DUPL
B 398306
REPORT ON THE
TRANSIT PROBLEMS FOR
BETHLEHEM, PA., and VICINITY
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR SOLUTION,
PREPARED BY
Delos F. Wilcox, Ph.D.,
Consulting Franchise and Public Utility Expert,
FOR THE
Bethlehem
Chamber of Commerce
them
1
1
ARTES
LIBRARY
1837
VERITAS
SCIENTIA
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
TUEBOR
SI-QUÆRIS-PENINSULAM-AMŒNAM
CIRCUMSPICE
THE GIFT OF
Delos F. Wilcox
Длаков
725
B4
TË
Элано
REPORT ON THE
TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
BETHLEHEM, PA., AND VICINITY
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR SOLUTION,
SUBMITTED TO THE
Committee on Improved Trolley Facilities
OF THE
BETHLEHEM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph.D.,
Consulting Franchise and Public Utility Expert.
Dated July 17, 1918.
COMMITTEE
MESSRS. WILLIAM J. HELLER, Chairman; JAS. M. DEGNAN,
GEORGE T. FONDA, JOHN M. GROSS, L. F. HEIBERGER,
A. C. HUFF, R. E. NEUMEYER, H. R. WALTERS, and R. S.
TAYLOR, ex-officio.
BETHLEHEM, PA.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY
1918
725
.84
W66
TF
725
.B4
W667
Delos F. Wilcox
at
9-8-1925-
FOREWORD
Investigation of the trolley situation in Bethlehem, which resulted in
the employment of Dr. Delos F. Wilcox, of New York, whose exhaustive
inquiry resulted in the report submitted herewith, was initiated by the Board
of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce very soon after the organization
of the Chamber.
At the fourth meeting of the Board, held at the Bethlehem Club, Janu-
ary 21, 1918, a motion offered by Mr. W. J. Heller was adopted, providing
"that inasmuch as traffic conditions are intolerable, drastic measures be
taken to remedy them and that a committee be appointed to get in touch
with the Lehigh Valley Transit Company and report to the Board."
At the fifth meeting of the Board, held on February 8, 1918, the report
of this committee was considered and on motion of Mr. W. R. Coyle,
seconded by Mr. Dallet H. Wilson, the employment of Dr. Wilcox was
authorized.
From that date, until the submission of this report to the printer late in
July, members of the Committee on Improved Trolley Facilities worked
with Dr. Wilcox to obtain a thorough understanding of the trolley situation'
in Bethlehem in order that recommendations for immediate relief might in-
telligently be presented and that, in addition, comprehensive plans for the
development of adequate trolley facilities for Bethlehem, to assist the
proper growth of the community in the future, might be formulated.
The members of the Committee on Improved Trolley Facilities and the
Directors of the Chamber of Commerce present the attached report to the
Bethlehem public in the hope that the information it contains will be utilized
and that the recommendations it presents for an adequate community
transportation service will be followed.
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE
BETHLEHEM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
President, R. S. Taylor.
Vice-President, H. E. Lewis..
Treasurer, E. P. Wilbur Trust Co.
General Secretary, I. C. Norwood.
M. J. O'Reilly,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Mrs. Alma L. Tobias
Jas. M. Degnan,
H. A. R. Dietrich,
W. J. Heller,
R. P. Hutchinson,
H. J. Meyers,
Chas. M. Schwab,
H. R. Walters,
W. A. Wilbur,
R. E. Wilbur,
D. H. Wilson,
C. F. Kurtz,
J. E. Gheen (Ex-officio).
}
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
IMPROVED TROLLEY FACILITIES.
W. J. Heller, Chairman;
James M. Degnan,
George T. Fonda,
John M. Gross,
H. R. Walters,
A. C. Huff,
L. F. Heiberger,
R. E. Neumeyer.
Foreword ..
Summary
·
CONTENTS.
Page
7
I. Area, Permanent Population and Industrial Population of the
Community Served, with a General Description of its Char-
acteristics from the Transportation Standpoint...
14
Table I: Area and Population of District Served by Lehigh
Valley Transit Company.
14
18
Table II: Transit Facilities Used by Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany's Employees
Population and Building Map (Map No. 1).........following 18
Table III: Distribution of Residences, Industries and Public
and Semi-Public Buildings in Bethlehem and Vicinity.....
II. Corporate History, Financial Development and General
Facilities and Service of the Lehigh Valley Transit Com-
pany
Table IV: Lehigh Valley Transit Company-Track Sta-
tistics
Table V: Lehigh Valley Transit Company (including Easton
Transit Company and Phillipsburg Transit Company)-
Operating Statistics by Divisions for Five-Year Period
from December 1, 1912, to November 30, 1917, inclusive...
Table VI: Lehigh Valley Transit Company-Increase in
Revenues, Earnings per Car Mile and per Car Hour and
Speed of Cars, by Operative Divisions.
•
III. General Past Policy of Bethlehem and Neighboring Munici-
palities with Respect to Franchise Grants and Control of
Transit Operations.
IV. Existing Street Railway Track Facilities in Bethlehem and
Vicinity and the Extensions and Additions Required, with
their Relation to the Street Layout, Existing and Future.
Bridges, the Location of Industrial Works, the Distribu-
tion of Population, Etc....
20
25
31
34
36
40
61
Map of Bethlehem, Pa., and Surrounding Territory Showing
Street Railway Lines of Lehigh Valley Transit Company
(Map No. 2)...
..following 61
Map Showing (on upper part) Present Street Railway Routes
of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company in and about Bethle-
hem, Pa.; also Route Extensions for which Certificates of
Public Convenience were Secured in 1917; also (lower part)
4
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Page
Loading Points and General Destinations of Bethlehem
Steel Company's Employees who use Street Cars, and
Existing and Proposed Track Facilities in Bethlehem (Map
No. 3)
...following 69
Graph-New Street Bridge-Pedestrian Traffic-
Monday, June 3, 1918....
Graph-Temporary Bridge-Pedestrian Traffic—
Wednesday, June 5, 1918....
Graph-New Street Bridge-Street Car Passen- (following
gers-Monday, June 3, 1918....
Graph-Temporary Bridge-Vehicular Traffic—
Wednesday, June 5, 1918....
Sketch-Street Railway Track Layout on New Street, Bethle-
hem, Pa., from Church Street to Fourth Street... following 84
Sketch-Street Railway Track Layout on Broad Street, Beth-
lehem, Pa., through the Business District..... ...following 88
V. Character and Efficiency of the Company's Rolling Stock, and
the Location and Sufficiency of its Car Barns and Shops... 97
Table VII: Lehigh Valley Transit Company-Car Equip-
ment-1918
100
VI. The Present Routing and Operation of the Transit Company's.
Cars with respect to Possible Improvements in Service.... 106
Table VIII: Comparative Trolley Statistics of Lehigh Valley
Transit Company and Subsidiaries for January, 1917, July,
1917, and January, 1918, Showing Increases and Decreases
in Service, Passenger Revenues, Speed of Cars, Etc....
Sketch Showing One-Way Operation of Street Cars as pro-
posed by the Lehigh Valley Transit Company in Bethle-
hem, Pa., and as actually practiced in Easton, Pa.. following 118
107
VII. Present System of Fares and Transfers with respect to its
Effect upon Local Service Problems..
126
Table IX Statistics of Commutation Fares and Passengers.
on Lehigh Valley Transit Company's Lines Entering Beth-
lehem, Pa., 1913 to 1917...
VIII. The Regulation of General Street Traffic in Relation to Street
Car Operation
128
131
IX. The Relation of Auto-Bus Service to the Expansion of Street
Railway Facilities and the Improvement of Trolley Service 140
X. The Financial Burdens of the Transit Company in the way of
Bridge Tolls, Special Taxes, Car Licenses, Etc...
Table X: Street Car Traffic over New Street Bridge, Bethle-
hem, Pa., 1913 to 1917, inclusive..
145
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
Cr
Page
XI. Suggestions as to Proper Municipal Policies with respect to
Future Franchises, Continuous Regulation, Street Plan-
ning, and other Vital Matters Affecting Transit..
•
Appendix “A”—-List of Industries and Public and Semi-Public Build-
ings and Institutions in Bethlehem, Pa., with Locations as shown
on "Population and Building Map" to Accompany Report on Tran-
sit Facilities
•
•
•
Appendix “B”—Summary of Transit Statistics Compiled from_the
Census of Employees Taken by the Bethlehem Steel Company, Feb-
ruary, 1918-Loading Points for Inbound Traffic and Number of
Employees Boarding Trains or Cars at Given Points.
Appendix “C”—Lehigh Valley Transit Company-Income Statement
for the Years Ended November 30, 1915, 1916, 1917.
Appendix “D”—Summary of Statistics Compiled from the Census of
Employees taken by the Bethlehem Steel Company, February, 1918,
Showing Number of Employees Homeward Bound, Boarding the
Trolley Cars of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company and the Easton
Transit Company at the Principal Loading Points.
Appendix “E”-Bridge Counts, Bethlehem, Pa……….
•
Appendix “F”-Load and Headway Records of Lehigh Valley Transit
Company's Street Railway Service in Bethlehem, Pa., Tuesday, Feb-
ruary 26, 1918...
•
Appendix "G"-Statistics of Commutation Rates and Traffic on the
Lehigh Valley Railroad and the Philadelphia & Reading Railway,
Between the Plants of the Bethlehem Steel Company in or near
Bethlehem, Pa., and Neighboring Towns...
•
Appendix "H"-Passengers Carried over New Street Bridge, Bethle-
hem, Pa., by the Cars of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company from
December 1, 1912, to January 31, 1918, inclusive..
151
158
167
172
174
179
191
221
• 225
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
7
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SET
FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE FOLLOWING REPORT, WITH
THE REASONS THEREFOR AND THE SUPPORTING DATA.
I. That the most pressing, immediate problem of transit service in
Bethlehem is the prompt and orderly conveyance of the workers of the
Bethlehem Steel Company to and fro between the several gates or exits of
the works and the "Four Winds" where they eat and sleep.
2. That the fundamental and permanent problem of transit service
in Bethlehem is to provide adequate facilities for "getting about town," so
that the city can develop as an organized urban community.
3. That the Lehigh Valley Transit Company and the Easton Transit
Company constitute a big interurban system in which Bethlehem local
traffic is regarded as of incidental and minor importance.
4. That the principal material obstacles at present in the way of the
development of an adequate street railway system in Bethlehem are (a) in-
adequate facilities for crossing the Lehigh River and (2) the grade cross-
ings in South Bethlehem, particularly those on South New Street and
West Third Street.
5. That adequate service on the present line cannot be given without
additional track facilities, and car barn facilities more convenient to Beth-
lehem.
6. That the steel workers cannot be handled properly without double
tracks and two-way operation along the entire steel front from the
southern end of New Street Bridge to the road leading to the Coke Works.
7. That double tracks should be installed at once on South New
Street from the New Street Bridge to Fourth Street and on West Fourth
Street from New Street to Vine Street.
8. That a double track four-way crossing with four-way curves
should be installed at once at Broad and New Streets.
9. That double tracks should be installed on East Third Street and
Daly Avenue from New Street to Fourth Street and on East Broad Street
and Minsi Trail Street from Linden Street to the northern end of Minsi.
Trail Bridge at the earliest practicable moment for the purpose of making
the bridge available for two-way street car operation.
IO. That street car tracks should be laid on Minsi Trail Street north
of Broad Street, on Newton Avenue, on Pembroke Road, on Yeates
Street and on Washington Avenue and Washington Avenue extended
8.
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
from Yeates Street to the Nazareth Pike as rapidly as may be required by
the East Bethlehem housing development.
II. That the use of the Minsi Trail Bridge as a link in a new Easton-
Philadelphia route for fast service, by-passing Bethlehem, would not be
advantageous to Bethlehem business interests.
12. That the construction of the Hill-to-Hill Bridge be pushed for-
ward to completion as soon as practicable.
13. That as a part of the Hill-to-Hill Bridge improvement, or as a
separate project coordinated with it, an elevated railway be constructed
carrying West Third Street from approximately the bridge level over the
Philadelphia and Reading Railway, coming down to grade at New Street.
14. That the Hellertown line be removed to a private right-of-way
and double-tracked from Battery "A" to the road leading to the Coke
Works, and that a single track spur to the Coke Works be laid on this
road.
15. That the southern arm of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop be
double-tracked from Gauff's Hill to New Street by the extension of the
single track line on Seneca Street northeastwardly to Third Street and
eastwardly on Third Street to Wyandotte Street, and thence by double
track to New Street; by the extension of the single track line on Wyan-
dotte Street from Fourth Street to Third Street; and by the extension of
the single track line on Broadway southwardly to Clewell Street,
southerly on Clewell Street to Itasca Street and thence southwestwardly
by private right-of-way to Gauff's Hill,
16. That double tracks be laid on the main roadway of the Hill-to-
Hill bridge; also on the southeasterly ramp to Third Street; also on the
northeasterly ramp to Main Street; also on the northwesterly ramp to the
intersection of Spring and Albert Streets.
17. That when the Hill-to-Hill Bridge is completed, Main Street be
double-tracked from the bridge approach to Broad Street.
18. That when the Hill-to-Hill Bridge is completed a single-track
line, with turnouts, be constructed from the northwesterly bridge approach
through Spring Street and Tenth Avenue to West Broad Street.
