Technology Clinic Final Report1Table of Contents
Part I – Introduction
Problem Redefined
1. Automotive Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
2. Pedestrian Transport up and down the Hill
3. Private Sector Development
Part II – Traffic on North 3rd Street
Traffic Calming on Cattell Street
Methods for Traffic Calming
1. Traffic Signals
2. Median Islands
3. Bulb-outs
4. Raised crosswalks / speed tables on College Hill
5. Raised Intersections
6. Textured / Colored Pavement
Part III – Getting Students To and From 3rd Street
The Problem
1. Physical Difficulties
2. Psychological Difficulties
3. Weather Difficulties
4. Lack of Incentive
Potential Solutions
1. Shuttle Bus
2. Elevator
3. Funiculara. Feasibility of a FunicularPart IV – Business Development

2

Part I – Introduction
The Technology Clinic is a Lafayette-based program in which students and faculty withdiverse interdisciplinary backgrounds work with an organizational sponsor to solve a specificproblem. The sponsors have included local businesses, local and regional governments, nonprofit organizations, and the College itself. The problems tackled by Technology Clinic teams
have taken many forms, including the preservation of historic sites, the development of anindustrial park, and the fabrication of industrial devices. The solutions developed by Technology
Clinic teams are arrived at over a period of two semesters of study and reflect the fresh andmultifaceted perspectives of the College’s diverse student body.
Students are nominated by the College’s faculty and are then interviewed before being
selected. The four divisions represented by this Technology Clinic team are the sciences,humanities, social sciences, and engineering. The students on this team are: Abigail Frueh, adouble major in Psychology and Music; Dina Guirguis, a double major in International Affairs
and Economics & Business; Hart Feuer, a double major in Economics & Business and German;
John Veltri, a double major in Economics & Business and Sociology & Anthropology; andMichael Nilson, a Civil and Environmental Engineering major. The faculty mentors for the teamare Professor Dan Bauer (Sociology & Anthropology) and Professor James DeVault (Economics& Business).
The sponsors of this project are the city of Easton and Lafayette College. Both sponsors
have requested help with the problems they are facing in the development of Easton’s North 3rdStreet corridor. The North 3rd Street corridor is a heavily trafficked thoroughfare that lies at theintersection of downtown Easton and the Bushkill Creek, a prominent waterway in the LehighValley. It now serves as a gateway between the City and the College and there are currently

3

plans to upgrade the area through streetscape improvements. The goal of this Technology Clinic
team is to design a solution that will not only offer a more attractive entrance to LafayetteCollege but also a more viable corridor for the people of both the City of Easton and Forks
Township. The primary focus of the team is resolving a number of traffic issues in the area aswell as the development concerns associated with these issues.
Problem Redefined
The problem that the Technology Clinic dealt with during the first semester focused on
an exploration of the current state of North 3rd Street and proposed possibilities for its
modification and revitalization. The group looked specifically at the development of the area in
addition to traffic concerns involving the corridor. Additionally, the group explored possible
ways to incorporate the Bushkill Creek into the development of 3rd Street. At the group’s midyear presentation, City and College officials identified the areas they felt were most importantand encouraged the Technology Clinic to focus on them. The analysis of the Bushkill Creek was
taken on by another on-campus group while a Civil Engineering senior design team has exploredthe potential for the Mohican building. Since construction has already begun on 3rd Street, theTechnology Clinic has discontinued analysis of this project. As a result, the group has come tofocus on three specific areas in the second semester.
1. Automotive Traffic and Pedestrian Safety on Cattell Street
The first area of concern to the group was a continuation from our first semester’s look at
automotive traffic behavior through North 3rd Street. During the first semester, an examinationof blueprints for the reconstruction of the street and a study of the traffic flow resulted in a few
modifications that were made to the plans for 3rd Street. The primary changes that have been
made to the original blueprints were aimed at reducing the cost of the project to an affordable4

