ Lehigh needs to occur during/ after the temporary closure. Notice of the meeting should appear on the electronic message board at Packer and Vine as well as in news and social media. (southsidenannygoat)
  • Wondering if Lehigh is going to take a look at the businesses along 3rd and 4th st, during, and after, the Packer ave closure, to see if there is an increase in business due to the closing. That’s one of Lehigh’s main talking points, that the closure is going to bring more foot traffic down to those businesses, and it’ll be more profitable for them. (Patrick Wirth)
  • Recently visited Marietta, Ga. I was interested that the town square was donated to the town by the first mayor John Glover, provided it was always used as a town square. If not the land would be returned to his heirs. Since apparently a vacated Packer Ave. would become property of Lehigh University, shouldn’t a similar provision be secured so they don’t turn it into dorms or some other unwanted use. (Jerry Diguilio)

————

To complete the record so far, here, obtained by Right-to-Know, is the Lehigh memo to City Council just before the February 18 meeting in which Council voted to support the temporary closing of Packer Ave. The memo repeats the same basic three reasons for the test and details changes made as a result of the public meeting at Broughal School on January 28.

Lehigh Packer 1

Uh-oh, unpromising start to the Packer close study

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

003

hmm! back to the drawing board

A Message from [Lehigh University] President Simon:

Dear Members of the Campus Community and Lehigh Families,

As of Monday, March 16, classes will be taught remotely and students are expected to return home or remain home to continue their coursework for the next two weeks. We will continue to assess developments during this time and provide further guidance. We are taking this extraordinary step in an effort to protect the health and safety of our community and to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. To be clear, the university will remain open, and we are confident in our ability to continue to deliver on our educational and research mission during this time.

While there are currently no suspected or confirmed cases on campus, given the uncertainties about the spread of the virus, medical professionals have advised us that it is prudent to take precautions and act on the assumption that the virus will reach our campus. The Governor of Pennsylvania signed an emergency disaster declaration late last week. Our decision is consistent with the “social distancing” recommendations from health experts, and we continue to follow guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the City of Bethlehem Health Bureau.

We understand this decision presents challenges, and we are confident our community will call on their collective resourcefulness, flexibility and creativity to adjust. In-person discussion and personal relationships are an important component of our rigorous academic environment. We thank our students, faculty, teaching fellows, teaching assistants, graduate assistants, instructors, and staff for their adaptability during this time.

Packer temporary closing Monday: log impressions with Gadfly

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

What is the official position of the City regarding the closure of Packer Ave? An agreement seems to have been made in secret to purchase the street from the city by Lehigh University. As a concerned citizen, tax payer and motorist I’m deeply worried that the public good has been yet again been forgotten in favor of some smoky back-room deal.
Edward Ballinger, Bethlehem City Hall Facebook page, Friday

Temporary closure of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster to study the Lehigh University proposal to permanently close that stretch begins tomorrow, Monday, March 9.

As of noon today, Sunday, March 8, Gadfly sees no notice from the City in the news or on Facebook or Twitter. 014

Or on the City web site.

Maybe tomorrow.

Here’s what Gadfly was hoping for:

1) The City will put out a story not only with the technical details of the closure

2) but also full details of the Lehigh “ask” that is behind the study

3) as well as the means for citizens to record their travel experiences during the temporary closure plus their thoughts on a permanent closure

4) and concrete plans for a community meeting to discuss the results and steps forward, including at least a tentative date for such.

Here is what Gadfly is not hoping for: “the smoky back-room deal” that Mr. Ballinger speaks of above.

In absence of other options, Gadfly will gladly receive your thoughts and impressions and photos, which don’t have to be long, which can be multiple, and of which he will keep a running log.

Are “neighbors” and “community partners” the same thing?

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

We are committed to working together with our campus community, the City,
the Bethlehem Area School District, and other community partners to ensure
that any and all concerns about the closure are heard and addressed.
Lehigh University, February 20

Lehigh University information page on the Packer Ave. closing

Ed Courrier, “Packer Ave. 45-day closure detailed.” Bethlehem Press, March 4, 2020.

We move closer to next Monday’s temporary closing of a section of Packer Ave.

We see that Lehigh has opened a web page on the closing for their faculty, staff, and students. Which is good. But it does not exactly foreground an invitation to comment on the impact of the closing by the people who use and park on Packer as part of the information gathering essential for the study.

We see that Lehigh made a presentation on the closing to the Mayor’s Southside Task Force last week, that is, after the public meeting at Broughal and, most especially, after the discussion and vote at City Council. It does not seem that this community partner was alerted in an appropriate time fashion to have input on the idea and the decision.

“Community partner” — as one keen-eyed follower has observed to Gadfly — is a curious term. It’s a jargon term, isn’t it?  Does it mean the same as “community”? Does it mean the same as “residents”? Does it mean the same as “neighbors”? Who knows? Remember that there was some skepticism about how and how vigorously the surrounding neighborhood community was advised of the January 23 “community” meeting at Broughal. Lehigh really kinda skipped over a question about that there.