19. That when the Hill-to-Hill Bridge is completed the City proceed
to acquire and free the toll bridges and ultimately reconstruct, widen and
strengthen the New Street Bridge to make it available for double tracks.
20. That a connecting curve be installed at once at the southeast
corner of Elizabeth Avenue and New Street and a siding or turnout be
installed on New Street near this point to facilitate the handling of the
crowds resorting to the Bethlehem Steel Company's Athletic Field.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
9
21.
That the Lehigh Valley Transit Company, for the convenience of
car operation in Bethlehem, provide itself with a car barn to be located
preferably on the Hellertown line not far from Battery “A.”
22. That one-way operation on the North Bethlehem loop would be
detrimental to the business interests of Bethlehem north of the river, un-
less the regular Hellertown service were to be supplemented by a frequent
local loop service, and that the regularity of the present two-way opera-
tion could be improved by the installation of a turnout on Main Street,
south of Broad.
23. That during the Winter of 1917 and 1918 the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company discriminated against the Bethlehem service and in favor
of the Allentown local service in the distribution of its available car facili-
ties.
24. That the limited cars in the Easton and Nazareth service should
make four stops in West Bethlehem, at Second, Fourth, Seventh and
Tenth Avenues respectively, instead of three as at present; that quite a
number of local car stops in Bethlehem may properly be eliminated; but
that the principal cause of low speed and delayed schedules, where they
are found, is single-track and grade-crossing interferences, rather than too
many service stops.
25. That transfers from the Easton-Bethlehem and Easton-South
Bethlehem lines should carry passengers to any part of the inner fare zone,
whether north or south of the river.
26. That the City should keep New Street south of the river and
East Third Street from New Street to a point east of the Bethlehem Steel
Company's office clear of snow and ice or other obstructions to traffic.
27. That the new 900 series cars used on the Allentown-Bethlehem
loop, while commodious and generally well-adapted to heavy traffic lines,
are not well suited for quick loading where passengers come in crowds and
limited track facilities demand that each car should "step lively,” as for
example at Third and New Streets during the rush hours.
28. That the auto-bus or jitney ought not to be introduced into
Bethlehem as a competitor of the street cars, but that pending the enlarge-
ment of track facilities and the opening of the Hill-to-Hill Bridge, pro-
vision should be made for a supplementary bus service to be operated in
an emergency either by the City or by the Transit Company for the pur-
pose of avoiding a break-down of transit service such as occurred in De-
cember, 1917, and January, 1918.
29. That a general plan for the elimination of all grade-crossings in
South Bethlehem be agreed upon as soon as possible, and that if this plan
10
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
contemplates the ultimate lowering of the railroad tracks, no street sub-
ways be built under the tracks pending the final carrying out of the plan,
no matter how long the latter may be delayed.
30. That the City of Bethlehem proceed as rapidly as possible to
enlarge its corporate boundaries so as to bring in all of the adjacent terri-
tory which ought to be treated as a part of a single urban unit in the de-
velopment of a local transit system.
31. That the City of Bethlehem formulate and adopt as soon as pos-
sible a general city plan for the guidance of all major improvements which
can now be foreseen, giving full consideration to future transportation
needs.
32. That the City take advantage of the first opportunity to negotiate
with the Lehigh Valley Transit Company a comprehensive re-settlement
franchise along modern lines which will put the City into a dominant po-
sition with respect to the proper development of local transit facilities as
its needs increase.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
11
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF BETHLEHEM
AND VICINITY, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THEIR SOLUTION, SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON IMPROVED TROLLEY FACILITIES OF THE BETH-
LEHEM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WM. J. HELLER,
ESQ., CHAIRMAN, BY DELOS F. WILCOX, PH.D.,
CONSULTING FRANCHISE AND PUBLIC UTILITY
EXPERT.
William J. Heller, Esq.,
Chairman, Committee on Improved Trolley Facilities,
Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce,
Dear Sir:
Bethlehem, Pa.
I am now prepared to submit my final report on the transit problems.
of Bethlehem and vicinity, pursuant to the arrangement made with your
committee at a meeting held at the Bethlehem Club on Thursday, Febru-
ary 14, 1918, as confirmed by my letter addressed to you under date of
February 17 and your reply of February 27. I have from time to time dur-
ing the progress of my investigation submitted to you certain memoranda
and data relating to different phases of the general subject with which I
was instructed to deal, but all that is of permanent value in the partial re-
ports heretofore made will be included in this report, so that you will have
before you in a single document a complete statement of the results of the
investigation and of my recommendations in relation to the problems
under consideration.
In presenting this report I shall follow in general the outline contained
in my preliminary report of February 1, 1918, which was transmitted by
your committee to the board of directors of the Bethehem Chamber of
Commerce under date of February 2. In that report I recommended that
a comprehensive survey be made of the entire transit situation so far as it
affects Bethehem, for the purpose of enabling you to point out the re-
medial measures immedately necessary and the general lines along which
future community efforts should be made.
At that time the immediate problem of most pressing importance was
the improvement of the transportation service for the workers of the Bethle-
hem Steel Company. This service had been defective and inadequate for
several months immediately preceding the institution of my investigation,
and it was recognized that the failure of the Lehigh Valley Transit Com-
pany to cope successfully with this particular problem was resulting in a
12
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
general demoralization of trolley service in the City of Bethlehem. I
pointed out at the time that the local transit problem could not properly be
considered in its fundamental aspects except in connection with a great
many other civic problems with which it is intimately related, and upon the
solution of which its own solution is in large measure dependent. I sug-
gested therefore that the proposed study should cover the
the following
points:
"1. Area, permanent population and industrial population of the
community served, with a general description of its characteristics from
the transportation standpoint.
"2. Corporate history, financial development, facilities and service
of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company.
"3. General past policy of Bethlehem and neighboring municipalities
with respect to franchise grants and control of transit operations.
(6 4. The Transit Company's existing track facilities, and the exten-
sions and additions required, with their relation to the street layout, exist-
ing and future bridges, the location of industrial works, the distribution of
population, etc.
“5. The character and efficiency of the Transit Company's rolling
stock and the location and sufficiency of its barns and shops.
"6. The present routing and operation of the Transit Company's cars
with respect to possible improvements in service.
". The present system of fares and transfers on the Transit Com-
pany's lines with consideration of its effect upon local service problems.
"8. The regulation of general street traffic in relation to street car
operation.
"9. The relation of auto-bus service to the expanson of street railway
facilities and the improvement of trolley service.
"10. The financial burdens of the Transit Company in the way of
taxes, bridge tolls, car licences, etc.
"II. Suggestions as to proper municipal policies with respect to
future franchises, continuous regulation, street planning and other vital
matters affecting transit."
Between the time when I presented my preliminary report of Feb. i
and the time when I was engaged to make a comprehensive survey and re-
port there was a change in the situation which considerably affected the
urgency of hasty action. Representatives of the Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany on your committee stated that the problem of immediate transit re-
lief for the Company's employees was then well in hand and that the com-
plete investigation, if it was to be undertaken by your committee, should
be undertaken with a view to the adoption of an intelligent policy by the
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
13
City of Bethlehem for the protection of the community at large and for the
development of its interests, rather than as a means to the solution of the
immediate problems of the Bethlehem Steel Company. This change in the
situation did not affect materially either the nature or the scope of the
necessary inquiry suggested in my preliminary report. Its effect was to
relieve to a certain extent the urgency of the investigation with respect to
the amount of time to be allowed for it and also to give the investigation a
more general civic aspect and keep it from being completely dominated in
appearance or in fact by the particular necessities of the Bethlehem Steel
Company, important as those interests may be in the community life of the
city of Bethlehem. In presenting this final report I shall follow in general
the outline of topics suggested in my preliminary report, with such modi-
fications as seem desirable as a result of the way in which the problem has
developed during the investigation.
14
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
1.
AREA, PERMANENT POPULATION AND INDUSTRIAL
POPULATION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVED, WITH A
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ITS CHARACERISICS FROM
THE TRANSPORTATION STANDPOINT.
The city of Bethlehem is located on either side of the Lehigh River
and lies partly within Lehigh County and partly within Northampton
County. These two counties include the Lehigh Valley from the Blue
Mountains to the Delaware River. The northern portions of these two
counties are known as the slate belt and the cement belt and are said to
constitute the largest slate and cement region in this country. The two
counties are almost equal in size. Their combined area is 716 square
miles The two counties contain three principal urban centers, all of which
are on the Lehigh River. These are Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton.
But in addition to these chief centers of population and industry many
small urban centers, many of which are organized as boroughs, are scat-
tered about the two counties and have to be taken into consideration in
connection with a study of local transportation developments. Warren
County, N. J., on the easterly side of the Delaware River, should also be
considered in connection with the local transportation facilities of this dis-
trict. Phillipsburg the principal urban center of Warren County, is in re-
ality a suburb of Easton. The area of the three counties, their total pop-
ulation and their urban population (in places of 2,500 inhabitants or more)
is shown by the Federal census of 1910 as follows:
TABLE I.
AREA AND POPULATION OF DISTRICT SERVED BY LEHIGH
VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY.
Area in
Total
Urban population.
square miles. population.
Number. % of total.
Lehigh County, Pa...
344
118,832
72,260
60.8
Northampton County, Pa,
372
127,667
78,904
61.8
Warren County, N. J…....
362
43,187
20,185
46.7
Three Counties combined
1,078
289,686
171,349
59.15
In consideration of the demand for urban transit facilities, municipal
boundary lines must to a certain extent be disregarded, and the people
living outside of the city limits in boroughs or townships immediately ad-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
15
joining the city should be treated as a part of the population of the partic-
ular urban center under consideration. But as data are not available
showing just how the township population is distributed with respect to the
urban centers, it is practically necessary to confine ourselves to cities and
boroughs in the tabulation of definite statistics of urban population. Upon
this basis we find that the population of the principal urban centers in the
Lehigh Valley in 1910 was as follows:
I.
Allentown:
City of Allentown
Borough of South Allentown....
2.
Bethlehem:
Borough of Bethlehem.
3.
Easton:
(6
66
South Bethlehem
Fountain Hill ..
((
66
Northampton Heights
((
(6
Freemansburg
City of Easton..
Borough of West Easton...
Town of Phillipsburg (N. J.)...
51,913
1,814
53,727
12,837
19,973
1,388
1,037
867
36,102
28,523
1,033
•
13,903
43,459
133,288
Total for three urban districts...
Bethlehem lies between Allentown and Easton. It is about ten miles
west of Easton and five miles east of Allentown. On the north side of the
Lehigh River the residential district extending west from Bethlehem and
east from Allentown makes an almost continuous urban development.
This development, including Rosemont and Rittersville, lies within the
township of Hanover which in 1910 had a total population of 3,907. On
the south side of the Lehigh River the residential development between
the two cities is not continuous. Salisbury township, however, which ex-
tends from Fountain Hll in the vicinity of Bethlehem all the way to
Emaus, had a population of 2,828. The combined population of the two
townships was 6,735. The urban portion of this population might perhaps
be divided about equally between Allentown and Bethlehem. Lower
Saucon and Bethlehem townships in Northampton County are principally
tributary to Bethlehem. The former, lying to the south and east, had a
population of 3,855 in addition to the population of the borough of Heller-
16
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
town, which was 915. The township of Bethlehem, lying to the east and
north of the city, had a population of 3,414. A portion of this district, in-
cluding Edgeboro and the territory between the old city line and the bor-
ough of Freemansburg, has just become a part of the city of Bethlehem
through annexaton. Hanover township, Northampton County, lying to
the northwest of Bethlehem was very sparsely settled, having a population
of only 403. The present annexation plans of the City of Bethlehem in-
clude, however, a part of this township, as well as another part of the
township of Bethlehem and a part of Hanover township in Lehigh County.
The five townships, which are in some measure tributary to Bethlehem,
contained a total population of 14,407 in 1910. Of this number perhaps
one-third might be regarded as urban or suburban population tributary to
Bethlehem. This would bring the total population of the Bethlehem urban
district in 1910 up to about 40,000. To what extent the population of the
three counties and of the three principal urban centers here under consid-
eration has increased since 1910 is not definitely known, but the immense.
development of the steel industry since the opening of the European War
four years ago makes it probable that there has been more than the nor-
mal increase since 1910 in the population of the Bethlehem district. The
urban population of the three counties in 1910 was 51.8% greater than the
urban population in 1900 and 41.9% greater than the populaton of the
same places in 1900. However, the increase in the Bethlehems and adjoin-
ing boroughs during that period was only 33%. Eight years of the present
decade have passed, and perhaps it would not be far wrong to assume that
the urban population of the Bethlehem district has increased 40% during
that time. Upon this assumption the present population of the city of
Bethlehem and the boroughs and other suburban districts immediately ad-
jacent to it would be about 55,000.