level. The group has redirected its attention to traffic issues with Cattell Street and on College
Hill in general. Now that North 3rd Street is under development, it is necessary to more criticallyanalyze the College Hill traffic issue as a whole. Most of the debate has centered around the roleof Cattell Street, which is seen as a safety and quality of life issue for College Hill residents andLafayette students and faculty. Changes may be required to ensure that the flow of traffic does
not continue to hurt College Hill and risk the success of the College’s 3rd Street development
initiatives. Using methods such as traffic studies, surveying, and plans for traffic calming, thegroup has developed several options for dealing with current and future traffic issues.
2. Pedestrian Transportation up and down the Hill
The second area of focus this semester includes the problem of transportation ofpedestrians and students from the top of College Hill to 3rd Street. Developments on North 3rdStreet is less likely to be successful if the student body cannot conveniently access the area. The
Technology Clinic developed several solutions for encouraging more effective student transport
up and down College Hill.
3. Private Sector Development
The third area of focus is the development of 3rd Street. To that end, the group has
selected several buildings to focus on and has devised possibilities for their development. The
group has looked at a number of companies as possible candidates for location at 3rd Street. We
believe these best suit the vision of the City and the College for the development of 3rd Street.
Although the efforts of the group were primarily focused on outside development, some collegebased possibilities have been explored. The development of the Bushkill for a bike path or otherrecreational uses is currently being addressed by a Civil Engineering senior design team, whose5material and proposals should also be looked at within the context of the development of North
3rd Street.
Part II - Traffic on North 3rd Street
The changes on North 3rd Street that were discussed in our mid-year presentation are
currently being implemented. The new street design will increase safety for both pedestrians andvehicles alike. A narrower street and the use of textured concrete are visual identifiers for the
new mid-block pedestrian crossing and will serve to warn the driver to slow down forpedestrians. The addition of signage on the approach to the crossing will further assist in
warning traffic of the potential for pedestrians.
Additional changes on North 3rd Street that will be appearing in the coming future
include: “No Right on Red” from East Snyder Street, one-way west traffic only on Bushkill
Drive and a change to the traffic pattern between College Avenue and Snyder Street. The
proposed traffic pattern change, a right only lane and a straight / left lane seems like it will create
an immense amount of backups at the intersection. Most of the traffic on North 3rd Street going
south is from vehicles turning left onto Bushkill Street, just south of the US Route 22 overpass.
The current arrangement of one left turn lane and a shared right / straight lane seems best suitedfor the intersection given the existing conditions.
1. Traffic Calming on Cattell Street
One of the most important concerns raised at our midterm presentation involved trafficcalming on Cattell Street. Several people in attendance at this presentation, including the current
Mayor of Easton, expressed concern about the volume and speed of traffic on Cattell Street. As
a result of these concerns, we decided to analyze the flow of traffic along Cattell Street and to
determine what, if any, traffic-calming measures might be appropriate.

6In order to get a better grasp of the issue, we met with District Engineer Walter E.
Bortree of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and with District Traffic
Signals /ITS Manager Thomas Walter, also of PennDOT. In addition, we also consulted
Patrolman Alan Legath of the Easton Police Department’s Traffic Division and Barbara Kowitz,
Easton’s Chief Planner. We also attended several meetings of the College Hill Neighborhood
Association. At one of these meetings, we presented some of the options we developed over thecourse of the semester in order to obtain feedback from members of the neighborhood.
The information we gathered from these meetings has helped us to refine our proposals.
In the meetings with Walter Bortree and Tom Walter of PennDOT, we discussed some of theoptions we were considering and obtained their views. Most significantly, they both expressed
the opinion that a traffic light at the intersection of High Street and Cattell Street was unlikely to
be approved because of the small volume of traffic on High Street. Officer Legath wasparticularly helpful, providing us with several traffic studies conducted on Cattell Street and witha great deal of information about related traffic issues. Barbara Kowitz also provided a great
deal of useful information and helped us to understand how to best proceed with ourrecommendations. Finally, our meetings with the College Hill Neighborhood Association helped
us to better understand the concerns of local residents.
In what follows, we briefly describe the traffic analysis we undertook and we also present
a number of options for calming traffic on Cattell Street.