But maybe there are no “neighbors” left around Lehigh. Maybe only “community partners.” At City Council Tuesday a lady recounted looking for housing in that area for months but only finding student housing.

Sigh.

Healing as the goal of the Packer Matter

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside  logo

Gadfly loves to compare his thinking to our elected officials. Join him. The Council members gave us clear and substantial rationales. Remember, too, that one of the main reasons for the Gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be. This is a good opportunity. Whom do you agree with, disagree with? Who makes you think? Who gave you something new to think about? Whom are you glad to see with a seat at the Head Table?
The Gadfly, February 24

As the opening of the temporary closing of Packer Ave. approaches on Monday, Gadfly would like to wrap up the series of posts he made on the individual comments from Council folk approving the measure 3-2.

Gadfly doesn’t always agree with Council decisions, of course, but what he looks for is good conversation — “Good conversation builds community” — and he thought there was good conversation from a variety of perspectives on the Packer Matter at the February 18 Council meeting.

So he hopes you took a few minutes to consider the range of statements and positions from the individual Councilpersons. Gadfly hopes you will be as much interested in why they voted as how they voted. The “why” is the indicator of the calibre of person we have entrusted with our public lives. You can respect a vote you don’t agree with if you respect the basis on which it was made.

What rises to the top as Gadfly thinks back on the good conversation at the meeting was Councilwoman Van Wirt’s use of “vision.”

Councilwoman Van Wirt spoke third, and the “vision” idea was picked up by Councilmen Reynolds and Waldron who followed her.

“Community” is an aphrodisiac word for Gadfly. “Vision” is another.

All the talk from Lehigh was ho-hum. Necessary. But ho-hum. For him their talk started at the wrong end of the rhetorical spectrum.

Give me the vision. Excite me. Then we can do the ho-hum.

Give me the song, the poetry, then I’ll listen to the engineers and bean counters.

Build the castle in the air. Then we can talk about the supports underneath it.

The collaborative past actions of Lehigh and the City in creating the Lost Neighborhood on the north side of Packer Ave. seem manifestly reprehensible. A power grab.

Gadfly’s sympathies were there with the ghosts of the past who for him still haunt the area from Packer to 4th St.

He remembers thinking somewhere along in the conversation about closing Packer that if it happens, Lehigh should be required, as restitution, to have a statue, a monument erected to the memory of the Lost Neighborhood at the center of the promenade.

No, better yet, not something required of Lehigh as restitution. But something done by Lehigh willingly as repentance.

Perhaps at the center of University Walk and the promenade — Lehigh might build a Southside Memorial Fountain of some sort by which people could sit, pause, and reflect come a summer day on the damage done when Power and Politics and Progress are out of control.

Silly Gadfly. A topic for a Thursday afternoon session with his therapist for sure.

But Lehigh’s Carolina Hernandez at the February 18 meeting was like a squirt of 3-1-oil on his tight lock on the grim past.

And then Councilwoman Van Wirt’s “I do have a vision of what this permanent closure could look like for Bethlehem, and it’s a great vision” was like an ice-cutter freeing a trapped cruise ship.

A vision of what could be done with the Packer Matter!

A “great vision”!

Gadfly came alive!

There were vision-teasers: a community fund, a business association.

And then with President Waldron, “is there a playground there, is there a community space . . . community programing?”

Not the whole vision. Not yet.

But enough to turn Gadfly’s perspective 180 degrees.

The word that came to mind was “heal.”

How might the Packer Matter become a “healing”?

If the closing of Packer Ave. could become an acknowledged healing ritual and not another grave stomping, then Gadfly’s on board.

It is good to have Councilfolk with vision.

Communicating with the communities

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Here’s Lehigh announcing the temporary closing of Packer Ave to the Lehigh community.  Feels a bit strange to Gadfly that no mechanism is identified for Lehigh community members to register thoughts on a permanent closing. Feels a bit strange that nothing was addressed to the people who park there. The photos in the previous post were taken c. 4PM Saturday afternoon, and Packer was parked up the whole length on both sides. Maybe something was going on, but it didn’t look like it. The campus felt deserted. Where are those cars going? — I guess the study will tell us.

But this is Lehigh announcing the closing to the Lehigh community. There was some skepticism about how and how vigorously the surrounding neighborhood community was advised of the January 23 “community” meeting at Broughal. Lehigh kinda skipped over a question about that. Should Lehigh be addressing a statement like this to that other community? Or is that the City’s responsibility?

Followers will recognize that Gadfly is more and more taken by Lehigh’s reason #3. Can you imagine Lehigh writing to the neighborhood community directly and saying, “We recognize there are long-standing cultural issues that can make our campus feel
inaccessible to you, and we are trying ease those issues by_____________.”

Wow, that would be neat (does anybody say “cool” any more?).

Does the neighborhood community have any idea of reason #3?

Isn’t one of the long-standing issues poor communication?

February 20

Dear Members of the Campus Community,

Earlier this week, the Bethlehem City Council approved the temporary
closure of Packer Avenue from Vine Street to Webster Street, beginning
March 9 and continuing through April 30, 2020. No vehicles or parking will
be permitted during this time. Pedestrian traffic will be allowed and
encouraged.