While the smaller urban centers in Lehigh and Northampton Counties
have a relatively unimportant influence upon the transit problem of Bethle-
hem, it may be well for purposes of comparison to consider the location and
population of a number of them which have trolley connections with Bethle-
hem and Allentown. The borough of Nazareth, which is situated about nine
miles northeast of Bethlehem, had a population of 3,978 in 1910; the
borough of Emaus, which is about six miles southeast of Allentown, had a
population of 3,501 and the borough of Macungie, four miles further on,
had a population of 772. Coopersburg, which is about nine miles southeast
of Allentown on the Philadelphia division of the Lehigh Valley Transit
Company's lines, and about the same distance directly south of Bethlehem,
had a population of 683. Directly north of Allentown, and about four miles
away, are Catasauqua and North Catasauqua, which together had a popula-
tion of 7,280 in 1910. Two miles further north, on the east side of the Le-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
17
high River, is the borough of Northampton, which had a population in 1910
of 8,729. This section is reached by the Siegfried line of the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company. The borough of Coplay, about two miles northwest of
Catasauqua, had a population of 2,670. Egypt, an unincorporated town at
the terminus of this branch of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's lines,
had a population of about 1,200. The borough of Slatington, twelve miles
northwest of Allentown, had 4,454 inhabitants, and the township of Wash-
ington, just west of Slatington, including the unincorporated town of Slate-
dale, had a population of 3,477.
Aside from the general business which is characteristic of urban com-
munities that are surrounded by wide agricultural districts, the most im-
portant industries in Bethlehem and vicinity are the silk mills and the iron
and steel mills, the latter being of far greater importance on account of the
preponderant development of the Bethlehem Steel Company. The growing
importance of the Bethlehem Steel Company as a factor in the transit prob-
lem of Bethlehem and vicinity is shown by the rapid increase in the number
of men on the company's payrolls since the opening of the great war four
years ago. Disregarding the coke plant, which is located between Bethle-
hem and Hellertown, and the plant at Redington, midway between Bethle-
hem and Easton, the plants in Bethlehem, Northampton Heights and the
immediate vicinity show the following changes, based on the working
average:
Date.
July I, 1914.
October 1,
January 1, 1915
April I,
July I,
66
• •
•
Number on Payroll.
9,717
8,182
9,712
•
10,958
12,862
October 1,
((
January 1, 1916.
April
I,
July I,
October I,
"
((
(C
January 1, 1917.
April
(6
I,
July I,
(6
October 1,
66
•
• •
14,858
•
16,147
•
17,049
18,066
•
•
19,236
..20,739
•
. 19,938
.20,433
January 1, 1918...
. 20,955
.21,705
The combined figures for the Coke Works and the Redington plant
were 2,169 an January 1, 1918, making the total for all the plants of the
Bethlehem Steel Company in Bethlehem and vicinity on that date 23,874.
2
18
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
These figures are based on the working average and do not represent
the total number of individuals employed by the Steel Company at any par-
ticular time.
The total number of Bethlehem Steel Company employees in February,
1918, was about 30,000. At the same time it was estimated that thirteen
other important industrial plants in Bethlehem, principally silk mills, em-
ployed less than 2,700 persons, as follows:
Guerber Engineering Company.
•
250
Bethlehem Foundry & Machine Company...... 350
Vanderstucken-Ewing Construction Company.. 60
Lattig-Shimer Company, Inc....
Bayuk Brothers Cigar Company
Brown-Borhek Lumber Company
Kurtz Brothers
·
• •
Sauquoit Silk Manufacturing Company.
Bethlehem Silk Company..
Lehigh Valley Silk Company.
Wyandotte Silk Company.
•
South Bethlehem Knitting Mills Company...
Halcyon Knitting Mills Company.
•
40
400
60
125
284
•
350
400
150
75
•
141
This shows clearly the preponderant importance of the Bethlehem Steel
Company in the industrial life of the city and in the problem of transporta-
tion so far as it affects industrial workers. A careful census of its em-
ployees, taken by the Bethlehem Steel Company itself in February, 1918,
showed that of a total of approximately 30,000 persons only 9,540 made use
of the street cars or the steam railroads in going to and from their work.
This is shown by the following summary:
TABLE II.
TRANSIT FACILITIES USED BY BETHLEHEM STEEL
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES.
Means of Transportation.
Men. Women. Total.
Lehigh Valley Transit Co...
5,012 152
5,164
Easton Transit Co.....
303
8
311
South Bethlehem & Saucon Street Railway Co.....
ΙΟΟ
100
Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.....
•
3,087
430
3,517
Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co....
448
448
All lines
8,950
590
9,540

TO BANLUR
66
wwwwwwww
www
KIEFFER
MAPLE
ST.
PINE
AL
SCHOOL
T
TOMBLER
CA
CLEWEL
CALIFO
سنا
I WELFTH
Sr
SPRING
AVE
ELEVENTH
TOWNS
EHEM
ANOVER
BOROUGH OF
ST
MART
MAP
OF THE BOROUGHS OF
NORTHAMPTON
COUNTY
COUNTY LINE
LEHIGH
COUNTY
BETHLEHEM, SOUTH BETHLEHEM,
NORTHAMPTON HEIGHTS
AND
FOUNTAIN
HILL
SCALE 1"- 400
R.E. NEUMEYER, CE.
SO. BETHLEHEM, PA.
MARCH 4 1912.
HANOVER TOWNSHIP
UNION
TENTH
AVE
AVE
NORTH
AVE
BETHLEHEM
PREPARATORY SCHOOL
AVE
haaneenzeriainnes
GARDEN ST
AVE
BROAD
RASHERRY
7TH. WARD
土
​ר,
MARKET
PROSPECT
S. GARDEN ST
LANE
SEVENTH
NINTH
EIGHTH
SCHAFFER
AVE
WETZEL Sr
SEVENTH
SIXTH
A
CO
CANAL
AVE
LIBERTY
גרוא
SIXTH
TOWN LAN
VINEYARD
WARD
LEHIGH
لسا
PAV
N
FIFTH
ARCH ST
0
CHANOVER-ST..
CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW
DETHLEHLM JUNCTION
LEHIGH
Cow Co.
RESERVCIES
LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD
UNTAIN HILL
ST. LUKES HOSPITAL
DELAWARE
عمار
L
BOROUGH OF FOUNT
SALISBURY TOWNSHIP
www
HILL
LEHIGH COUNTY
मन
SENECA
CLEWEL
BISHOP
CHENORE
M
ALLEY
..
HOSPITAL PL
FIO
لعدد ٢٠
STRUM
AVE
ST.
سسر
x
ALLEY
ST.
نسل
ASKA
SIOUX
1ST. WARD
FICT
22222229
YT)
PEY
4++
OF FOUNTA HILL
BOROUGH OF SPOTH BETHLEHEM
L
PAWNEC
BROADWAY
weeeeeeee l ww.Hll
ALASKA
JISCHKE
good
ST
ONTARIO
SEMIN
WYA
HESS
WOOD
wwwwwww
WALNUT
ST
BOYER
ST
LIBERTY
ST.
wwwwwww
FOURTH.
ST
NE
RAUCH ST
AVE
bilieeeeas
ALCH
NORTHAMP
LEHIGH COUNTY
HANOVER TOWNSHIP
L.& N E.R.R
MAUCH CHUNK ROAD
HULBER
GARRISON
6TH WARD
ST.
3T
AVE
RIEGEL
THIRO
AVE
FILBERT
ם!
SECOND
AVE
RIEGEL
N
Ave
WEST
ST
WEST
KRAUSE LATE
FIRST
ALBERT Sr
回回
​AVE.
L.V.RR.CO
OFFICES
LEHIGH
CHESTNUT
CHE
THIRD
WY
SHAWNEE
China
館
​WARREN SQUARE
AVE
区
​OLD
ST
UNIVE
UNIC
STAT
CONESTOGA
L&NERR::
STATION
WATER
CRROFNI
STATION
十七
​COUNTY LINE
BATHLEHEM
OUNDRY
MACHI
COMPANY
GRAHAM
RINK
INE
PACKER
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
EIGHTH
UNIVERSITY
AVE.
ST
SAYRE
PARK
NINTH
ST.
TENTH
TO PHILAPENA
SOUTH
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
2ND WARD
NORTHAN
BIRCH
AVE
AVE.
AVE
.........
TERRACE
LIMORAVIA
Se
NARY.
100
LOCK42
MAIN
SUN
GESSINGE
MONOCACY
31-3-
ORCHARD
MONOGASY
LUNA
ST
AURORA
100 99 99
ST
WILLIAMS
CREEK
MAIN
ST
HESPERUS
תיו
ST
OAK
MONOCACY
LENIGH
LIME
ST
MAIN
SLATE
Sr.
NORTHAMPTON
BETHLEHEM
TOWNSHIP
ELIZABETH
Ave
BOROUGH OF BETHLEHEM
MORAVIAN
COLLEGE
ST
B..
3 WARD
+
S
ST
19
الـــلـ
C
NEW
T
SCOTT
Ave
LOCUST
DURHAM
LAUREL
FRANKLIN
FAIRVIEW.
ETWEIN
GOEPP
SPRUCE
S
UNION
GARRISON
NORTH
RASPBERRY
MUNICIPAL
BROAD
OLO MORAV
CEMETER
- MARKET
+
ANTHRACITE ST
MORAVIAN F
PAROCHIAL
SCHOOL
BARTOW
20209
S
WALL
WESLEY
CHURCH
ofe
CENTER.
ST
2ND
Lehigh Valley Transit
I
Lee ST.
+
Reine Looi...
HIGH
og
ST.
WARD
ST
STEINMAN
STO
NISKY HILL CEMETERY
MHOLO
LEHIGH ST
SECOND
ORC
THIRD
E45Fon TOAST
CHURCH
ATHLETIC GROUNDS
3RD. WARD
L
GRANT
T
GOTE
PORTER
BETHLEHEM
BOROUGH LINE
ST
THOMAS
JACKSO
SHERMAN
SELFRIDGE
STONEMAN
COUNTY LINE
rasse
FIFTH
www
a
922G
ST
22229
MEADE
HILLSIDE
4TH WARD
HIGH
www
ET
AVE.
BEECH
ST.
LS
LEHIGH PLANT
GATE
ST
SATTY
LAWFES
www
ST
WEST
WASHINGTON
HILL
Lear
CENTER
ST
HUTTLE
2222
AVE
4TH.
WARD
ST.
ST
ST
ST.
Dereen!
HOIH
ST
ST
ST
HAMILTON
SHOTEL
JEFFERSON
ST.
1H
ROTH
ST
-MADISON
ST
BEECH
AB
2100
ST.
HL
ST
ST
RESERVOIR
PARK
ST
THE
DE
LINDEN
19922
1 ST
WARD
MAPLE
ELM
CIR
PARK PLACE
WOOD
ST.
ROAD
WESTON
AVE
LINDENY
MAPLE
ST
HICKORY
I
CLAY
ELM
ST.
BOROUGH
OF
BETHLEHEM****
BETHLEHE
TOWNSHIP
68 T
உஉ உ உ....
AAAACARARS
S
WASHINGTON
ORO
Lesse
PINE
Ave.
EASTON ROAD
HAMILTON
MONROE
AVE
SYCAMORE
ST.
TOWNSHI
FOR
EAST BETHLEHEM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY'S EMPLOYES
NEWTON AV
MINSI TRAIL ROAD.
MARKET ST. ROAD.
LOCK NO 43
BOROUGH LINE
LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD
BETHLEHEM
RIVER
STEEL COMPANY
PTON
HEIGHTS
MINSI TRAIL BRIDGE.
[GATE
BETHLEHEM
STEE
AVE
wo
BU
SIXTH
ST.
POPLAR AVE.
SEVENTH
CAK
CENTER
ST.
ST.
SULLIV
ST.
5TH WARD
RIDGE
UGH OF SCHEM
+
LOWER SAUCON
++
EIGHTH
ST.
NINTH
ST
THIRD
FORTUNA
MECHANIC
FOURTH
RAILROAD
ST.
CEDAR
S
ST
FIFTH
ST.
WILLIAM
chigh Valley Transit Co.
ESSENER
NORT
AMPTON
COWARD
S
BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON HEIGHTS
SIXTH
ST
LOWER SAUCON TOWNSA
мног
OBERLY TERRACE
WILLIAM
ARON
SEVENTH
POPULATION & BUILDING MAP
To accompany Report on Transit Facilities, prepared for
Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce by Delos F. Wilcox, June, 1918.
KEY
Le.....ed L
ال
MAP NO.1
Residences.
Tenements & Apartment Houses.
Churches.
Schools.
Athletic & Play Grounds.
Theatres & Public Halls.
Municipal and Federal buildings, Libraries, Office Buildings,
Department Stores, Hotels, Clubs, Fraternity Houses and
Boarding Houses.
Stores & Shops.
LYNN
SECOND
wwwwwwww
ST.
THIRD
ST.
FOURTH
www
HEIGHTS
PHILADELPHIA & READING"
R. R.
Industrial Buildings and Yards
107
TO FREEMANSHURO
BETHLEHEM LIME
AND STONE CO.
QUARRY
BORDLINE FRAMANBURG TOWNSHIP
JONES & BIXLIR
FOUNDRY
TO NEW YORK
SO CAN
LOWER
SAUCON
TOWNSHIP
TO NEW YORK
SAUCON
PLANT
LS
ON
TO MELLANTUAN
BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON HTS
++
LOWER
SAUCON TOWNSHIP
++
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
19
An effort was made at about the same time to secure a traffic census of
the other Bethlehem industries referred to, but with very little success.
Only a few of them reported. The Guerber Engineering Company, for ex-
ample, stated that of 250 employees not more than 25 used the trolley lines.
The Sauquoit Silk Manufacturing Co. sent in census cards filled out by 226
individual employees, of whom 205 walked to their work; 18 used the street
cars, two the steam cars and one a bicycle. Another silk company filled out
cards of 66 employees, of whom 57 walked to and from their work and nine
used the street cars.