Rationale for Additional Traffic-Calming Measures on Cattell Street7During the last semester, we studied both the flow of traffic and its speed along Cattell
Street and we also examined traffic patterns in the area. Our analysis indicates a need for
additional traffic-calming measures, not only to deal with existing traffic problems but also in
anticipation of even greater traffic problems in the near future. In this section, we present thedata and analysis that support this conclusion.
We began by analyzing the volume of traffic along Cattell Street. According to
PennDOT, the most recent measurements of the daily volume of traffic along Cattell Street was
15,816. To determine the sources of this traffic, we obtained additional data from PennDOT andfrom the measurements of Officer Legath. According to a recent PennDOT study, the volume oftraffic southbound at Cattell and High Street between 6AM and 6PM was 5,125. According torecent measurements made by Officer Legath, the volume of traffic southbound on Knox Avenue
during the same time period was 4,933. This suggests that a substantial majority of the traffic on
Cattell Street has its origins not on College Hill but rather to the north of College Hill.
To pinpoint the source more precisely, we measured the flow of traffic from 6:30 AM to
8:30 AM moving southbound from Knox Avenue onto Cattell Street and then from Cattell Street
to either Lafayette Street or College Avenue. We chose this time period because we felt thatmost of the traffic headed south during this period was commuter traffic. We recorded anaverage volume of about 800 vehicles per hour at Knox Avenue; of these 800 vehicles per hour,approximately 200 ultimately found their way onto Lafayette Street either east or westbound.
We recorded an average volume of approximately 750 vehicles per hour at the intersection of
McCartney Street and College Avenue. If we assume that none of the 600 vehicles continuing
on Cattell Street beyond Lafayette Street exited before College Avenue, this implies that 600 of
the 750 vehicles recorded at College Avenue and McCartney originated north of College Hill, or8about 80 percent of the average hourly volume. This excludes that portion of the commuting
traffic that exited earlier at Lafayette Street.
Given that the majority of the traffic recorded at this time period appears to originate
north of College Hill, it is worth asking what is likely to happen to the volume of this traffic in
the foreseeable future. According to U.S. census data, the population of the College Hillneighborhood fell from 5,444 in 1990 to 5,348 in 2000, or by about 1.8 percent. In contrast, thepopulation of Forks Township grew from 5,923 in 1990 to 8,419 in 2000, or by 42 percent. If
these trends continue, it appears that substantial increases in commuter traffic along Cattell Street
are likely in the near future. Given the already heavy volume of traffic using this corridor andthe projected increase just mentioned, we believe additional traffic-calming measures are likely
to increase both pedestrian and driver safety.
Our argument for additional traffic-calming measures also rests on an analysis of traffic
speed on Cattell Street. We measured the speed of one hundred vehicles both southbound andnorthbound on Cattell Street on Thursday, February 26, starting at 1:30 PM. We found thatmoving southbound, the 50th percentile speed was 32 mph and the 85th percentile speed was 37
mph, implying that half the drivers went faster than 32 mph and 15 percent were moving fasterthan 37 mph. Given a posted speed limit of 25 mph, we found that more than 90 percent of thesouthbound drivers exceeded the speed limit. Moving northbound, we found that the 50th
percentile speed was 28 mph and the 85th percentile speed was 33 mph. Roughly 70 percent of
the northbound drivers exceeded the speed limit. These results demonstrate that average traffic
speeds in both directions on Cattell Street significantly exceed posted speed limits. This is aclear indication that additional traffic-calming measures are necessary.