This test closure will allow the university, the City, and our partners in
the community to gauge the long-term feasibility of a permanent closure of
that portion of the street. At this point, no decisions have been made by
either the university or the city regarding a permanent closure. We will
conduct independent studies of vehicle traffic and pedestrian usage to
assess the impact on neighboring streets and the surrounding neighborhoods.
We will also assess the impact on Broughal Middle School.

More than 1,200 pedestrians cross the affected portion of Packer Avenue
each day. We are proposing the test closure for three reasons: 1) to
enhance the safety for our community and the pedestrians that cross
primarily at University Walk; 2) to knit together the Lehigh campus, which
this street bisects, and strengthen the connections to the South Bethlehem
business district; and 3) to create an attractive pedestrian walkway for
both the Lehigh community and the Bethlehem community.  We recognize there
are long-standing cultural issues that can make our campus feel
inaccessible to the Bethlehem community and we hope this closure might
address that by creating an amenity that serves both Lehigh and SouthSide
Bethlehem.

We are committed to working together with our campus community, the City,
the Bethlehem Area School District, and other community partners to ensure
that any and all concerns about the closure are heard and addressed. During
the trial period, Packer Avenue will remain open for emergency access, and
studies will be conducted to assess the impact of the closure on traffic
flow, parking, and safety. The results of the studies will be made
available to the public.

More details will be forthcoming on the closure in the coming weeks.

Sincerely,

Fred McGrail
Vice President
Communications and Public Affairs

Adrienne McNeil
Assistant Vice President
Community and Regional Affairs

Brent Stringfellow AIA
Associate Vice President of Facilities & University Architect

Packer Ave: pre-pare to de-tour

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

The signs are up!

Packer between Vine and Webster
closed March 9 for 45 days

Here’s what we’re hoping:

1) The City will put out a story not only with the technical details of the closure

2) but also full details of the Lehigh “ask” that is behind the study

3) as well as the means for citizens to record their travel experiences during the temporary closure plus their thoughts on a permanent closure

4) and concrete plans for a community meeting to discuss the results and steps forward, including at least a tentative date for such.

In reference to #3, Gadfly will gladly receive your thoughts and impressions and photos, which don’t have to be long, which can be multiple, and of which he will keep a running log.

Happy trails!

Buckets of questions about the Packer Ave. closing

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!

[Gadfly would note that Kim’s substantial work was referred to approvingly several times in the February 18 City Council meeting. And rightly so! This is what it’s all about, good followers!]

Gadfly:

Re: Proposal to do a temporary closure of Packer Ave with an impact study

Many of us who attended the public meeting about the Packer Ave closure [Broughal Middle School January 23], and a number of my neighbors whom I’ve talked to about it since, have concerns about how any study of a temporary closure might be approached so that the most useful and accurate data would inform decision-making in the city, and so that pedestrians (and drivers) would be safe during the duration of the study. 

So this is what I asked city council and the mayor and his administration to consider before authorizing the temporary closure.

The questions are in two buckets: #1 is whether the city wants/needs to consider this closure (permanent or study period closure) at all, and if so, whether the time is appropriate now.  The #2 bucket is “if the city decides to do the temporary closure/study” questions. 

Bucket #1 –should the temporary closure/study be done and why?

1) What does the city hope to achieve with the proposed closure of Packer — not just with the short-term study time, but what is the city’s key objective for the proposed long-term closure of that section of Packer? Who will benefit? What will be gained? Who may lose? Do the gains outweigh the losses as we contemplate this closure?

2) [This was answered, mostly, or at least the accident data was. Without comparison to other locations it’s hard to know if this is a key dangerous intersection or one of many, or what . . . ]  One item we are still missing is data about how unsafe or safe that Packer Ave. crossing really is; no one has produced that data yet, despite Lehigh’s assertion that it appears to be an unsafe crossing. LU spokepersons have repeatedly and publicly said safety is part of what drives this closure idea. Can we learn more from existing safety data before diving into a study?

3) The other key reason cited by LU for the closure of Packer is that this would encourage students to feel the campus extends all the way to New, and could help them get closer to the commercial area and venture into it (on 4th and 3rd).  We already know that students tend to feel ill at ease going into the Southside, and that when they venture down they often go there by crossing (a) Morton, down New, and (b) across 4th St.  Isn’t it more likely that their Southside psychological boundaries/barriers are those streets rather than at Packer (hence the New Street revitalization plan to lure them past Morton and 4th, and down New)? How would the Packer closure affect Morton, in particular, with increased traffic and pedestrian movement? Will the closure adversely affect student movement north toward the commercial area, or will it encourage that foot traffic, as Lehigh asserts?

  • How and who will assess all of that — the study’s traffic consultants, a city business study, or another Lehigh study? If that student movement to the business district is a key objective in closing Packer, how will we know if the goal of increased pedestrian movement into the commercial area has been achieved, and when would we expect to know that?