It is evident from the census taken by the Steel Company and the other
industries referred to that Bethlehem is a hard-walking town. The explana-
tion of this fact is in part the topography of the district, in part the distribu-
tion of population and in part the entire absence or inadequacy of transit
facilities. The general distribution of population and the location of in-
dustries are shown on the accompanying map of Bethlehem, entitled, “Popu-
lation and Building Map to Accompany Report on Transit Facilities." Most
of the information used in the preparation of this map was taken from the
Insurance Map of Bethlehem, a copy of which was made available for my
use through the courtesy of Mr. W. J. Fink. Additional information was
secured by field observations, particularly in the new outlying sections. In-
deed, the Neumeyer "Map of the Boroughs of Bethlehem, South Bethle-
hem, Northampton Heights and Fountain Hill," originally prepared in 1912,
and the only map of Bethlehem which I could find that was available for use
as a base for the Population Map, does not cover enough territory to take
in the entire urban district of the Bethlehems. On the north side of the
river, the Mack Addition and Rosemont are outside the Bethlehem city
limits and are "off" this map. They form a continuous development from
Park Avenue west nearly to Rittersville. They lie on either side of Broad
Street and already have 150 residences and are now building a church. On
the south side of the river the Fountain Hill development, extending into
Salisbury Township, also gets "off" the map. From the Palace Hotel, where
Delaware Avenue comes into Broadway (Salisbury Road), to Gauff's Hill,
there is quite an important residential development containing about 145
residences, which are not shown on the map. The Children's Home is lo-
cated in this district, near the south side trolley line. This district also has a
public school and a hotel.
The Bethlehem urban district is naturally divided into three parts by
the Lehigh River and Monocacy Creek, and for the purpose of analyzing
the data shown on the map I shall make use of this division. If we include
the two developments to which I have referred as "off" the map, we find
that Bethlehem now has a total of approximately 9,448 private residences,
25 tenements or flat houses, 51 churches, 30 schools (including Lehigh Uni-
20
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
versity), 22 theatres and public halls, 42 hotels, 55 other public and semi-
public buildings of various kinds, 88 factories and other industrial establish-
ments, and small stores and shops to a number that I have not counted or
estimated. The general distribution of the buildings shown on the "Popula-
tion and Building Map" is of considerable interest and importance in con-
nection with a study of local transportaton facilities. Besides using the three
natural divisions of the Bethlehem territory for the analysis of this data I
have prepared separate statistics for the borough of Fountain Hill and
vicinity (including Gauff's Hill in Salisbury Township) and the borough of
Northampton Heights (including Oberly Terrace in Lower Saucon Town-
ship). The distribution is as follows:
TABLE III.
DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENCES, INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC
AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN BETHLEHEM
AND VICINITY.
NORTH SIDE.
SOUTH SIDE..
Bethlehem
and
Vicinity
Bethlehem
and Vicinity
West
North Side
Total
Bethlehem
South
Northampt'n
Heights
and Vicinity
Fountain
Hill and
Vicinity
Total
South Side
Total
Both Sides
Private residences.... 2937 1756 4693 3471 552
Tenements and flat
732 4755 9448
houses
Churches
Schools
•
•
I
17
8
2 ∞
25
8
4 12
35 2
3
17 · 3
20
4
2 2
22 25
26
51
12
2
4 18
30
Theatres and Public
Halls
2
Hotels
II
35
55
16
I
17 22
16
20
2
4
26
42
Other public and semi-
public buildings....
12
5 17 33
I
4
38
55
Factories and other
industrial establish-
ments
18
24 42 37
3 6
6 46 88
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
21
The private residences shown on the "Population and Building Map'
are distributed among local sub-divisions as follows:
In Bethlehem Proper:
South of Broad Street and west of New Street...
South of Broad Street and east of New Street.
137
306
North of Broad Street and west of Main Street...
291
North of Broad Street between Main and New Streets...
466
North of Broad Street from New Street to Linden Street and
William Penn Highway...
961
North of Broad Street between Linden and Elm Streets (in-
cluding Edgeboro)
•
East Bethlehem (east of Elm Street)..
402
374
-2937
In West Bethlehem:
South of Spring Street....
357
Between Prospect Avenue and Spring Street.
284
Between Broad Street and Prospect Avenue.
•
514
North of Broad Street....
451
Mack Addition and Rosemont (not shown on map). .
150
-1756
In South Bethlehem:
Northampton Heights and vicinity.
•
North of Fourth Street and east of New Street.
South of Fourth Street and east of New Street.
North of Fourth Street and West of New Street.
South of Fourth Street and west of New Street..
Fountain Hill and vicinity (including Gauff's Hill).
In all of Bethlehem and Vicinity.
.9448
As will be seen by an examination of the Population Map portions of
Bethlehem, particularly on the south side, are densely populated. It is a
matter of common observation that the majority of the people living in
these districts do not regularly use the street cars in going to and from their
work. Up to the present time street railway communication between the
north side and the south side of Bethlehem has been entirely confined to
one bridge with a single track on it. This necessarily makes the street car
service between the two sides too irregular and inconvenient to stimulate
the car-ridng habit back and forth across the river. The presence of the
Lehigh Mountains crowding up toward the river on the south side, leav-
552
895
1142
132
•
1302
732
-4755
22
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
ing only a narrow and irregular strip of land readily available for street
and residential development has made the problem of residential expansion.
and the development of adequate transportation facilities on the south side
of the river difficult and even on the north side the Monocacy Creek valley
and other irregularities in the natural surface of the land, have seriously
interfered with the orderly expansion of the city and the development of
convenient street facilities. West Bethlehem is connected with Bethlehem
proper chiefly by the Broad Street viaduct, and street car communication is
lacking except along this one street. To illustrate, the Guerber Engineer-
ing Company, which has one of the most important industrial develop-
ments on the north side, is located in the river bottom half a mile from the
Broad Street car line end at a much lower elevation, and is nearly a mile
west of the New Street Bridge over which the street cars operate in
crossing the river. Naturally, the Guerber employees walk.
Until a year ago little progress could be made in overcoming the nat-
ural difficulties of the topography, for the reason that the Bethlehem urban
district was split up into a number of independent municipal units, with little
inclination or ability to cooperate with each other in a constructive way to
overcome the obstacles to a convenient urban development offered by the
natural site of the community. These political difficulties still persist in
part, as the boroughs of Fountain Hill and Northampton Heights on the
south side still maintain their independent municipal existence, and even
with them annexd to the city of Bethlehem, the latter's boundaries would
still be too narrow to take in the entire area which needs to be treated as a
unit in the study and development of adequate facilties for local transit and
communication. The two Bethlehems have developed until quite recently
along independent lines, each town having its own business center. The
artificial unity that is required where natural topographcal unity is lacking
has not been established in any proper degree for the purpose of a unified
city. This is evidenced by the fact that two of the three bridges are toll
bridges, so narrowly designed that neither can accommodate more than a
single street railway track, and by the fact that the old bridge, which has
recently been closed to the public, and the new temporary bridge have not
been located or designed for the accommodation of any street railway ser-
vice at all. The new Hill-to-Hill bridge, for which the funds have been
raised and the plans approved, represents the first really effective step on
the part of the Bethlehems to bind themselves together and attain the
physical unity which is essential to the development of adequate transit
facilities for the consolidated city, but even this improvement, if completed
according to present plans, will leave much to be desired in the facilities
for street railway communication between the business districts of the
north and south sides. Each of the Bethlehems taken by itself is a small
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
23
town. Taken together, with the additions of territory and population now
being made, they are beginning to constitute a real city of sufficient impor-
tance to have local transit facilities of its own.
Hitherto Bethlehem proper has been from the transit standpoint
chiefly a stopping place on interurban lines and South Bethlehem an indus-
trial terminus for interurban traffic. This has been partly the result of the
small size of the two towns and partly the result of their physical separa-
tion. Because of the absence or meagerness of local transit facilities and
because of the way in which the population of the Bethlehems has been
distributed with relation to the topography, the walking habit is well de-
veloped and the riding habit, so far as local service is concerned, is con-
spicuous by its absence. But the situation is now ripe for change while at
the same time the extraordinary development of the Bethlehem Steel
Company plant since the commencement of the European War has em-
phasized and complicated the requirements of the interurban service, as it
has been more than ever necessary to provide for the transportation of
large numbers of the Steel Company's employees to and from neighboring
towns. This is due to the fact that the rapid expansion of the company's
business has far outrun the increase in housing facilities in Bethlehem and
vicinity. In fact, it became necessary last year for the officials of the
Steel Company to make a survey of Allentown for the purpose of finding
residence and boarding accommodations for large numbers of men who
could not be accommodated in Bethlehem but whose services were essential
to the performance of the work undertaken by the Steel Company for the
Government in connection with the War. The extent to which the Steel
Company now has to depend upon communities outside of Bethlehem pro-
per for its labor force was shown by the transit census taken in February,
1918, to which reference has already been made. Of the 9,540 employees
regularly using the trolley cars or the steam cars in getting to and from
their work about 3,100 came from Allentown alone and about 3,000 more
came from Phillipsburg, Easton, Nazareth, Slatington, Catasauqua,
Emaus, Coopersburg, Quakertown, Hellertown and other outside points,
but of the latter about 900 were employees using the Lehigh Valley Rail-
road to and from their work at the Redington plant.
The arrangement of an economical and effective system of street rail-
way lines for the service of a community with the topographical character-
istics of Greater Bethlehem would have been sufficiently difficult if it had
been undertaken by a single company, in cooperation with a single muni-
cipality intelligently applying itself to the solution of these problems of
physical unity that underlie it in the designing and construction of the
necessary system of streets and bridges; but as a matter of fact the street
railway system of Bethlehem has been developed upon the initiative of
24
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
several different companies, which were dependent upon several municip-
alities for the right to install the trackage which goes to make up the
present system in use in Bethlehem.
A list of industrial plants and of the public and semi-public buildings
shown on the population map is attached to this report as Appendix “A.” A
summary of transit statistics compiled from the census of employees taken
by the Bethlehem Steel Company, under the direction of Mr. George T.
Fonda, in February, 1918, showing the loading points for inbound traffic
and the total number of employees boarding trains or cars at given points
is attached to this report as Appendix “B.”
The main outlines of the Bethlehem transit problem may be given in a
few words. The Bethlehem Steel Company is the dominating industrial
factor in the community. Its employees by thousands must be carried in all
directions to and from their work. Moreover, these employees are not con-
centrated at a single loading and unloading point, but are distributed among
several widely separated plants. Not counting the Redington plant, which
is served exclusively by the Lehigh Valley Railroad, the company's em-
ployees must be delivered to and picked up at six principal points, namely,
the Coke Works (about half a mile off the road to Hellertown), Battery "A"
at the southeasterly limit of Northampton Heights, Saucon Gate at Anthra-
cite Street, near the center of Northampton Heights, Gas House Gate in
South Bethlehem, about 1,000 feet south of the entrance to the Minsi Trail
Bridge, Lehigh Gate, at the main office, near Poplar Street, and along New
Street from Fourth Street to the river. This Steel Company traffic is largely
a rush-hour traffic, although the working shifts have been arranged so as to
distribute a considerable part of it through periods of several hours, morn-
ing and afternoon. This is at the present time largely interurban traffic, and
will continue to be such at least until Bethlehem housing developments.