9In an unrelated study, Officer Alan Legath measured speeds for southbound vehicles onKnox Ave (just to the north of Cattell Street). He found the 50th percentile speed was 30.6 mph
while the 85th percentile speed was 35.7 mph. He also found that 84 percent of the measured
speeds exceeded the posted speed limit of 25 mph. This evidence reinforces the conclusion thatspeeds in the Cattell Street corridor are too great and that additional traffic-calming measures arenecessary to promote pedestrian and driver safety.
Cattell Street is dangerous not only because of the volume and speed of traffic, but also
because of poor visibility from the sidestreets. Limited visibility makes it hazardous for cars
entering Cattell Street to merge onto or cross leading to more frequent and/or more severe
accidents. Over the last year, a number of parking spaces have been eliminated in order toimprove visibility at intersections, and this has helped reduce the problem. Nonetheless,visibility is still limited, so some measures to slow traffic on Cattell Street will probably help toreduce the number or severity of traffic accidents in this area.
2. Methods for Traffic Calming
Given our speed and volume measurements, it is clear that there is a need to calm traffic
on Cattell Street for the safety of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The stretch of Cattell
Street between High and March Streets was taken as a case study for our proposed trafficcalming measures. Building off of Pennsylvania’s Traffic Calming Handbook1

1

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (2001). Pennsylvania’s Traffic Calming Handbook. Retrieved fromftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/TrafficCalming/TrafficcalmingHandbook2001.pdf (November 8, 2003).
2

R.S. Means Company. (2004). Building Construction Cost Data (62nd ed.). Massachusetts: R.S. Means Co.

10and meetings with transportation and city officials, a number of potential solutions to the speed
problem were produced. While none of these proposals were specifically designed to influence
the volume of traffic on Cattell Street, it is almost guaranteed that if cars are slowed down, sometraffic will be diverted to alternate routes. This will also contribute to improving safety on thecurrently overcrowded street. The solutions considered for traffic calming on Cattell Street
include:•Traffic signals•

Median islands•

Bulb-outs on corners•

Raised intersections•

Raised crosswalks / speed tables•

Textured pavement

Sample drawings for all of the above can be found in appendix A.

Traffic Signals
A traffic signal may be the answer to the safety problems at the intersection at Cattell andHigh Streets. The installation of a traffic signal would allow for the safe crossing of pedestrians
and vehicular traffic from High Street when necessary by use of any of a variety of modern
sensors. At all other times, the traffic flow on Cattell Street would be uninterrupted, and nophysical changes to the intersection would be made.
A previous study conducted by PennDOT for the City of Easton revealed that the corner
did not meet the warrants necessary for the installation of a traffic signal. However, it has
become apparent that the study was conducted during a part of January when very few students

11were on the Lafayette campus, therefore decreasing the flow rates normally experienced most of
the year. We recommend that the City request a new study at this troublesome corner. The
increased vehicular traffic on High Street coupled with a guaranteed increase in pedestrian
activity, especially in the late evening / early morning hours may in fact be strong enough tomeet a warrant for a traffic signal.
According to Thomas Walter of District 5 PennDOT, a traffic signal would cost between$40,000 and $70,000. In order for PennDOT to perform the study required for a traffic light, abond must be posted by the City to cover the costs of the light installation if it is found to be
warranted.

Median Islands
Median islands provide a simple, creative solution to the problem of pedestrians crossing
Cattell Street. The installation of an island just south of High Street on Cattell Street would
allow for a pedestrian refuge, so only one lane of traffic need be traversed at a given time. Onceon the island, the pedestrian may evaluate the condition of traffic on the other lane and decide
when is safest to cross. This alternative would result in the narrowing of lanes and a small
degree of horizontal deflection towards the curbs. A narrower road and the need for a deflection
should also serve to slow traffic down.
Appropriate signage would be necessary on the approaches to the island from all
directions in order to warn motorists of the oncoming change in traffic pattern. As opposed to
traditional signs which may not be visible along Cattell, or that drivers may choose to ignore,another option is to install a flashing yellow light on each end of the median island to show
drivers where the island is located.

12

The design of the median island may be either all concrete to reduce visual obstructions,or it may contain some low-growing flowers to add some beauty to the street. This change
would also be accompanied by the planting of colorful flowers along the existing sidewalk or in
any other new traffic calming measures that may be implemented.
A simple, all concrete medial island may cost as little as $5,0001. Reduction in concrete
area for plantings will help to decrease the cost. Additional features, including lighting, areadditional.