4) Morton Street and the upper campus road are currently very congested due to university construction projects. Is this the best time to undertake a temporary or permanent closure, while those roads are narrowed, and there are flaggers, trucks, and equipment entering and exiting the construction sites all day long?

  • If the study goes forward, will the consultants measure pedestrian (and car) safety, not just at intersections but along that whole block of Morton where the street has been narrowed for construction, and the effect of the sidewalk closure on the south side of the street?
  • Will pedestrians really be safe during the study, while construction is ongoing?
  • Will the consultants measure the car traffic before and during the study to know the effects on the upper campus-E/W route across the Southside (including effects on the nearby neighborhoods)? [key issue of concern to my neighbors and me, over here!]

BUCKET #2 –if the temporary closure and study go forward

 But if one does think a temporary closure and study is a good idea, what is/will be written into that consulting contract? Is there language in the contract spelling out what the consultants must study: what exactly is to be studied, and how?  How will the results be made public, and will those results be shared before the decision is made to close Packer for good, or not? Will the public have an opportunity to provide their feedback on the temporary closure to Lehigh and the city? More specifically, then:

1) Will the consultants be studying the effects on pedestrians (and if so, is this something they know how to do, or do they need help from consultants who are more familiar with that kind of work)? We should be careful to use consultants who are experienced in pedestrian studies, and wary of using ones who may only specialize in vehicle traffic; I have no idea what these consultants are known for, but their performance in the public meeting at Broughal indicated to me that they had not thought about pedestrian studies much, if at all. It appeared that they only had focused their plans on the vehicle traffic.

Among the things we should know are

    • how do they plan to track Broughal student walking patterns and safety, and changes in those patterns and safety (if any)
    • and how do they account for safety issues as they study pedestrian movement in the extended area including Brodhead, Summit, over to Montclair and Carlton, down to 4th Street and perhaps 3rd as well; and eastward on Webster, 4th, 5th, and E.Packer.
    • What will Council learn about safety issues in the whole study area, by the end of the study?

2) [This was kind of answered, although it will be a shorter data collection period than folks first assumed when it was first announced.] How would the consultants plan to account for the traffic and pedestrian data in the earliest days of the study and closure, which will be done when Lehigh students and most faculty are on spring break: will that data be averaged in with the rest, thus skewing the results?  Studying traffic and pedestrians over spring break would definitely not provide representative data, although I see why Lehigh wants to start putting out blockades when students aren’t around and perhaps traffic is lighter. But that time should not be averaged into the data that is collected when the usual school year traffic (cars and pedestrians) is in full swing.

3) As my neighbors and I have shared with the mayor and the Lehigh Public Affairs VP, many of us suspect that W.8th to University Dr, and across campus, will become an even more appealing way to traverse the Southside (E-W and W-E) if/when Packer would be closed. Yet there will be even more construction up there on University Drive next year. The consultants should measure the before and after closure effects on that route, and also consider what could change when the next phase of dorm demolition and construction begins this summer through next year. Do we know if this is being considered in the study? I hope that the city will request a clear answer, and consider the following as well:

  •  Is the upper campus route going to be part of the city study, or would that be left to Lehigh to do separately from the consultant study? Would they include the surrounding neighborhood streets and what happens to traffic there? Will they share the data and seek community feedback?
  • Will the city be able to study the W.8th street entrance to campus and whether traffic is increased on that rather congested street that runs from Wyandotte into campus? What will be the impact on the streets to the east side of campus?
  • Would the data from a Lehigh campus road study be something accessible to the public, and would it be incorporated into city decision making?

4) Also, how will we know the effect of the closing when it snows? I mentioned at the public meeting that most of us over here are definitely aware that one doesn’t drive on Morton Street when it’s snowy; the city has never been able to maintain that street effectively; it is usually covered in slush, ice and/or snow for a number of days before things melt away- not ideal for Broughal kids and parents! That may be because of the way the buildings on the street shade the road surface, but I’m not sure.  Local folks just all try to avoid driving there when the weather gets bad. It’s a safety issue without any additional added traffic, whether for cars, buses or pedestrians; more traffic in snowy weather is a scary thought.

5) Finally, IF the trial closure and study are authorized by Council, you all, as well as residents and those who work in the area also should know how the final decision about long term closure would be made:

  • who besides the consultants will give or collect feedback
  • when
  • where
  • and how

…before the final decision is made?  What key issues will the mayor deem relevant to his recommendation?

I guess I don’t see all these questions as insurmountable, but as many of us see it, answering these questions in Bucket #2 (all of them) should mean that the planning for the traffic/pedestrian study would be quite careful, the study itself quite extensive, and both should include voices from the community.

  • Planning and contracting with consultants should also mean investigating their expertise in pedestrian studies.
  • And there should be a plan in place, before the study begins, to present the results of the study and hear from the public before any final decision is made.

Gadfly would note that Kim’s substantial work was referred to approvingly several times in the February 18 City Council meeting. And rightly so! This is what it’s all about, good followers!

Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (4)

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

President Waldron (votes for the temporary closure)

Above, courtesy of YouTube’s choice, is Lehigh administrator Brent Stringfellow
not President Waldron

  • This is an opportunity where we can see how it will shake out.
  • My concern is how are those data used after we do receive them.
  • How is it disseminated to the community and the stakeholders . . . what mechanisms for feedback will there be to communicate concerns.
  • If this were the full-time street vacation I would not be supporting it, however I am in support of the temporary closure.
  • I really have to agree with Mr. Reynolds, Dr. Van Wirt about some of that conversation how the community is drawn up to Packer Ave. and feels a little bit more welcome on the campus.
  • I’ve spent some time just walking around Lehigh’s campus and it’s tremendous, a wonderful asset to our City, and I think to expose that to other people is only a good thing for Lehigh and the community.
  • I would like to see more in the conversation about how you bring the community up to that space.
  • And if Packer Ave. is eventually vacated . . . I would hope for a kind of all-in approach from Lehigh, some thoughts especially from Dr. Van Wirt about how we can make that space feel more inviting — is there a playground there, is there a community space . . . community programing?
  • That should be a major consideration in a potential vacation of the street.
  • Ultimately, this has to be a partnership between Lehigh, the City, and the community as well.

In conversation with Lehigh and City administrators, President Waldron asked about why the dates were picked, consideration of other traffic calming measures, who owns Packer Ave. if it is vacated, whether Lehigh could build on that space, what about utilities under that road, the financial value of the land, and loss of parking revenue.

All good president-type questions.

Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (3)

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Councilman Reynolds (votes for the temporary closure)

  • You look at somebody with a private interest coming forward, of course . . . there are reasons that they want to do it.
  • The key in the decision the governmental agency has to make is whether or not there’s overlap between the private interest and the public good or the public interest.
  • We’ve heard from some citizens, we need to hear from more citizens.
  • We are very fortunate here, in that a lot of time we have to deal with hypothetical benefits or hypothetical negatives . . . that is not always the best way to make decisions.
  • The best way to make decisions is when you have rational, qualitative data.
  • That’s what this is really about, giving the City and the public an opportunity to see whether or not there is a public interest in doing this.
  • The real boundaries . . . are not physical.
  • I really do give the Lehigh community a lot of credit for . . . directing more and more of their interest and energy toward how do we bring the Southside together in a way . . . how do we bring people up.
  • How do we bring people together.
  • What we’re not as good at is bringing people together that have different identities . . . to interact in that way that creates community.
  • If this is done well, it is another step in that direction.
  • Those two goals especially have an overlap between the City of Bethlehem’s public good and Lehigh University’s self-interest.
  • But that all has to be proved before anybody’s able to take that next step.
  • If this was just good for one group of people, it wouldn’t make sense to do.
  • It’s really about how is this going to be done and whether or not the important questions are going to be done, some of which we don’t even really understand yet.
  • Often times the groups that are most affected, they’re not here because they don’t exist yet.
  • We often talk about how we don’t have more information to be able to make decisions, and this is an opportunity to gain information.
  • The decision we make tonight is much smaller than the decision we are going to make, at the earliest, several months from now.
  • It is people and institutions coming out to saying we see this or we don’t see this as a good thing.
  • I think that there is an opportunity with this to really kind of go about doing this the right way.
  • For me it will come down to do I think this is a step in the right direction for bringing the Lehigh community together with the Southside community that has often been at odds.
  • We’re breaking down those kind of emotional and economic barriers one at a time, and that’s going to be the big question for me at the end of the day.
  • Is there a public good here that is worth us closing down or vacating the street, and does that interest work for both the institution that is before us as well as our community and the public good?

Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (2)

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Councilwoman Van Wirt (votes against the temporary closure)

  • My first concern is why is this being done.
  • I’m not convinced by the safety argument.
  • The first thing that comes to mind is not vacation of a city street.
  • The real reason . . . Lehigh wants to consolidate their campus, and that’s not inherently a bad thing.
  • But it has to be addressed in the correct way so that the citizens who are giving up city-owned land have faith in the process that all the data was transparent.
  • I would ask that the Mayor and Lehigh make the contracts with the consultant transparent.
  • This study must have a plan in place to disseminate the results.
  • I thought more people could have been brought in by a more robust campaign to get the word out about what was going to be talked about.
  • What was good about that meeting was that a lot of the stuff brought up was incorporated into the plan.
  • There was a lot of people calling out that this was not being done for safety.
  • I think that you can engender trust in the community of South Bethlehem if we’re pretty frank and candid about why we’re doing this.
  • We’re doing this to make Lehigh stronger . . . that’s why we are doing this.
  • The primary reason is for the university.
  • That is citizen-owned land . . . steep price.
  • The traffic concerns are real.
  • What are we doing with the dollars we’re given for that land? I would like to have some discussions now.
  • What does it physically look like?
  • Are those crossing guards going to be permanent for the Broughal students?
  • How do we draw the citizens up into this space that was formerly theirs?
  • How do we make it more like the citizens of Bethlehem feel they are more pulled in to?
  • How do we create better bike and pedestrian experiences?
  • How do we pull South Bethlehem back up in to the campus so that we can really integrate it?
  • What I really would encourage Lehigh to do is postpone this.
  • There’s too much that needs to be done before the March date.
  • Have this study happen in the fall.
  • I do have a vision of what this permanent closure could look like for Bethlehem, and it’s a great vision.
  • I think that it could be a great thing for South Bethlehem if it’s done correctly, and that means it has to be a slower process with the community involved.
  • I would advocate for a citizens’ steering committee.
  • Maybe the money we get for the land itself gets put into a community fund dictated by the committee for what it’s used for.
  • Maybe Lehigh can help start a South Bethlehem Business association . . . Maybe that could help with some of the problems we are having drawing students down the 3rd and 4th streets.
  • I have a vision that this can work., I just ask Lehigh to slow down.
  • . . . a community process that better addresses the problems brought up here.
  •  . . . fully pulls the community in to this so that they believe the process instead of feeling that it’s being jammed down their throats.