catch up with the demands of the workers. Every consideration of public
policy requires that this traffic be handled promptly and efficiently. During
the War even national interests are involved; and at any time local business
and civic interests would suffer most seriously from the absence of adequate
transportation service for the Steel Company's employees. Besides this
overshadowing special feature of the problem, the city of Bethlehem has
now reached a size and is aspiring to a unity which demand the effective
binding together of its separated business districts and the development of
local transit service calculated to make it easy for the people of the city to
trade at home rather than in other towns which may be reached by fast
interurban lines. In summary, therefore, Bethlehem's transit problem is to
handle the Bethlehem Steel Company's employees and to develop the community's
business and social life by adequate local transportation service.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
25
II. CORPORATE HISTORY, FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
GENERAL FACILITIES AND SERVICE OF THE LEHIGH
VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company, upon which Bethlehem is chiefly
dependent for street railway service, is an Allentown corporation. It is a
real "octopus." Through a series of consolidations, leases and stock pur-
chases it has acquired control of practically all the local transit lines in the
Lehigh Valley from Slatington to Easton, and it also controls the local car
lines of Phillipsburg, N. J., and operates a high-speed line from Allentown
to Philadelphia. Furthermore, this company controls practically the entire
electric lighting and power service in the cities and towns served by its
street car lines. It purchases 3,000 or 4,000 kilowatts of electrical current
from the Lehigh Navigation Electric Company, and manufactures about
24,000 kilowatts at its own power station in Allentown. The capacity of this
station is 30,000 kilowatts, and the power generated there is distributed to
fourteen sub-stations over a radius of about 50 miles. Eight of these sub-
stations are on the line between Allentown and Philadelphia. The current
purchased and manufactured is used for both railway and commercial pur-
poses. Most of the current used for commercial lighting and power is dis-
tributed through a subsidiary concern, the Lehigh Valley Light & Power
Company, which operates in Allentown, Bethlehem, Slatington, Catasauqua,
Emaus and adjacent territory, serving a population of about 200,000. Cur-
rent is sold to local distributing companies operating in Macungie, Coopers-
burg, Sellersville, Souderton and North Wales, and the Transit Company
also supplies power to the South Bethlehem & Saucon Street Railway Com-
pany, an independent concern operating a single-track line over the Moun-
tain from South Bethlehem to Center Valley.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company was incorporated November 3,
1905, as a reorganization and consolidation of the Lehigh Valley Traction
Company, the Philadelphia & Lehigh Valley Traction Company, the Allen-
town & Slatington Street Railway Company and the Coplay, Egypt & Iron-
ton Street Railway Company. In 1911 the Transit Company secured control
of the Montgomery Traction Company, with a line running from Lansdale
to Norristown, and in the following year merged it. In 1912 the Transit
Company acquired half of the capital stock of the Norristown Transit Com-
pany and by a traffic agreement got the use of the Philadelphia & Western
Railway Company's tracks from Norristown to 69th and Market Streets,
Philadelphia, to a connection with the terminal of the Market Street subway
26
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. The Transit Company con-
trols through a 999-year lease the Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Rail-
way Company, which owns a line extending from Broad and New Streets,
Bethlehem, to Mauch Chunk and Belvidere Streets, Nazareth. In 1913 the
Transit Company acquired all of the stock of the Easton Consolidated Elec-
tric Company. The latter controls, through stock ownership, the Edison
Electric Illuminating Company of Easton, the Easton Transit Company and
the Phillipsburg Transit Company. The car lines in Easton and Phillips-
burg and extending from Easton to Bethlehem and South Bethlehem, and
to Nazareth, are operated by the Easton Transit Company in close coordi-
nation with the lines operated by the Lehigh Valley Transit Company. The
Easton Transit Company owns the line extending from the intersection of
Fourth and New Streets, South Bethlehem, by way of Northampton
Heights and Freemansburg, to Easton, and also the line extending from the
intersection of Broad and Main Streets, Bethlehem, by way of Main Street,
Elizabeth Avenue and the William Penn Highway, to Easton. In 1915 the
Lehigh Valley Transit Company acquired the stock of the Quakertown
Traction Company. It also controls the Allentown Bridge Company, the
Lehigh Valley Stone & Construction Company, the Rittersville Hotel Com-
pany and the Central Park Amusement Company.
Last year the corporate relations of the Transit Company were compli-
cated still further by the organization of the Lehigh Power Securities Cor-
poration, a holding company, which acquired stock control of the Transit
Company and also of the Lehigh Navigation Electric Company and the
Northern Central Company. The stock of the Lehigh Power Securities.
Corporation was placed in the hands of ten voting trustees, as follows:
I. W. Bonbright, of Bonbright & Co., Inc., New York.
G. M. Dahl, Vice-President of the Chase National Bank, New York.
Geo. H. Frazier, of Brown Bros. & Co., New York.
Alexander J. Hempel, Chairman of the Board of the Guaranty Trust
Company, New York.
S. Z. Mitchell, President of the Electric Bond & Share Company, New
York.
Edward B. Smith (since deceased), President of Edward B. Smith &
Company, Philadelphia.
L. E. Pierson, Chairman of the Board of the Irving National Bank,
New York.
Daniel E. Pomeroy, Vice-President, Bankers' Trust Company, New
York.
S. D. Warriner, President of the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company,
Philadelphia.
William West, of West & Company, Philadelphia.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
27
The importance of the new deal, so far as this report is concerned, lies
in the fact that it complicates still further the control of the local transit
facilities of Bethlehem and also tends to strengthen the power monopoly in
this section of Pennsylvania.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company on November 30, 1917, had a
total outstanding capitalization of $19,701,046.37, as follows:
CAPITAL AND Funded Debt:
Capital Stock:
Preferred
Common
Funded Debt Outstanding:
.$4,979,687 37
2,997,350 00
$ 7,977,037 37
First Mortgage 4% Gold Bonds....$2,770,000 00
First Mortgage 5% Gold Bonds.... 2,224,000 00
Consolidated Mortgage 4% Gold
Bonds
•
Refunding and Improvement Mort-
gage 5% Gold Bonds....
Collateral Trust 6% Gold Bonds....
Equipment Trust Certificates:
354,000 00
5,115,000 00
924,259 OI
Series "A" 5% ...... $
46,750 00
Series "B" 5%
90,000 00
Series "C" 5%
200,000 00
336,750 00
$ 11,724,009 OI
The preferred stock is entitled to annual five per cent. dividends, cumu-
lative from the date of issue, before the common stock gets anything. The
dividends actually paid on the preferred stock have been as follows:
1911, 1%; 1912, 2%; 1913, 2%; 1914, 2%; 1915, 3½%; 1916, 5%;
1917, 5%.
This leaves an accumulation of 142% of deferred dividends on the pre-
ferred stock to be made up before dividends can be paid on the common
stock. In money these deferred payments amount to nearly $725,000. The
entire amount of capital stock authorized, both common and preferred, ex-
cept a few thousand dollars, has been issued and is now outstanding. In this
connection it is of interest to note that in the deal by which the Lehigh
Power Securities Corporation got control of the stock of this company, $28
was paid for each share of common stock and $48 for each share of pre-
28
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
ferred stock. As all the shares have a par value of $50, the prices paid were
equivalent to $56 and $96, respectively, on the basis of $100 of par value.
•
Of the company's bonds, $4,994,000 have been issued under the first
mortgage, with the Guaranty Trust Company of New York as trustee.
These bonds run for 30 years from December 1, 1905. Part of them bear
interest at 4% and part at 5%. The 4s are subject to call on any interest.
date at 105 and the 5s at 110. The $354,000 of Consolidated Mortgage 4%
bonds also run for 30 years from December 1, 1905. These bonds are
secured by a second mortgage, of which the Lehigh Valley Trust Company,
of Allentown, is trustee. The authorized issue of these bonds was $7,500,-
ooo, but only one-third of this amount was ever issued and $2,146,000 have
since been exchanged for refunding and improvement bonds, and the
mortgage is now closed. The $5,115,000 of 5% refunding and improvement
bonds were issued under a mortgage dated June 1, 1910, and running for 50
years. Up to June 1, 1920, these bonds are subject to call at 105 and ac-
crued interest; after that date they can be redeemed at 110 plus interest.
The authorized issue is $15,000,000, of which $5,000,000 are reserved to re-
tire the first mortgage bonds, $569,000 to retire Consolidated Mortgage
bonds and $101,000 for general purposes. The balance can be issued for ad-
ditions, betterments and improvements only when net earnings for the
twelve months prior to the issue are equal to at least 50% more than the
interest on the bonds already issued and on those about to be issued. In the
last fiscal year, ended November 30, 1917, the company's net earnings, or
what is technically described as its "gross income," was $1,065,183.84 and
the interest on its funded debt was $554,602.14. After allowing for other
minor deductions from gross income, the "margin of safety" for the bonds
still seems to be ample. According to Moody's Manual these bonds were
publicly offered in 1910 at 872, plus interest, and in December 1912, at
912, plus interest. On November 30, 1916, the company carried on its
books an item of $401,403.19 representing discount on funded debt.
The $924,259.01 of 6% Collateral Trust bonds were issued in 1914 in
payment for stock of the Easton Consolidated Electric Company. In its
last annual report the Transit Company states that the profit from this in-
vestment during the fiscal year 1917 was $104,257 in excess of the interest
charges on the Collateral Trust bonds.
Besides its own bonds, the Transit Company has guaranteed $225,000
of bonds of the Allentown Bridge Company, and, jointly with the Philadel-
phia & Western Railway Company, $150,000 of bonds of the Norristown
Transit Company.
On November 30, 1916, the Transit Company's investments in pro-
prietary, affiliated and controlled companies was $1,896,437.31, as follows:
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
29
Easton Consolidated Electric Co. Stock.
Lehigh Valley Light & Power Co. Stock..
Allentown Bridge Co. Stock..
Rittersville Hotel Co. Stock...
Lehigh Valley Stone & Construction Company Stock.
Central Park Amusement Co. Stock.
Quakertown Traction Co. Notes..
Miscellaneous Securities
$946,896 25
344,219 76
284,040 00
64,000 00
5,000 00
5,000 00
224,000 00
23,281 30
1917, stood at
The Allentown
The total of these investments on November 30,
$1,838,959.73, but I have not seen the details for that date.
Bridge is a toll bridge over the Little Lehigh. It is about 2600 feet long and
is capitalized for $509,000. The Bridge Company is a subsidiary of the
Transit Company and the latter operates its cars running south from Eighth
and Hamilton Streets over this bridge. The Easton Transit Company-a
subsidiary of the Easton Consolidated Electric Company-on October 5,
1916, purchased $296,300 of the capital stock of the Phillipsburg Transit
Company at par. During 1916, the Lehigh Valley Light & Power Com-
pany paid a dividend of 12% to the Lehigh Valley Transit Company; the
Allentown Bridge Company, the Rittersville Hotel Company and the Le-
high Valley Stone & Construction Company paid no dividends; the Central
Park Amusement Company paid a dividend of 150% and the Easton Con-
solidated Electric Company paid a dividend of 8%.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company's fiscal year ends November 30.
Its total operating revenues (excluding the Easton and Phillipsburg lines)
for the year ending November, 30, 1917, amounted to $2,875,073.82. Of this
amount nearly $600,000 was from the sale of power. The company's revenue
from transportation was approximately $2,272,000, of which approximately
$2,131,000 was passenger revenue, $106,000 freight revenue, $27,000 ex-
press revenue and the balance other small items. The growth of the com-
pany's revenues during the past few years has been rapid. Even from 1913
to 1914, in the midst of the general business depression, there was a slight
increase both in gross revenues and in net income. From 1914 to 1915 the
increase in transportation revenue alone was about $125,000. The company's
reports do not give a detailed analysis of the revenues back of 1915, but its
total operating revenue increased 40% from 1915 to 1917. On account of
its investments the company enjoys also a non-operating income. In 1917
this amounted to $144,000, of which $132,000 was in the form of dividends.
upon stock of other companies owned by the Transit Company. A more
detailed analysis of the company's revenues for the past three years, to-
gether with a statement as to its operating expenses, taxes and deductions
from gross income will be found in Appendix C.
30
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
It would be of interest to the City of Bethlehem in its dealings with the
Lehigh Valley Transit Company to know to what extent, if any, the com-
pany is overcapitalized'; for overcapitalization always sooner or later affects
the ability of a public service corporation to raise the necessary funds for
the extensions and improvements required by a growing community. It is
not possible to make any correct statement as to the extent of overcapitali-
zation without a thorough examination of a company's investment records,
or a valuation of its property. It is extremely probable, however, that a
street railway system which has been built up by a series of mergers, con-
solidations, leases, etc., as is the case with the Lehigh Valley Transit Com-
pany's system, will be found to be considerably overcapitalized. We have
seen that the total amount of stocks and bonds outstanding is about
$19,701,000. The investments in other companies on November 30, 1917,
was about $1,839,000. This leaves a net capitalization of approximately
$17,862,000, representing the physical property and franchises of the Lehigh
Valley Transit Company itself. This is approximately $127,000 per mile of
main track owned by this company. This compares with $69,935 per mile of
main track for all the street railways of Massachusetts, or $52,111 for all of
them except the Boston Elevated Railway Company. Massachusetts is
about the only state in the union where the capitalization of street railway
companies has been kept under reasonable control for a long period of
years, and in that state capitalization corresponds very closely to the book
cost of railways. It would be difficult to escape the conclusion from a
cursory examination of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's financial
statement, together with the general description of its property, that the
company is greatly overcapitalized, and possibly this fact, coupled with the
company's intricate corporate relations and its control by large interests not
local to the district which it serves, may seriously affect its ultimate attitude
toward the public and its relations with the municipal authorities in Bethle-
hem.
•
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company at the close of its last fiscal year
(November 30, 1917) was operating 163.65 miles of railway, of which 151.17
(including the Quakertown Traction line) were owned and 12.18 held under
lease. This trackage was distributed as follows:
Bethlehem, PennsyYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
31
TABLE IV.
LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY-TRACK STATISTICS.
Miles of Miles of
Miles of track
first
second
Miles of
in car-houses,
Total
Owned by
track
track
siding
shops, etc.
mileage
Lehigh Valley Transit Co... 115.64
16.64
4.42
6.33
143.03
Quakertown Traction Co... 8.44
8.44
Norristown Traction Co....
1.66
.20
1.86
Bethlehem & Nazareth Pas-
senger Railway Co....... 9.89
.26
.17
10.32
135.63
16.64
4.88
6.50
163.65
In addition to this, the Easton Transit Company owned and operated
46.493 miles of track, consisting of 42.037 miles of first track, 1.758 miles of
second track and 2.698 miles of siding and miscellaneous track. Besides this
the Phillipsburg Transit Company had about seven miles of track on the
east side of the Delaware River. The Easton Transit Company and the
Phillipsburg Transit Company have not been legally merged with the Le-
high Valley Transit Company, partly for the reason that such a merger
would make the Lehigh Valley Transit Company an interstate corporation,
subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The
entire system, including the controlled lines, is operated by divisions or lines.
as follows:
Lehigh ValLEY TRANSIT COMPANY:
Allentown locals: Hamilton Street; Sixth Ward and Muhlenberg via
Second Street; Tilghman Street; Sixth Street; Seventh Street; South
Eighth Street and Fairview car barn; Tenth Street.