Bulb-outs
Bulb-outs on the corners of Cattell and High Streets would serve to reduce the width ofCattell Street without adding a barrier between the two lanes of traffic. Abiding to theconstraints of emergency service vehicles, the road may be reduced down to 24-feet total for thetwo lanes of traffic. This would allow for approximately 7-foot bulb-outs that can be stretched
as far back onto either Cattell Street or High Street as may be desired. In addition to narrowing
the road, bulb-outs would guarantee that no one is parked in illegal spots too close to the corner,
protect end-parked cars from most rear-end collisions, provide pedestrians an extra 7-feet to see
oncoming traffic without stepping out into the street and make pedestrians more visible tooncoming traffic. As with any solution, appropriate signage must be installed on the approaches.
Lighting may also be installed to illuminate the intersection (perhaps from a bollard installed oneach bulb-out).
The size of the bulb-outs on Cattell Street, south of High Street, would need to be
reduced to accommodate the current curb cuts for Wawa and the autobody shop. Barring theseconflicts, all other bulb-outs may be at least 20-feet in length from the center of the curb curve.

13

Bulb-outs are reasonable in price, with an estimated cost of between $7,000 and $10,000
per pair1. A complete intersection may cost as little as $14,000, depending on the size of theisland and what kind of texture, if any, is desired.

Raised crosswalks / speed tables on College Hill and in Lafayette College
Raised crosswalks are an ideal way to slow traffic down on a large scale on Cattell Street.
Instead of having an effect at only one location, speed tables (which may function as raised
crosswalks) are typically installed at a certain spacing to have the most desired effect on speeds.
A combination of the tables and associated pavement markings on their approaches may slow
down vehicles up to 6-mph1. However, these speed tables may delay emergency vehicles by 4 to
6 seconds.
A goal of Lafayette College in recent years has been to create more of a College town
feel on College Hill. Additionally, it has been desired to create a clear location at which one
enters the College campus. Some of the traffic calming devices discussed in this section may be
used in conjunction with various locations on campus where traffic calming may be necessary.
One such example is in front of Markle Hall Administration Building. Although flanked by two
speed bumps, High Street in front of Markle Hall is often traveled at high speeds, creating unsafe
conditions for the students and visitors that cross continually during the day. The degree towhich the speed bumps have deteriorated and the current crosswalk paints are warn off provide
no assistance to crossing pedestrians, as oncoming drivers can avoid the speed bumps and cannot
see the painted markings. One proposal is to construct a raised mid-block raised crosswalk fromthe center of the Markle Administration Building to the location at which the new sidewalk will
be poured across the front Skillman Library. This would effectively link the admissions building

14

with the rest of the heart of campus and it would provide for a very attractive and safe way forpedestrians to cross High Street. These raised crosswalks, if constructed with bricks, may cost
up to $11,000 each depending on their size1.

Raised Intersections
Raised intersections are very commonly used in Europe but are only beginning to be usedin the United States. The concept of a raised intersection is to in fact raise the entire intersectionof two roads by between 3- and 6-inches. This vertical deflection would force drivers to slow
down in order to maintain a comfortable ride. The approach to a raised intersection is typically a
6-foot ramp at a grade no steeper than 8%. In addition to the vertical deflection, the use ofcolored concrete or any type of pavers will give drivers another visual means by which toidentify the raised intersection and adjust their speed accordingly. Pavement lighting is also
sometimes used in Europe, but this method has not been approved by the USDOT yet. As
opposed to the standalone use of textured or colored concrete, even if the area is warn out, thebump will remain at its height, so its effectiveness should not decrease with time. According toPennsylvania’s Traffic Calming Handbook, raised intersections, like speed tables, may delay
emergency vehicles by 4 to 6 seconds.
The cost for raising an intersection is typically between $15,000 and $60,0001 dependingon the specifics of the intersection and what type of work will be done. For example, brickpaving the raised intersection will cost approximately $30,000 plus the cost of concrete approach
ramps2.