The Council folk speak up about the temporary closure of Packer Ave. (1)

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Ok, you are not new to the question about a test of the closing of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster.

And you probably don’t need to be reminded that the issue here is control over your neighborhood (though this issue does have ramifications for all of us who drive in Bethlehem).

Lehigh is asking “us” to conduct a test whose end result is, if positive, in effect, to end the main function of a busy, healthy street on the Southside. Is their reason compelling?

Even if you don’t live in this area, you need to be alert to the kinds of things that could happen in your neighborhood.

Gadfly loves to compare his thinking to our elected officials. Join him. The Council members gave us clear and substantial rationales.

Remember, too, that one of the main reasons for the Gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be.

This is a good opportunity.

Whom do you agree with, disagree with? Who makes you think? Who gave you something new to think about? Whom are you glad to see with a seat at the Head Table?

Councilman Colon (votes for the temporary closure)

  • I’m curious to see what comes out of the temporary closure.
  • We’ve already vacated a couple streets that we didn’t have this opportunity to test.
  • I remember how big deal it was when that street (Broad Street) was closed and then reopened.
  • We have an opportunity to have a temporary closing and then come back to the table and see what happens.
  • Now is a good time . . . to do the study. (students there, unlikely weather event, construction conditions on Lehigh campus)
  • Where I stand on permanent closure, who knows.
  • I’m encouraged by the Mayor’s comments about having another public hearing.


Councilwoman Crampsie Smith (votes against the temporary closure)

  • I do have concerns about the temporary closure. One is the proximity to Broughal Middle School.
  • I worry about their [Broughal students] maturity level.
  • There’s also St. Peter’s Church . . .
  • Also is the concern that the Southside is so congested already.
  • For many walkability is not an option [people with physical disabilities, an aging population] impeding people attending Lehigh events.
  • I wonder [from the community perspective] if this isn’t an extreme jump.
  • Sophisticated crosswalk like done at Moravian . . . overpasses, walkways.
  • I wonder if we’re not taking an extreme leap.
  • I just have a lot of questions. Perhaps in the future I would be more inclined to agree.

Van Wirt and Reynolds next–

Gadfly says Lehigh might want to lock Carolina Hernandez in her office

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Before we look at the interestingly different ways Council voted on the proposal to do a pilot study for closing Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster, let’s wrap up by looking once again at Gadfly’s stance.

Gadfly is a first premise, first cause, begin-at-the-beginning kind of guy.

He is very often most interested in the “why” kinds of questions.

Lehigh is proposing to close a section of Packer Ave.

Gadfly is neutral on the proposition. He stands to be convinced. As he assumes the Council members should be.

To Gadfly’s observations, the conversation about the pilot study moved too swiftly to the details of how a pilot study will be implemented. And that blurs the why question. It assumes the why question has been answered satisfactorily.

For instance, in the initial 4-minute Lehigh presentation at Council last Tuesday (there were four Lehigh speakers), one minute was spent on the reasons for wanting to close Packer, three for how the study will be conducted. Gadfly would reverse the percentages. He would not go to how the study will be done till he was reasonably convinced there was a compelling reason to do it in the first place.

So Gadfly rivets on the question of why Lehigh says it will be a good thing to close Packer.

Recognizing the similarity in the deliberative process so far to the process in which he participated hundreds if not thousands of times over five decades as a writing teacher, Gadfly notes that the Lehigh proposal has gone through three drafts: at the January 23 Broughal meeting, at the February 4 Council meeting, and last Tuesday at the February 18 Council meeting.

As one would expect, the drafts are somewhat different. As one would hope, the latest draft is somewhat stronger.

But, in Gadfly’s mind, the Lehigh proposal is “not there yet.” And as a Council member, he wouldn’t be ready to accept it, or even to accept the seemingly harmless first step of a free traffic study.

There are three points to Lehigh’s case that have shifted somewhat but remained basically the same over the three drafts. In the language of draft #3:  1) pedestrian safety 2) pulling the core of the campus farther in to the Southside 3) an improved pedestrian amenity for the campus and the community at large.

Listen to fussy, crotchety old prof Gadfly at the February 18 Council meeting calling for a yet stronger 4th draft before the Lehigh proposal is in shape to present to Council for their deliberation.  (If you want to see fussy, crotchety old prof Gadfly from his best viewing angle — the back — go to the City video min. 49:45.)