Slatington: Allentown to Slatedale.
Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried: Allentown to Catasauqua, Coplay
and Egypt via Second Street; Allentown to Catasauqua, Northamp-
ton and Siegfried via Sixth Street.
Emaus and Macungie.
Philadelphia: Allentown to 69th Street; Allentown to Chestnut Hill;
Lansdale to Chestnut Hill; Lansdale to Norristown; Richlandtown
branch; Telford branch.
Nazareth: Bethlehem to Nazareth.
Bethlehem: North Side of Allentown-Bethlehem loop; Easton
Limited, Allentown to Bethlehem; Nazareth Limited, Allentown to
Bethlehem; Central Park specials.
32
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
South Bethlehem: South Side of Allentown-Bethlehem loop.
Bethlehem locals and Hellertown: Northampton Heights to Depot;
North Bethlehem loop to Hellertown.
EASTON TRANSIT COMPANY:
Easton and Bethlehem.
Easton and South Bethlehem.
Nazareth.
Easton and South Easton.
College Hill.
Glendon and West Easton.
PHILLIPSBURG TRANSIT COMPANY:
South Main Street and Alpha.
North Main Street.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company and its subsidiaries operate an
interurban system for both freight and passengers, with considerable local
service in Allentown and Easton, but practically none in Bethlehem. The
limited cars from Allentown to Philadelphia and from Allentown to Easton
and Nazareth maintain high speeds, but some of the local lines are very
slow. The Lehigh Valley Transit Company has 188 passenger cars and 14
freight cars in service and the Easton and Phillipsburg Transit Companies
have 93 passenger cars in service.
Of the divisions listed above, six operate regularly in, to or through
Bethlehem, but no one of them is exclusively local. The so-called Bethle-
hem local line is one which operates theoretically on a 20-minute ordinance
schedule from the Union Depot by way of Second Street, New Street and
Fourth Street to Northampton Heights, returning by way of Daly Avenue
and Third Street. This line is about as nearly useless as a city car line could
be. One single-truck car handles the traffic with plenty of room to spare.
In fact, the car seldom goes to the Depot in rush hours, but makes the trip
from Northampton Heights to the intersection of Third and New Streets
and then back by the Third and Fourth Streets loop. Combined with this
so-called Depot line is the Hellertown-North Bethlehem loop, on which
cars operate from Third and New Streets north on New on a 15-minute
schedule, one car turning east on Broad and making the loop by way of Lin-
den Street, Elizabeth Avenue and Main and Church Streets, and the next
car making the loop in the opposite direction by way of Church and Main
Streets, Elizabeth Avenue and Linden, Broad and New Streets. The cars.
then go to Hellertown by Fourth Street and the Hellertown Road and re-
turn by Daly Avenue and Third Street past the Bethlehem Steel Company's
plant.
+
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
33
The Bethlehem and South Bethlehem divisions operate a regular 20-
minute service around the loop in either direction. From noon till 11:00
p.m. the headway on the north branch of the loop is reduced to 10 minutes,
and in the summer cars are sometimes operated as frequently as every 22
minutes. Trippers are operated at irregular intervals in the early morning
and in the afternoon to handle the Bethlehem Steel traffic. Some of them
operate by the south side and some by the north side. Some go east on
Fourth Street to Northampton Heights and loop around by Daly Avenue
and Third Street past the Steel Company's office. Others have their ter-
minus on New Street, near Third Street, and are switched back from there.
Recently one special car has been operated directly to Emaus and another
to Slatington to carry Steel Company employees during the rush hour. On
February 4, 1918, a new schedule was worked out by the Transit Company
and the Steel Company which called for 43 afternoon trippers for the use of
the Steel Company employees. Of these all but two were routed west
through Third Street.
In addition to the passenger service two Adams Express cars and two
freight cars are operated daily on the Bethlehem division.
The Easton-South Bethlehem division supplies an hourly service, but
the cars go in pairs during the hours of heavy traffic. This line is operated
from Easton along Freemansburg Avenue through Freemansburg, where it
crosses to the north side of the Lehigh River, and thence through the Beth-
lehem Steel Company's property and Third and Bessemer Streets in North-
ampton Heights to Fourth Street, and thence past the Steel Company's
office by way of Daly Avenue and Third Street to New Street, returning on
the eastbound trip by New Street and Fourth Avenue.
The Easton-Bethlehem division operates an hourly local service from
Easton by way of William Penn Highway to the Park Hotel at Elizabeth
Avenue and Linden Street and thence by Linden and Broad Streets to a
terminus at Main Street, Bethlehem. This division also operates an hourly
limited service from Easton to Bethlehem, where the cars are turned over
to crews of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company and continued to Allen-
town as a part of the Bethlehem division. Nazareth limited cars are also
operated on an hourly schedule by the Bethlehem division from Allentown
to Broad and New Streets, Bethlehem. From this point north on New
Street and out the Nazareth Pike these cars are operated as a part of the
Nazareth division. During last winter, by a special arrangement, two cars,
operated by the Slate Belt Railway Company, made three trips per day over
the Nazareth line, coming from Bangor to the Bethlehem Steel Works.
These cars did not stop for local passengers, but were operated exclusively
3
34
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
for the benefit of Steel Company employees. Since the opening of the slate
season only one Slate Belt car makes these trips to Bethlehem.
The two lines running between Easton and Bethlehem are connected
by a branch running from Butztown to Middletown Junction, northeast of
Freemansburg. Both ends of this line are included in the Bethlehem five-
cent fare zone. It gives a half-hourly service with an ancient and "unsea-
worthy" car.
The intersection of Eighth and Hamilton Streets in Allentown is the
"center of the world" for the Lehigh Valley Transit Company, as many of
its Allentown local cars and all its out-of-town cars except the Bethlehem
and Hellertown locals pass this point. However, this does not include the
cars operated by the Easton Transit Company. The Allentown locals in-
clude seven lines which give exclusively local service in Allentown. From
Eighth and Hamilton Streets the Transit Company also operates an hourly
limited service to 69th Street, Philadelphia, an hourly local service to Chest-
nut Hill, an hourly service to Macungie, a 30-minute service to Emaus, an
hourly service to Slatington and Slatedale, a 30-minute service to Cata-
sauqua, Coplay and Egypt and another 30-minute service to Catasauqua,
Northampton and Siegfried.
In general the routing of the cars in Bethlehem is not sufficiently con-
venient and the headways are not sufficiently frequent and regular to en-
courage local and short-distance riding. This will be shown more clearly
later on when we come to discuss in detail the company's track facilities and
the routing of its cars.
In its annual report to the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission,
the Transit Company gives the following operating statistics for 1916:
Fare passengers carried....
Free transfer passengers carried..
·.40,565,669
3,590,702
Employees and others carried free (deadheads) 517,879
Passenger car miles run..
Passenger car hours run.
•
5,286,699
527,035
These figures do not include the Easton Transit Company's operations,
as that company files a separate report, nor the operations of the Phillips-
burg Transit Company, which reports to the New Jersey Commission. The
Easton Company reported 9,678,195 fare passengers, 1,364,374 free trans-
fers and 39,917 deadheads.
The figure given by the Lehigh Valley Transit Company as represent-
ing the number of fare passengers carried needs to be explained. It really
represents five-cent fares, instead of separate passengers, but even at that is
not strictly accurate as the computation is complicated by the company's
sale of commutation tickets. Indeed, in supplying certain data called for
1913.
•
93,541 15
198,331 92
4.
Emaus and Macungie division.
57,218 15
5.
Philadelphia division
•
427,165 33
LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY (INCLUDING EASTON TRANSIT COMPANY AND PHILLIPSBURG TRANSIT COMPANY)
Operating Statistics by Divisions for Five-year Period from December 1, 1912, to November 30, 1917, inclusive.
PASSENGER REVENUES.
Division:
I. Allentown locals
2. Slatington division
3. Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried division.
497,552 46
1,078,931 47
315,146 35
2,527,778 94
Year ended November 30,
1914
1915
$132,791 28 $144,383 60 $ 147,654 45 $
90,371 91
91,402 00
1916
186,757 90 $ 157,095 40
103,367 70 118,869 70
1917
Five Years
$ 768,682 63
193,359 55
178,046 80
212,697 10
296,496 10
57,041 60
59,338 60
67,065 40
74,482 60
441,030 88
486,246 76
537,073 13
636,262 84
6.
Nazareth division
•
51,097 02
51,050 70
53,772 30
62,951 50
66,749 60
285,621 12
7. Bethlehem division (north side of loop).
258,563 90
268,174 86
290,318 25
378,800 00
436,121 35
1,631,978 36
8.
South Bethlehem division (south side of loop)..
9. Bethlehem locals and Hellertown division...
125,334 80
114,625 90
144,699 15
169,943 10
186,428 90
741,031 85
87,351 70
86,654 90
98,646 65
133,850 05
159,090 00
565,593 30
$1,431,395 25
IO.
II.
1-9. All Lehigh Valley Transit divisions.
12.
Easton-Bethlehem division
•
Easton-South Bethlehem division.
Easton-Nazareth division
13. Easton local lines...
•
10-13. All Easton Transit divisions.
14. Phillipsburg division
•
I-14. Combined system-all divisions.
PASSENGER REVENUE, CAR MILES.
I. Allentown locals
•
2. Slatington division
•
3. Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried division.
5. Philadelphia division
$ 70,598 99
63,165 06
6,405 10
211,738 55
$ 351,907 70
$ 105,185 75
$1,446,693 90
$ 84,526 50
62,476 50
6,537 45
217,057 35
$
370,597 80
$ 95,142 35
$ 102,899 70 $ 132,763 00
68,541 85
6,447 70
222,245 25
$ 400,134 50
7,083 45
252,514 65
$480,006 80
$ 113,125 50 $144,346 35
$2,063,384 96 $2,476,859 03
$2,063,384 96 $2,476,859 03
268,816 90
$ 518,915 40
$ 157,555 80
$2,808,067 69
8,412,316 48
531,852 64
382,700 41
34,636 45
1,172,372 70
$2,121,562 20
$ 615,355 75
$11,149,234 43
2,596,293
$1,550,124 96
$1,852,505 88
$2,131,596 49 $
87,644 80
$ 141,063 55 $
100,872 20
8,162 75
$1,888,488 70
$1,912,434 05
443,047
507,667
523,666
630,004
491,909
304,307
307,576
317,369
336,844
359,964
1,626,060
•
545,942
536,154
538,460
559,934
739,517
2,920,007
4.
Emaus and Macungie division.
• •
184,555
193,835
202,932
206,307
263,058
1,050,687
1,480,181
1,484,997
1,566,849
1,622,969
1,650,366
7,805,562
6. Nazareth division .
146,332
142,799
144,353
152,078
155,173
740,735
7. Bethlehem division (north side of loop)..
605,826
623,561
725,900
909,943
906,412
3,771,642
8.
South Bethlehem division (south side of loop)..
360,968
376,836
435,801
487,779
492,375
2,153,759
9. Bethlehem locals and Hellertown division...
292,912
314,550
326,194
347,958
364,404
1,646,018
1-9. All Lehigh Valley Transit divisions.
Easton-Bethlehem division
•
4,264,070
4,487,975
4,781,524
5.255.816
5,323,178
24,112,563
I.
•
4.
IO.
II.
12.
•
Easton-South Bethlehem division.
Easton-Nazareth division
13. Easton local lines...
10-13. All Easton Transit divisions.
14. Phillipsburg division
1-14. Combined system-all divisions..
PASSENGER REVENUE, CAR HOURS.
Allentown locals
2. Slatington division
3. Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried division.
Emaus and Macungie division
5. Philadelphia division
6. Nazareth division .
7. Bethlehem division (north side of loop).
South Bethlehem division (south side of loop).
9. Bethlehem locals and Hellertown division....
1-9. All Lehigh Valley Transit divisions.
176,683
229,549
293,334
311,386
319,493
1,330,445
229,282
222,149
224,098
235,642
261,004
1,172,175
76,669
75,730
76,025
74,401
77,368
380,193
690,647
708,788
703.288
710,912
729,609
3,543.244
1,173,281
1,236,216
493,026
496,040
1,296,745
530,658
1,332,341
545,996
1,387,474
6,436,057
543,604
2,609,324
5,930,377
6,220,231
6,608,927
7,134,153
7,254,256
33,147.944
62,560
71,526
73,820
92,152
90,413
390.471
22,580
22,590
23,149
24,810
26,372
119,501
•
58,750
59,048
58.952
60,113
62,185
299,048
• •
18,313
19,310
20,046
21,892
24,939
104,500
·
114,352
113,782
116,737
116,766
121,791
583,428
8,708
8,286
8.315
8,830
10,580
44,719
68,535
67,303
72,796
90,952
93,098
392,684
48,965
52,600
58,445
67,737
64,945
292,692
32,246
32,438
37,742
42,565
48,949
193,940
•
435,009
446.883
470,002
525.817
543,272
2,420,983
133,979
62,570
631,558
*10-13. All Easton Transit divisions.
14. Phillipsburg division
I-14. Combined system-all divisions.
*Car hour statistics on the Easton Transit lines are not separated by divisions for the period prior to September 1, 1917, and for that reason the
Easton lines are all grouped together in this portion of the Table.