15

Textured / Colored Pavement
The use of textured or colored pavement is a least-invasive method for creating visual
warnings to slow down drivers. Textured or colored pavement may be used in crosswalks orentire intersections to alert drivers of a pedestrian crossing. This method will not have as greatan effect on traffic speeds as would many of the other control measures mentioned because of theact that with time, the texture or color may begin to wear away. Once this happens, the process
will have to be repeated if the effects felt the first time through were substantial enough. In
addition, the change would require no new actions on behalf of drivers, so they may soon returnto old habits of speeding down Cattell.
Textured pavement is estimated to cost between $55 and $165 per square yard1 bringing
the total for 4 crosswalks at the corner of Cattell and High Streets to between $1,500 and $5,000.
Costs increase with more intricate concrete stamping and coloring options.
Part III - Getting Students To and From 3rd Street: The Problem
One of the main problems with the development of North 3rd Street, as it relates to LafayetteCollege, is the difficulty involved in traveling up and down the hill. There is currently little
incentive for students to frequent the area due to the lack of useful commercial establishments.
These incentives are further decreased by other difficulties presented to the students, which
include the physical exertion, psychological inhibition, and weather difficulties involved withtransit on the hill.
1. Physical Difficulties
The path from the College to 3rd street is physically demanding for both students and faculty.
The steps, though recently repaved, remain very steep and require a great deal of physicalstamina. Although the majority of the student body is physically active and able, the steps still16

prove to be a daunting trek. Unless it is absolutely necessary, most students will avoid the steps.
The alternative to the steps is the uneven sidewalk path down College Avenue. Although thisroute does not have steps and is not as steep, it is longer, more out of the way, and therefore evenmore inconvenient to use.
The steps and the sidewalk paths are even more daunting for persons with physical handicaps
or for senior citizens. It is impossible to bring a wheelchair down the steps and probably equallyas difficult and dangerous to attempt to take one down College Avenue. For individuals whochoose to wear high-healed shoes or boots, it becomes especially difficult to ascend or descend
the stairs. Not only does this present the risk of injury, but also discourages these individuals
from using the pedestrian routes to reach 3rd Street. As a result these groups are hindered frommaking full use of the 3rd Street corridor and the downtown area of Easton.
2. Psychological Difficulties
In addition to the physical aspects of the hill, there are psychological difficulties that deter
students from traveling down the steps to 3rd Street. Students have concerns regarding theirsafety when venturing onto 3rd Street. Rumors of students or Easton residents being attacked or“jumped” often circulate around campus leading to the misconception that it is very dangerous.
In an effort to protect themselves, some students avoid pedestrian usage of the area.
Unfortunately, many students have misconceptions about the actual distance from the top of thesteps to the archway at 3rd Street. Most students overestimate the amount of time is takes to walkfrom the top of the steps down to the 3rd Street corridor or to the Circle and as a result avoid thecorridor all together. For an average student, the walk down requires 2 minutes, 45 seconds,
while the walk up requires 3 minutes, 15 seconds. Casual polling will relate that this distance issometimes thought to require upwards of 10 minutes.

17

3. Weather Difficulties
The staircase from 3rd Street to the College is a combination of uneven steps and inclined
ramps. In the case of mild inclement weather, such as rain, the steps and ramps become
treacherously slick and discourage pedestrians from making use of them. In its current state, thestaircase lacks hand rails for approximately 60% of the descent, which further exacerbates thedanger of utilizing the steps. Depending upon whether one resides at Lafayette over the winterinterim, the entire staircase is closed for 30-90 days due to severe snow and ice conditions.
Around the winter months, even mild snow and ice conditions are sufficient to completely
discourage pedestrian traffic on the staircase.
During the warm months, students are persuaded against using the staircase for adifferent, although still significant reason. Climbing the staircase requires a significant
expenditure of energy, which, in warm temperatures, amounts to an uncomfortable ascent.
Assumedly, descent of the staircase is not uncomfortable—in fact it may even be enjoyable.
However, knowing that one will eventually be required to climb the staircase, students opt for adifferent means of transportation.
4. Lack of Incentive
Currently, there exist only two abiding reasons for venturing down to 3rd Street. One ofthese reasons applies only to students enrolled in classes at the Williams Visual Arts Center or
those students who have an interest in the studio and gallery space of the building. The otherincentive for going down the hill is for commercial purposes. The City of Easton provides many
establishments of interest to the students, including restaurants, transportation services, banking,city offices, and entertainment. Given the relative difficulty (or perceived difficulty) of reachingthese establishments, many students choose to travel a larger distance via car to Forks Township,18

