Approach

When approaching the creation of a new footbridge, an engineering project that is supposed to give social benefits to the community of Easton,it is imperative to avoid the pitfalls of similar projects in which such projects have failed. Among the most prominent of these pitfalls is the fact that many of the engineering teams in these projects didn’t involve the community earlier on in the projects’ development, which has lead to instances of not understanding the community’s true needs (Lucena, Juan C., 2010, p. 97). It is also important to place a lot of emphasis on listening to those who are involved with the collaboration (Lucena, Juan C., 2010, p. 117) and a lot can be learned about the decision-making process through listening to the perspectives of those who represent the community and also have different levels of power in the decision-making process. Success in this regard requires engaging with community contacts immediately and learn as much about their thought-processes and how they represented the community’s interests and desires.

In understanding the political context surrounding this project, we developed a strategic list of community contacts that we felt could provide relevant information. Jim Toia was the first name given to us.  Our list of community contacts grew larger as Jim Toia suggested we contact Dave Hopkins (Dir. of Public Works for the City of Easton), Mark Mulligan and/or Gretchen Rice. It was apparent that these figures, together, would efficiently lead us in the correct direction in terms of finding information. Both Mr. Mulligan and Ms. Rice work for VM Development group, which is a realty group that focuses on urban redevelopment in the Lehigh Valley. Most importantly, however, this list of contacts should give us a diverse set of information that will allow for us to understand different viewpoints, attitudes, and goals surrounding this project.

As we developed a list of contacts, it is important to note that people who seemed as though they would be a part of the process of making this bridge were not involved. Originally, it would seem that Dawn Hart, Easton’s Director of Community and Economic Development, would be able to provide us with the core information surrounding this project. This led to the impression that the arts footbridge was being considered as a development project in Easton. Ms. Hart shared that she had no part in the project and would be unable to provide valuable information. This encounter showed us that simply “engaging the community” might not be enough, and for us to acquire significant information we would need to dig deeper and understand not only who we should contact but why they have a role. Not only will these community members have different perspectives, but they will also have different levels of knowledge, which is dictated but the status of the project.

Conversations With Community Contacts

Jim Toia is being considered the representative of not just the KSAT, but of the art community as well, given his passion and artistic background. According to Toia (personal contact), the idea for the footbridge originated internally during a meeting of the KSAT Board of Governance. This conversation was critical for our problem definition, a crucial component of any policy analysis. The KSAT wants to keep people off the street that runs along the trail (Bushkill Dr.) since the street near the KSAT has fast and heavy traffic, and he also explained that the trail needs more accessibility. Toia explained that the KSAT believes that a new footbridge would be a suitable policy alternative (the action taken to solve the defined problem). The policy analysis would typically involve discussing multiple alternatives and evaluating all of their strengths and weaknesses, but this entire process seems have either been done internally with the Board of Governance or the first idea they had was constructing a new bridge and set that plan into motion. Since this footbridge will be part of an arts trail, the Board also wants the bridge to act as an artistic contribution to the trail. The bridge is also to serve the purpose of giving Lafayette College students greater access to the KSAT, which is meant to foster increased interaction between the Lafayette College community and the Easton community. While this is discussed more in our analysis of the Social Context of the project, it is worth highlighting here that this one of the goals the Board of Governance has in mind when they express desire for this footbridge.

Jim Toia also explained how footbridge contributes to a greater plan for not just for the KSAT, but for several trails and parks along the Lehigh Valley. This push to increase accessibility to the trail is part of a plan to connect several parks and trails to make large interconnected system that extends all the way across the Lehigh Valley. This is valuable information because it contributes to the focus on connectivity and the ways in which our project can enhance the relationships between different parts of Easton. By taking this larger scale project into account, this project will contribute to larger goal of connecting trails throughout the Lehigh Valley.

Hopkins (personal contact), a major decision maker in the City of Easton, claims that a separate bridge that is being planned as of this report’s writing. The bridge our group will be proposing (which we shall refer to as the “Lafayette Bridge”) would lie between the bridge Dave Hopkins was talking about (“Silk Mill Bridge”, named for the bridge’s intent to connect the Silk Mill to the KSAT) and the “Blue Bridge” that already exists perpendicular to Bushkill Dr. (Figure 1) In addition to having no idea that the Lafayette Bridge was a plan that the KSAT Board of Governance was discussing, he commented that the Lafayette Bridge would be impractical and costly because the bridge would be in-between two bridges that he considered close enough together on their own to offer an appreciable level of accessibility. In essence, Dave believed that a new access point on the trail was unnecessary and would inevitably fail to receive funding and support.