133,802
139,767
144,519
148,442
700,509
62,293
63,073
65,076
65,327
318.339
642,978
672,842
735,412
757,041
3,439,831
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
35
in this investigation, the company declined to furnish figures as to the num-
ber of fare passengers carried on the several divisions, and furnished the
passenger revenues instead, leaving me to make my own inferences as to
the number of separate fare passengers carried. The figures indicate that in
the fiscal year 1917 the entire system, including the Easton and Phillipsburg
lines, collected the equivalent of 56,161,344 five-cent fares.
The relative importance of the several divisions of the combined
systems can be seen from the figures of passenger revenues collected and
car miles and car hours run. For the purpose of this comparison I have com-
bined the two lines of the Phillipsburg division, and also the three local
lines of the Easton division. Table V was made up from figures furnished
by the Transit Companies: (See inset.)
The figures given in Table V are of particular significance because they
enable us to compare the increase of traffic, the earnings per car mile and
per car hour and the average speeds maintained during the past five years
on the several divisions of the entire system controlled by the Lehigh Val-
ley Transit Company. The company's operating divisions were changed
on December 1, 1916. Prior to that time the Hellertown line and the Beth-
lehem locals had been kept separate, and also the Egypt and Siegfried
branches of the Catasauqua line. For the years 1913 to 1916 the figures for
these lines have been combined so as to make the figures comparable all the
way through. The increase in passenger revenues from 1913 to 1917 on the
entire system was 48.1 per cent., and most of this increase came in the three-
year period from 1914 to 1917. The passenger earnings per car mile were
31.8 cents in 1913 and 38.71 cents in 1917. Over the entire five-year period
they averaged 33.6 cents The earnings per car hour were $2.99 in 1913;
$3.71 in 1917, and $3.24 for the period as a whole. The average speed of
the cars in 1913 was 9.25 miles per hour; in 1917 it was 9.58 miles, and for
the period as a whole it was 9.63 miles. In Table VI these figures are shown
by the several divisions.
36
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Increase of revenues
DIVISION
1913 to 1917
TABLE VI.
LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY.
Increase in revenues, earnings per car mile and per hour and speed of cars, by operative divisions.
Passenger earnings Passenger earnings
Average speed
miles per hour
per cent
Allentown locals
18.3
Slatington
26.0
Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried.
49.5
Emaus and Macungie
29.3
Philadelphia
48.9
Nazareth
30.6
Bethlehem (north side of loop)
68.7
cents per car mile dollars per car hour
1913 1917 5 years 1913 1917 5 years
30.0 31.9 29.6 2.12
1.74 1.97
30.7 33.0 30.6 4.14 4.51 4.16
36.3 40.1 36.9 3.38 4.77 3.61
31.0 28.3 30.0 3.12 2.99 3.02
28.8 38.6 32.4 3.74 5.22 4.33
34.9 43.0 38.6 5.87 6.31 6.39
42.7 48.1 43.3 3.77 4.68 4.16
1913
1917 5 years
7.08 5.44
13.48 13.65
9.29 11.92
10.08 10.54 '10.05
6.65
13.61
9.77
12.94
16.80 14.67 16.56
13.55 13.38
8.84
8.84 9.73
9.61
South Bethlehem (south side of loop)
48.7
Bethlehem locals and Hellertown.
82.I
Easton Transit Company
47.5
Phillipsburg Transit Company.
49.8
34.7 37.9 34.9 2.56 2.87 2.53
29.8 43.7 34.4 2.71 3.25 2.92
30.0 37.4 33.0 2.70 3.49
21.3 29.0 23.6 1.68
7.37 7.58
7.36
9.08
7.44
8.44
3.03
8.76
9.35
9.19
2.41
1.93
7.88
8.32 · 8,20
Entire System
48.1
31.8 38.7 33.6 2.99 3.71 3.24
3.24 9.25
9.58
9.63
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
37
Certain figures in Table VI stand out "like a house on fire." The in-
crease in traffic as measured by passenger revenues for the system as a
whole was 48.1 per cent. The increases in the Philadelphia division, the
Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried division, the Easton and Phillipsburg
lines and the south side of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop were within less
than two points of this average. The big increase came in the Bethlehem
locals and Hellertown division (82.1%) and in the north side of the Allen-
town-Bethlehem, loop (68.7%). At the bottom of the list were the Allen-
town locals with an increase of only 18.3 per cent.
If we now look at the earnings per car mile over the entire five-year
period, the Phillipsburg division is at the bottom with only 23.6 cents and
the Allentown locals come next with 29.6 cents. On the other hand the
north side of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop stands at the top with 43.3
cents, while the Bethlehem locals and Hellertown division stands at 34.4
cents and the south side of the loop at 34.9 cents, both above' the average
for the entire system (33.6 cents). For the year 1917, taken by itself, the
north side of the loop goes up to 48.1 cents and the Bethlehem locals and
Hellertown division goes up next to the top with 43.7 cents per car mile.
The Allentown locals come up a little to 31.9 cents, but are still below the
average.
Revenues per car hour are still more significant, as the most impor-
tant element in the cost of operating a car is time, which runs on just the
same, taking trainmen's wages with it, whether the car is going forward or
waiting on a siding or held up at a grade crossing or stopping while the
crowds get off and on. Here
Here is where speed counts. The Nazareth line.
jumps to the head of the list, with $6.39, which is nearly 50 per cent
more than is shown on the Philadelphia division in spite of its palatial in-
terurban cars and fast service. Third on the list and only 17 cents per car
hour below the Philadelphia division come the Slatington division and the
north side of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop. The south side of the loop
with $2.53 and the Bethlehem-Hellertown division with $2.92 are below
the average on account of their relatively low speeds, but here again the
Allentown locals compete with the Phillipsburg division for the "booby
prize." Indeed, if we take 1917 by itself the Allentown locals get it by a
wide margin, with earnings of only $1.74 per car hour. Also for the year
1917 the Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried division climbs up into third place.
crowding past the north side of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop which is left
in the fourth place with Slatington following in fifth place, still 20 per cent
above the average for the entire system. The Philadelphia division also
forges up to $5.22 per car hour.
The most important reason for these differences in car hour earnings
is revealed by a glance at the speed column. The Allentown locals evi-
38
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
dently are given to loitering on the streets, as they have an average speed
of only 6.65 miles per hour for the five-year period, which fell in 1917 to
5.44 miles.
The Nazareth line, on the other hand, maintained a speed
of 16.56 miles during the five-year period, and 14.67 in 1917. It is probable
that the Easton Limited cars would make at least as good a showing as
the Nazareth cars if their figures were shown separately. As the Lehigh
Valley Transit Company's statistics are kept, the fast cars between Allen-
town and Bethlehem are included in the "Bethlehem" division.
Before we pass on to the next division, a word should be said about
the South Bethlehem and Saucon Street Railway Company. This is a
more or less independent concern operating a line from Fourth and New
Streets, South Bethlehem, south over the mountain six miles to Centre.
Valley where it connects with the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's Phila-
delphia division. This line operates an hourly schedule during the fore-
noon and late evening and a 30-minute schedule from about half an hour
after noon till eight in the evening. In 1916 this car line carried 539,638 fare
passengers. About 100 employees of the Bethlehem Steel Company use it
regularly going to and from their work. The company's operating rev-
enues in 1916 were $28,614. It has $72,000 of stock and $98,000 of 5 per
cent bonds outstanding on six miles of main track. This is a capitalization
of about $28,000 per mile, but even on this basis the company paid no divi-
dend in 1916. It is alleged to be entirely independent of the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company, but it is noteworthy that it buys its power of the Transit
Company and also has for its general counsel Mr. Reuben J. Butz, of
Allentown, who serves in a similar capacity with the Transit Company. I
am informed that the Transit Company at one time looked into the ques-
tion of buying this road for use as part of a more direct route from Easton
to Philadelphia, but was deterred from further consideration of the plan
by the heavy grades over the mountain. The elevation at the highest
point on this line is about 665 feet, while at the highest point on the Tran-
sit Company's Philadelphia division just south of Mountainville it is about
720 feet.
The unification and growth of the Bethlehem district, and the impor-
tance to the Lehigh Valley Transit Company of the traffic and revenues
which it supplies, are such as to warrant the City in demanding extensions
of street railway facilities and improvements in the local service adequate
to meet the requirements of an independent and thriving urban community.
The corporate history and development of the Lehigh Valley Transit system
and its relations to other communities, and to the financial powers, make it neces-
sary for the City of Bethlehem to take particular heed that the company does not
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
39
develop its interurban business to the neglect of local service in Bethlehem, and
does not adopt with respect to extensions and improvements, an attitude of ultra-
conservatism which, if persisted in, will be extremely detrimental to the progress
of the community at this critical time in its history.
40
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
III. GENERAL PAST POLICY OF BETHLEHEM AND NEIGH-
BORING MUNICIPALITIES WITH RESPECT TO FRANCHISE
GRANTS AND CONTROL OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS.
The franchises under which the Lehigh Valley Transit Company, the
Easton Transit Company and the South Bethlehem & Saucon Street Rail-
way Company now operate in Bethlehem and vicinity were originally
granted by the boroughs of South Bethlehem, Bethlehem, West Bethle-
hem, Fountain Hill and Northampton Heights and adjacent townships to
various companies, including the present operating companies and their
predecessors. I have had no opportunity to examine the franchises granted
by municipal authorities for territory still outside of the city of Bethlehem
and the records which I have seen appear to be incomplete for the old
borough of Bethlehem. In describing the franchises which control street
railway operation in the present city of Bethlehem, I shall take up the
boroughs of South Bethlehem, West Bethlehem and Bethlehem in order
and give an analysis of the franchise policies of the three boroughs while
they were still separate and independent municipalities.
The Borough of South Bethlehem, between 1892 and 1917, granted
franchises to the Bethlehem & South Bethlehem Street Railway Company,
the Lehigh Valley Traction Company, the Allentown and Bethlehem Rapid
Transit Company, the Allentown and Lehigh Valley Traction Company, the
Lehigh Valley Transit Company, the Freemansburg Street Railway Com-
pany, the South Bethlehem & Saucon Street Railway Company, the South
Mountain Traction Company and the Easton Transit Company. It appears
from an examination of the records that the problem of determining the
proper locations for street railway tracks in South Bethlehem is not a new
one. In years past a great deal of experimentation has taken place in this
line and a good many tracks have been laid and later abandoned and re-
moved. The first reference to street railway matters contained in Cope's
Ordinance Book, compiled in 1901, is to an ordinance of the Bethlehem &
South Bethlehem Street Railway Company which passed first reading in
1890. There must have been a good deal of trouble over this ordinance, as
the minutes of the town council show that it passed first reading again and
also second reading in 1891, and in 1892 came up for passage and was lost.
Subsequently a resolution was adopted granting this company a right-of-
way and an acceptance and bond of the company were filed with the borough
officials. I have not seen a copy of this original resolution.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
41
The franchise policy of South Bethlehem, which has been followed with
a fair degree of consistency in all the principal street railway ordinances.
since granted, may be found in Ordinance No. 55, passed October 16, 1893,
granting permission to the Lehigh Valley Traction Company to operate its
road by electricity in certain streets of the borough. The route covered by
this grant runs a good deal like a rail fence. It cominenced at the Lehigh
County line (the line now dividing Bethlehem from Fountain Hill) at Frey-
tag Street and extended thence along Freytag Street in a southeasterly
direction to Cherokee Street, thence along Cherokee Street in a north-
easterly direction to Dacotah Street, thence along Dacotah Street in a
southeasterly direction to Broad Street (Broadway), thence along Broad
Street (Broadway) in a northeasterly direction to Brodhead Avenue, thence
southerly along Brodhead Avenue across Fourth Street to Packer Avenue,
thence easterly along Packer Avenue to New Street, thence northerly along
New Street to Fourth Street, thence easterly along Fourth Street to the
eastern borough line. What the idea of this route was is not recorded. It
may be that the borough authorities, being not altogether easy in their
minds as to the results of operation by electricity, laid out this route in a
manner calculated to prevent the cars from attaining too much speed. This
ordinance was without time limitation, but it contained a provision that the
Traction Company should not charge more than five cents for a continuous
ride between any two points on its line of railway either within or without
the borough limits. Authority was given to the company to construct,
maintain and operate a single track railway and for that purpose to erect
poles, string wires and do everything necessary to construct with turnouts,
turntables, curves and switches at points to be approved by the borough
council, and reconstruct and maintain the railway and roadbed. The rails
were to be of the flat girder type weighing not less than 70 pounds per yard.
The substructure was to be of such workmanship and materials as in the
opinion of the street committee of the borough council would insure the
least possible disturbance of street surfaces in constructing and reconstruct-
ing track. The company was authorized to make all proper and necessary.
excavations in the construction and reconstruction of its track, but was re-
quired, when the work was completed, to restore the street surface to its
original condition. The company was also required to maintain its tracks
and the street surface between the rails and for a space two feet wide out-
side of each rail in good condition to conform with other parts of the street.