Phillipsburg, or Nazareth for their commercial needs. Combined, the Visual Arts Center and theCity of Easton draw only a small percentage of students from the College.
With renewed development on 3rd Street, students would gain more college-oriented
establishments, making it more convenient and attractive to go to the area. Increased student
presence on 3rd Street would invariably bring about new interest in the Easton commercial area,
as the difficulty of reaching the area would be reduced. Exposure of students to downtown
Easton may bring about renewed student interest in the area and potentially renewed incentives
to cater to the students. See the Development Section of this report for additional information.
Potential Solutions
1. Shuttle Bus
The most basic option for overcoming the problems described above is to provide ashuttle bus to transport students from the College to 3rd Street and the Circle. The bus could be
funded and maintained by the College and could have stops throughout the College (e.g.,
Williams Center for the Arts, Farinon Center, March Field) and throughout the city (e.g., The
Circle, 3rd Street, Wawa, and Cattel Street). The shuttle could vary in size depending on the timeof year and the number of anticipated riders.
The main advantage of the shuttle bus is that no initialinvestment is required. The College could use buses they
already have or could acquire others especially for thisuse. No external changes or modifications would be required, with the exception of possibly
creating specific bus shelters. In comparison to other solutions, which will shortly be described,a shuttle bus would be more inexpensive and easier to maintain. The costs would include gas
and general maintenance of the van as well as the cost of drivers. And if there was a small fee

19charged for riding the bus, or for an annual pass, some money required for gas and maintenancecould be recovered. The shuttle would be easily understandable to students and citizens alike.
Being that students and athletes are regularly transported from the College to Metzger Fields, theCollege is already aware of the provisions required for this sort of solution. As mentioned
before, the system could easily be modified or discontinued with the change in season (e.g.,summer/interim vs. fall/spring semester) when the flow of students to the downtown issignificantly decreased. It would be similarly trouble-free to add additional shuttle buses for
Family Weekend, Alumni Weekend, or other key
times of the year.
A shuttle bus is not without its disadvantages.
From an environmental standpoint, a shuttle bus
is not ideal. The round-trip time for the shuttle
would be longer the more stops were added on. This would decrease the flexibility of the service
if there were an extensive, rigid schedule to be followed. The more stops there are, the longer
students have to wait at the stops between pick-ups, especially if there is only one shuttle bus
running. Should the system be unable to rapidly transport students, one could choose to walk. In
general, students would be unlikely to wait for the shuttle since a strong precedent has alreadybeen set for students to drive their cars down to 3rd Street or the Circle. The shuttle would nothave any additional appeal to those who already drive, and if forced to wait for an extensive
period of time, it would carry even less appeal. If the shuttle was only a daytime service it would
not be satisfying the needs of those students who go to the Circle to frequent the restaurants orbars in the evening. Overall, the shuttle would likely not be an appealing means of transportation
for the students, faculty, and visitors of the College.