Figure 1: Current and future potential bridge locations.

Challenges

This information is relevant to our discussion of political context in many ways. It revealed that two very important decision-makers in this process have very different levels of knowledge concerning this project. Understandably, Jim Toia explained that this idea for the “Lafayette Bridge” was still only internal to the Board of Governance, so with that information, the fact that Dave Hopkins did not know about the “Lafayette Bridge” is not surprising.

Hopkins’ perspective on the footbridge brought awareness of a challenge the “Lafayette Bridge”. The challenge, from a fund-acquiring perspective, is the possibility that others could share Hopkins’ perspective. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the source of funding for the “Silk Mill Bridge” among other projects) and Lafayette College (the intended primary source of the “Lafayette Bridge” funding) will not be likely to contribute to the funding of a project that they would perceive as having no reason for being. Granted, the “Lafayette Bridge” is not meant to function for purely for utility’s sake – it is also meant to be an artistic contribution to the KSAT. However, the bridge does have to simultaneously serve the functions of being both an artistic contribution and being a useful bridge. If people don’t believe it can serve both of these functions, the project likely will not receive the funding it needs. The challenge, then, is to prove that this bridge can serve these purposes and truly is a valuable asset to the trail. These concerns are to be to addressed by adding value through components like art, community connectivity, and public health.

In addition to the social value of the “Lafayette Bridge”, it worth noting that the “Silk Mill Bridge” does not fully solve the problem that Jim Toia presented to us. He wanted to give the Lafayette community greater access to the trail while giving people a safe place to walk that is not near the street (personal contact). The “Silk Mill Bridge” will accomplish these things, but for the community that will live in and around the Silk Mill, not the Lafayette community. The “Lafayette Bridge” can work in tandem with the “Silk Mill Bridge” to provide benefits to both the Silk Mill community and Lafayette community alike. Both the KSAT, and Lafayette College, on a fundamental level, share the same goal, so Lafayette College  will hopefully be very receptive of the “Lafayette Bridge.”

Hopkins also explained that the largest hurdle in the process of making the “Silk Mill Bridge” being the permitting process. It is worth noting that getting the proper permits to construct the “Lafayette Bridge” could also prove to be a hurdle for whatever team ends up continuing the work on the “Lafayette Bridge”. Hopkins (personal contact) explained that, for the “Silk Mill” bridge, E&S Permit from the Northampton County Conservation District and a Chapter 106 PADEP Floodplain Management Permit must be completed and approved. Hopkins emphasized that this process takes a long time to complete, stating that the whole process is expected to take about a year. Since the “Lafayette Bridge” and “Silk Mill Bridge” are very similar in terms of location and size, the same process can reasonably be expected to be undertaken for the “Lafayette Bridge” as well.

Community Involvement

Though it was mentioned earlier that we regarded Jim Toia and Dave Hopkins to be our connections to the Easton community, it should be made clear that their thoughts about this project do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all members of the community of the city of Easton. As mentioned earlier, Jim Toia stated that the idea for the bridge has been kept internal and no one outside of the Board of Governance has been consulted. While this is not technically true because Professor Benjamin Cohen (Lafayette College Engineering Studies Department), who is a member of the Lafayette College Board of Advisors to the KSAT, has also been consulted, the takeaway from what Toia said is that the citizens outside the KSAT have not been consulted about the plans to add the “Lafayette Bridge”. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The “Lafayette Bridge” is incredibly early in its development so it makes sense that the plans have not been publicly announced. However, it is possible that revealing this plan to the Easton Community in the near future could be helpful for acquiring funds, because if the “Lafayette Bridge” project has a chance to gather public approval, then Lafayette College or donors may want to fund a popular project. It is important to understand that while the community outside of the KSAT and the elected City Government of Easton do not have direct decision-making power in the process of making the “Lafayette Bridge” a reality, their voice still has power and influence in the decision making process given the fact that they are constituents of the City Government or Lafayette College Students.

Follow the link to our Economic Context to read about a Cost- Benefit analysis of this project and our take on the Footbridge’s contribution to Easton’s social capital.