1) pedestrian safety: this third draft produced statistics on accidents and injuries at “the crossing” on Packer. But a) the crossing has been there for years. If conditions were so bad, why hasn’t the City done something/said something? Where is testimony from the City traffic and safety people? That would have more legitimacy than “partisan” testimony from the Lehigh officer. b) Still nothing addressing less nuclear traffic calming measures. As Gadfly said a few posts back, he feels that possessing that space is the prime reason for the proposal. The other options would not enable closing, would not enable possession of that space. The traffic rationale is a necessary means to possession. Lehigh has, in fact, said several times that safety is not their prime reason for proposing the closing but one of three “overlapping reasons.” So what bothers Gadfly is that the pilot traffic study is not addressing the main reason for the closing — which is the underdeveloped reason #3.

2) changing the face of Lehigh, pulling the core of the campus closer into the Southside: Sorry, Gadfly is not overpowered by the logic here. Closing Packer is not the same as moving Lehigh offices to the Flatiron building or to 3rd and New. Closing Packer is not the same as funding the Southside Ambassadors. We are talking here about moving the symbolic center of the University from the University Center flagpole/lawn to Packer Ave — about a one minute walk apart. Spitting distance. Gadfly agrees with the Mayor’s goal of more University and student involvement in the Southside but doesn’t see this move relating in virtually any way to that goal. On its own. But Gadfly must remember that Lehigh is talking not about three separate reasons but about “overlapping reasons,” which puts interesting emphasis on their third reason. Read on.

3) an improved pedestrian amenity for the campus and the community at large, providing a safe and welcoming east-west access for the community: go back and listen to the video of Lehigh’s Carolina Hernandez, the last of the four Lehigh presenters at last Tuesday’s Council meeting. She talked of programs in which Lehigh brings students to campus. Wow! thought Gadfly when he got up to talk — even smacking the podium table over this point (so dramatic, he is). This flips Lehigh reason #2. Not taking campus farther into the Southside. But bringing community members uphill, on to campus. Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the part of the conversation from Lehigh’s Tuesday night draft #3 that caught Gadfly’s attention — as well as Councilwoman Van Wirt’s, as we will see in the next post or so. Yes, yes. yes. Let’s think of how this vacated space might be used to blur lines, to bring more Southsiders over physical, symbolic, or emotional (an interesting term used by Lehigh in a past meeting) borders. So Gadfly ended up saying that the most important addition for the 4th draft of Lehigh’s proposal would be specific examples of boundary-blurring programing that Lehigh could institute in that space. If I were a Councilperson, such examples would make my mouth water and satisfy my need to consider approving such a proposal for the public good of the City. If I were Lehigh, I would lock Carolina Hernandez in her office till she developed two or three specific programs that would turn a vacated Packer Ave. into a truly shared space. Put as much detailed thinking about the use of the public space as has been given to the details of the traffic study. (We pretty much know where every traffic cone is going to go in the traffic study, but we get zero information about reason #3.)

So Gadfly urged Council not to approve the proposal for a traffic study. Yet. Wait for a 4th draft, he said. And then make your decision. (At such moments in conferences asking for a 4th draft, Gadfly had to keep sharp objects away from his students.)

But Council approved it.

Gadfly is not devastated.

The Council rationales were good. The Council rationales were clear. We’ll dissect them next. That will be instructive on several levels.

The idea of a test pilot is always good. The urban planning guru Jeff Speck whom Gadfly spent the last summer reading (you might remember he battered you with post after post of Speck’s ideas) strongly recommends such when possible.

But Gadfly says we shouldn’t think that the results of a test on traffic will touch the main issues here.

And debate about these three rationales will continue if the test pilot passes the test, so the thinking we do here and now is not wasted.

And maybe then Carolina will have been sprung from her office, 4th draft of the proposal in hand.

“Will you incorporate residents into some of the final decision-making process?”

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Gadfly has had occasion to say several times over the course of his tenure that “done deal” is one of the most terrifying phrases in the English language.

Gadflies have a penchant for exaggeration.

But “done deal” is the death knell to citizen participation.

You are invited to participate, you participate, then you find out the decision has already been made or that the decision is made without you.

Screw it, you say, and turn into one of those who lose faith in the democratic nature of city government.

There is still some concern about genuine and widespread community knowledge of and involvement in the “conversation” so far. Of course that will change big-time March 9 when the barriers go up!

Breena Holland and Kim Carrell-Smith are familiar and, Gadfly jokingly says, “professional” commentators at Council meetings. Otherwise, though Carrell-Smith presented the results of some polling she did of neighbors, there was only one near-by resident voice at the meeting — Gail Domalakes.

While attracted to the uses that Lehigh might make of that space, Domalakes “uses Packer Ave. a lot” both car-wise and walk-wise and finds the street “very pleasant” and does not “feel unsafe.” Au contraire, where she feels “on very high alert, adrenalin-rush” is at Brodhead and Morton and Vine and Morton, and to push more traffic down there might not be a “responsible thing to do.”