202. Elevator
An additional option for transporting students up and down the hill is to install an elevator in
the place of the steps. There are two ways this could be done. An elevator shaft could be
excavated into the hill, resulting in a subterranean elevator system. Another option is to run awalkway/bridge across to the open air above the archway and install an open-air elevator fromthere.
The immediate advantages of an elevator are that it is amuch faster mode of transportation. Since it only has twopoints, there are no extensive wait times between stops unlike
the case with a shuttle. An elevator would be moreenvironmentally friendly than the shuttle bus and would not
require a continual operator like the shuttle bus. This method oftransportation would be more appealing to students because it
would take them directly to 3rd Street without intervening stops
and would do so in a more interesting medium than a shuttle. It
would also eliminate much of the coordination hassles that a
shuttle would require. An elevator is much more flexible to the immediate needs of the rider andcan be immediately called when needed. If a security system were added (checkpoint-based, forinstance), usage of the elevator could be limited to those intended. Since elevators already exist
in the insurance plan of the college, liability issues have already been addressed. An elevator has
three main disadvantages. The first is that it requires a very high initial investment. There
would be a great deal of construction and excavation required. As the hill is not very conducive
to an elevator, it would pose a significant challenge to contractors, assuming a permit could be

21

secured for such an extensive project. Furthermore, the hill has been shown to have structural
voids, a problem which jeopardized the Keefe Hall project. If there were a walkway/bridge built
out to a freestanding elevator shaft, the result would be an eyesore. It would ruin the clear viewthat visitors and students have up the hill to the statue. Beyond the initial cost of excavation andconstruction, such an elevator would require a great deal of maintenance to ensure that it
continues to operate properly.
3. Funicular22

A funicular is an overland rail-bound transport mechanism used to ascend and descend
steep hillsides. They are likened to a miniature train, the track of which is a short and steep
segment. Passengers are loaded into cars that are built so that the floor is a flat plane as opposed
to an incline. This affords the passengers a ride similar to an elevator, except that the car
proceeds up and down at an angle.
Funiculars are more prevalent in western European countries, such as Switzerland,
Sweden, Austria, and Italy, where a solution to traversing remote steep inclines is needed.
Conditions under which funiculars have been installed in these countries are similar to thosepresent on College Hill. In the United States, funiculars have not been made mainstream, but
their prevalence is growing. They have become indispensable at locations such as golf courses,
alpine resorts, senior citizen communities, and even private homes.
In many cases, funiculars have come to replace elevators as a superior mechanism forconquering steep outdoor terrain. Typically, far less excavation or bridge-building is required
for a funicular. In order to build an elevator to ascend and descend College Hill, either asignificant bridge must be built spanning the distance between the landing and the airspace above
3rd Street or a very significant shaft must be bored into the hill with a subterranean pathway of asimilar scope. Funiculars are especially designed for hillsides such as College Hill. Furthermore,
modern funiculars are packaged with the same security and safety features of current outdoor
elevators.
Feasibility of a Funicular
The advantages of a funicular could benefit the school from an efficiency standpoint anda desirability standpoint. Foremost, funiculars are fast, allowing students and faculty reliable andunrestricted access to 3rd Street. In terms of per-student cost, operation of the funicular would be23

less than that of a shuttle bus, and would eliminate the additional emissions and noise of thebuses. Funiculars are also very visually appealing, and bring with them an element of prestige.
Particularly for an engineering school, the funicular would be looked upon favorably by visitors
to the college, the community, and the students. Since they are uncommon, the campus andcommunity interest that would be generated by a funicular would be great. The funicular could
be used to enhance the quality of life for residents on College Hill, recreational users in the area,
and could become an additional visitor attraction for the City of Easton. If managed correctly, afunicular would not only serve the campus as a means for intra-college transport, but as a civic
attraction (See Appendix B for Funicular Route).
A funicular also comes with a few disadvantages, some of which are endemic to elevatorsand other mechanical transport mechanisms, and some that are unique to funiculars. Being thatfuniculars are uncommon, fewer firms are present in the market, and specialists from out-of-stateand even out-of-country may be required to construct the funicular. The initial investment
required for the installation would be significant. One firm operating out of Orono, Wisconson,
estimates the project could cost between $380,000 and $450,000 depending on unaccounted forvariations in the terrain. Once completed, maintenance of the funicular would become acontinual expense for the College. Furthermore, an outdoor transport mechanism would requirea reassessment of the College’s insurance policy, and may entail an increase to cover the
additional liability of a funicular.

24