Holland and Carrell-Smith (and Domalakes too) support the pilot study. But both women make the clear point that data collected in the pilot study be shared with the community before a decision is made to go ahead with a permanent closing of that section of Packer.

The Mayor himself was clear at the January 23 Broughal meeting that he wanted the widest range of information he could get. So we’re hoping/expecting that there will be an open meeting for the public to share data and ideas about it and other salient and significant issues with Mayor and Council before any final decision is made.

Let’s try very hard to avoid the mutterings of “done deal.”

Sending cars to Morton, the main way students might go home, is a little bit nuts

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Resident Al Wurth raises three main objections to closing Packer Ave. at last Tuesday’s Council meeting: closing because of pedestrian concerns is overkill, it sends a bad signal to residents of the Southside, it endangers Broughal students.

Only one of Wurth’s concerns — the last, about the Broughal students — will be addressed by the pilot traffic study.

Though a pedestrian study now is more clearly articulated as part of the pilot, Gadfly’s worry from the beginning has been that the proposed — and now approved — study will not be studying all that needs to be studied. And it may not even be studying the main thing or things that need to be studied. For instance, though suggestions were made at the January 23 Broughal meeting about how to receive or collect resident commentary, nothing concrete has been heard about that yet.

Gadfly is a bit haunted by a comment Lehigh made at the January 23 Broughal meeting, that their preliminary study indicated that driving around the vacated area (for instance, Vine to Morton to Webster back to Packer) would only take 13 seconds more than the direct route between Vine and Webster on Packer. As if time on the road is the prime criterion for a decision. So that if the east-west/west-east delay for skirting the vacated area is reasonably modest, then the proposal would be acceptable.

Must be on the alert for that kind of thinking.

  • You only really need to be concerned about the pedestrian interaction . . . during a few hours of the daytime.
  • To close the road permanently would seem to be unnecessary.
  • The smartest thing to do here is some sort of traffic calming.
  • I’m a little bit anxious about the signal that it sends to say to the residents of the Southside that the road is closed and now it’s Lehigh only.
  • When you take all the cars that are now crossing at Packer and send them deliberately past Broughal . . . I’m guessing the junior high school students are even less careful than Lehigh students.
  • Pedestrian-car interaction and enhancing that by sending cars down Vine to Morton and Morton being the main way students might go home is also a little bit nuts and probably is unnecessary.
  • To invite more cars to go by Broughal . . .?
  • It seems to me that there’s a simpler solution.
  • We’re going to have a road there, and we’re gonna have the run-off, and we’re actually turning the cars and the pollution down the hill to the community and away from the campus.
  • I’m thinking of the kids at the school, and we really ought to pay more attention to the impact on them.
  • I’m not sure the road needs to be closed and certainly if it’s closed 24hrs. all the time.

Lehigh moves Council to approve the pilot traffic study

logo Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside logo

Charles Malinchak, “Bethlehem closing Packer Avenue to study impact.” Morning Call, February 19, 2020.

As previously reported here, Lehigh made a presentation to City Council Tuesday supporting their request to do a pilot traffic study on the closing of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster. Council approved the traffic study 3-2. It will begin March 9 and last 45 days.

As Gadfly also said previously, he thought it was a good meeting: improved Lehigh presentation, good resident comments, good (and diverse) Council comments.

Let’s take 2-3 posts and appreciate what went on.

First, the Lehigh presentation. This is the 3rd time Lehigh has presented its 3-part rationale: pedestrian safety, the changing core of the Lehigh campus, and a pedestrian walkway for the campus and wider community. Lehigh has already done a traffic study that shows “minimal impact” from the street closure, and the proposed pilot study will enable “proof of concept.” This particular point, as we will see later, seemed especially appealing to some Council members. Details of planning with the school district and the Bethlehem Parking Authority and other logistical matters were also covered.

The Lehigh consultant performing the study outlined such things as 1) observations morning, noon, and afternoon at Broughal for the safety of the students (a major concern raised at the public meeting on January 23), and 2) studies of 20 different traffic points, the goal being to document the changing traffic patterns.

Here the Lehigh Chief of Police addressed in more detail than ever before point #1 in the Lehigh proposal: pedestrian safety. He gave “numbers” for the first time about “pedestrian-vehicle conflicts” along that stretch of road, numbers that are “some of the highest I’ve seen in my law enforcement career.” (Where did your video of the Chief go, Gadfly?)

Here in support of the third point in Lehigh’s proposal, the Lehigh rep outlines the considerable community service work that Lehigh does on the Southside that is “blurring the lines” between the campus and the community and provides a basis to explore the possibility of closing the street (Lehigh has little flat surface on the campus itself) to offer other options for this worthy work.

Followers will remember that Gadfly has been grouchy at the quality of Lehigh’s presentation in its previous two stages. But this was definitely a better presentation. You will see Gadfly’s interesting generally supportive response to this third iteration of the proposal later.

Resident response to the Lehigh presentation was excellent. Going there next.

Resident voices. Gadfly loves them.