The company's construction and maintenance work was to be under the di-
rection and control of the borough council, acting through its street com-
mittee. Whenever the street committee should notify the company of the
intention of the borough council to pave with brick, granite blocks, asphalt
or some form of paving material other than macadam any street or portion
42
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
of street occupied by the company's tracks, the company was required to
place the rails upon "cast or wrought iron chairs of such size and shape as to
admit of close paving against the rails" and to pave at its own expense the
space in and about the rails with the material prescribed by the borough
council. The ordinance prescribed that the railway should be of standard
gauge. It required the traction company to make good any damage to
water or gas mains or to public or private drains resulting from the con-
struction or reconstruction of its railway, and to protect the Borough from
all claims or suits for damage arising out of the work. The upper surface
of the rails was to be laid to conform to the street grades then established
or that might thereafter be established or reestablished and the tracks were
to be laid either in the center or on the side of the streets, as the borough
council might direct. They were to be laid in such manner that carriages
and vehicles could easily and freely cross them. It was provided that the
company should use its tracks "for no other purpose than to carry pas-
sengers, and passengers only, and with such cars as are usually constructed
and used for city passenger railway service." The company's poles, if of
wood, were to be “of square section, tapering with chamfered corners" and
of such dimensions and durable material as the street committee should
direct. The poles were to be "kept well covered with paint-color, olive
green." They were to be placed two inches from the inside of the curb and
in such a manner as to cause the least possible obstruction and injury to
the curb and the sidewalks and so as not to obstruct unnecessarily such
portion of the fronts of private property as might be needed and in use for
business purposes by owners or tenants. In case of a dispute as to where
the poles were to be located, the decision was to rest with the street com-
mittee. The trolley wire was to be suspended at a clear height above the
crown of the street of not less than 18 feet. The company was not to oper-
ate in any one train more than one car in addition to the motor car. It was
to have a driver in the motor-car and "one conductor in each additional
car." The speed of the cars was limited to eight miles an hour, which was
to be reduced to four miles an hour at street intersections. In removing
snow from its tracks the company was not to pile it up on the sides of the
street to a greater depth than one foot, and if this depth was exceeded at
any time the company was required to remove the snow upon notice from
the street committee. Failure to comply with such a notice within four
hours would subject the company to a fine of from $100 to $200. When-
ever the streets were opened for the purpose of laying tracks the company
was required to guard the excavations by proper danger signals and to as-
sume all liability for accidents and damages resulting from its construction,
reconstruction or repair work.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
43
The rights and privileges contained in this franchise were granted.
upon the express condition that the company should file its written accept-
ance of the ordinance within ten days after its passage. This acceptance
was to be signed by the chief officer of the company with the company's
seal attached, and was to cover all the provisions of the ordinance and of
the rights and privileges granted. Unless such acceptance was filed within
the time required, the ordinance would not be operative "to vest any rights.
or privileges whatsoever." The construction of the railway was to be com-
menced within ten days after the acceptance of the ordinance and was to be
prosecuted continuously, weather permitting, until completed. It was ex-
pressly stipulated that when the provisions of the ordinance were accepted
by the company the ordinance should operate as a contract between the
company and the Borough.
The company was required to run cars over its entire route within the
borough limits at intervals of not more than fifteen minutes from 6 a.m. to
10 p.m., except on Sundays. The company was required to carry policemen
when in uniform and on duty, the chief engineer of the fire department and
the street supervisor within the Borough limits, without charge.
The ordinance also provided that whenever, by reason of the construc-
tion, reconstruction or repair of any sewer, drain or underground conduit
by the Borough, it should become necessary to take up or shift any portion
of the car tracks, the company should move and relay the tracks at its own
expense and should provide such appliances and adopt such precautions as
would render the running of the cars along or across the line of the sewer
or drain work "perfectly safe for those engaged in the work of construc-
tion and for the structure itself." All material dug by the company from
any street already graded or macadamized was to remain the property of
the Borough and was to be cleaned up and removed by the company under
the direction of the street committee.
The company was given 120 working days from the time of the accept-
ance of the ordinance for the completion of its railway and for every day
of default after the expiration of this period it was to pay to the Borough
the sum of $100 “as liquidating damages." The company immediately upon
the acceptance of the ordinance was to file with the town clerk a bond in
the sum of $20,000, conditioned upon the company's full compliance with
the provisions of the ordinance relating to the construction of the railway;
and the filing of this bond was to be a condition precedent to the vesting of
any rights in the company under the ordinance. As soon as the entire line
of railway was completed and ready to operate and the conditions of the
ordinance fully complied with, the bond was to be surrendered upon the
filing by the company of a new and perpetual bond in the sum of $20,000
44
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
conditioned on full compliance by the company with the provisions and re-
quirements of the ordinance.
Wherever the line of railway crossed any open gutter the company, at
its own expense, was to replace the gutter from curb to curb by a covered
drain built according to the borough council's plans and specifications.
The company was required to permit any other electric street railway
company to use its tracks on Fourth Street from New Street to the eastern
borough limits, provided that such other company should have first ob-
tained from the Borough the right to construct and operate an electric
street railway and should have constructed and in operation at least three
miles of such railway outside of the borough limits, and further provided
that such other company should pay the Traction Company its propor-
tionate share of the cost of construction and maintenance of the tracks to
be used by it in common. This cost was to be determined by "three
viewers," one to be selected by the Traction Company, one by the other
company and the third by the two so chosen. The assessment of cost by
the viewers was to be conclusive and binding on both parties.
The ordinance provided that the Traction Company should employ
none but citizens and taxpayers of the borough of South Bethlehem in the
construction of the road in South Bethlehem, labor requiring skill and ex-
pertness to be excepted from this provision.
The company was to pay annually into the borough treasury an as-
sessment of $100 "for the privilege of running its cars through the borough"
and also $1 for each pole erected and $5 for each and every single mile of
trolley wire."
By ordinance No. 78, passed January 25, 1897, the Borough of South
Bethlehem gave to "The Allentown and Lehigh Valley Traction Company
and its lessors and transferors, the Bethlehem and South Bethlehem Street
Railway, and the Lehigh Valley Traction Company, and Allentown & Beth-
lehem Rapid Transit Company" permission to construct and maintain a
single track railway to be operated by electricity along the following route:
Beginning at the County line on Fiot Street, thence along Fiot Street to
Broadway, thence along Broadway to Wyandotte Street, thence along
Wyandotte Street to Fourth Street, thence along Fourth Street to Hill
Street, until such time as Fourth Street should be widened to the eastern.
borough line; also beginning at the intersection of Fourth and New Streets
and running thence northwardly on New Street to Second Street and thence.
westerly on Second Street to Brodhead Avenue; also commencing at the
intersection of New and Second Streets and extending eastwardly on
Second to Elm Street, thence south on Elm to Third Street, thence east-
wardly on Third to Oak, thence northwardly on Oak to Second and thence
eastwardly on Second Street to the eastern borough line; also from the
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
45
intersection of Second and New Streets northwardly to the northern end
of New Street. It will be noticed that the route covered by this ordinance
from Fountain Hill to the New Street Bridge is the route now actually in
use by the Lehigh Valley Transit Company. It appears that near the close
of the same year, that is to say, on December 29, 1897, the Allentown and
Lehigh Valley Traction Company was permitted by ordinance to abandon
the operation of its road on Fourth Street east of New Street, and also that
eight years later by two ordinances approved December 7, 1905, the Lehigh
Valley Traction Company and its successor, the Lehigh Valley Transit
Company, were permitted to abandon the portions of this route beginning
at the intersection of Third and Oak Streets and extending northwardly on
Oak Street to Second Street and eastwardly on Second Street to Daly
Avenue and beginning at the intersection of Second and New Streets and
extending thence along Second Street to Elm Street and along Elm Street to
Third Street. However, by the 1906 ordinance the companies were author-
ized to construct and operate a single-track railway from the intersection of
Third and Oak Streets eastwardly along Third Street and Daly Avenue to
the intersection of the latter with Second Street and also along Third Street
from New Street to Elm Street. The new tracks were to be placed in the
middle of Third Street and on the south side of Daly Avenue. The Transit
Company was also authorized to install a curve at the southwest corner of
New and Second Streets to connect its tracks in those streets.
It will be noted that the route granted to the Allentown & Lehigh
Valley Traction Company and its lessors by the first ordinance of 1897 was
changed by the modifying ordinances so that it was made identical with the
present route of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's tracks in South
Bethlehem.
The conditions imposed by the original 1897 ordinance were confirmed
by the modifying ordinances, and accordingly we must look chiefly to the
ordinance of January 25, 1897, for the provisions now controlling the opera-
tion of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's lines in South Bethlehem. In
general the provisions of this ordinance are similar to those of the Lehigh
Valley Traction Company ordinance of 1893, which has already been fully
described, but there are certain differences in detail to which attention must
be called. The distribution of power within the city government appears to
have been carried further in the period intervening between the passage of
these two ordinances, as in the later one the supervision of the company's
street work was not vested in the street committee of the council alone but
also in the railroad committee. The provision in regard to the five-cent
fare was also changed in the later ordinance, where the requirement of the
single fare is limited to the railway lines within the limits of the boroughs of
Bethlehem and South Bethlehem. The council had also become somewhat
46
Report on the Transit Problems of
more liberal with respect to speed, as the allowable speed at street intersec-
tions was increased from four miles to six miles per hour. The provision
forbidding the company to pile up the snow to the height of more than one
foot outside of its track was changed so as not to apply to the two-foot strip
immediately adjoining the tracks. The penalty imposed upon the company
by the earlier ordinance in case of its failure to remove the snow when di-
rected to do so was replaced in the later ordinance by a provision that if
the company did not remove the snow the Borough might do so at the
company's expense and might charge the company 20% in addition to the
cost of the work. A provision was also added forbidding the company to
place on its tracks during the winter "any salt or other injurious chemical
compound for the purpose of cutting away the snow or ice on the said
tracks." The later ordinance required at least a twenty-minute through
service in either direction at all times of the year, so that a car should run in
one direction or the other to Allentown every ten minutes. The ordinance
also required a local service for South Bethlehem so arranged that a car
would run to Bethlehem every ten minutes and a car would return from
Bethlehem every ten minutes. The list of municipal officials entitled to free
rides was extended to include the market master, the health officer and the
high constable. The later ordinance required only one bond in the sum of
$20,000, which was a continuing one conditioned for full compliance with
the provisions, requirements and penalties of the ordinance. A new section
in the later ordinance provided that the company, within forty-eight hours
notice in writing from the railroad or street committee, through its chair-
man or the street supervisor, to the effect that any portion of the company's
tracks or any part of the streets in and about the tracks needed to be re-
paired, should forthwith make the necessary repair and if it failed to do so
the Borough authorities might do the work and recover from the company
the cost plus 10%. The annual compensation in the case of the later fran-
chise was increased to $300, the pole and wire license taxes remaining the
same.
The ordinance provided that all tracks of the Lehigh Valley Traction
Company in the Borough of South Bethlehem other than those along the
route described by this ordinance were to be removed. A provision was
also inserted requiring the company to remove the carcasses of animals
killed on its tracks.
In the early Spring of 1902 a flood destroyed the bridge across the
Lehigh River at Allentown and made it necessary for a larger proportion
of the street railway traffic between Allentown and Bethlehem to be car-
ried on the south side of the loop. In order to facilitate this traffic the
South Bethlehem borough council adopted a resolution March 4, 1902,
authorizing the Lehigh Valley Traction Company to lay a temporary
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
47
track on Broadway, between Wyandotte and Fourth Streets. This track
appears not to have been removed until five years later when, by ordi-
nance approved November 8, 1907, the Lehigh Valley Transit Company
was authorized to construct an additional track on New Street between
Second and Third Streets, to maintain a switch or switches into its car-
barn at the northeast corner of Second and New Streets and to construct
and maintain a diamond switch on New Street between the southern line
of Third Street and the Philadelphia & Reading Railway. As a price for
these concessions the council not only required the removal of the
temporary track from Broadway as above indicated, but also required the
company to pave from curb to curb that portion of New Street extending
from the northern line of Second Street to the Philadelphia & Reading
Railway tracks. Permission was given the company by this ordinance to
lay a diamond switch on Wyandotte Street extending about 250 feet south
from the south line of Fourth Street and the company was required to pave
this portion of the street from curb to curb with material subject to the ap-
proval of the borough engineer and the street committee. The Lehigh Val-
ley Transit Company at the time of the acceptance of this resolution was to
pay the Borough of South Bethlehem $509.40, the amount due and owing
by its predecessor; the Lehigh Valley Traction Company.
In February, 1906, two new franchises were granted, one to the Free-
mansburg Street Railway Company, predecessor of the Easton Transit
Company, and one to the South Bethlehem and Saucon Street Railway
Company. The route covered by the Freemansburg Street Railway Com-
pany's franchise extended along Fourth Street from the borough line of
Northampton Heights to Spruce Street, thence southwardly on Spruce
Street to Fifth Street, thence westwardly on Fifth Street to Elm Street,
thence northwardly on Elm to Fourth St., thence westwardly on Fourth
Street to New Street; also from the intersection of Fourth and Birch
Streets northwardly along Birch Street to the railroad, thence westwardly
parallel with the railroad, crossing New Street and the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company's track to Graham Place, thence continuing westwardly
on Graham Place to Brodhead Avenue, and thence northwardly on Brod-
head Avenue to the Philadelphia & Reading Railway. The line from the
eastern borough limits to New, Street was to be completed and in opera-
tion within nine months from the acceptance of the ordinance, and the re-
mainder of the route was to be completed as soon as the right-of-way
could be secured. There was delay, however, in the establishment of the
street grades and lines on East Fourth Street and the company's time for
the completion of the road was, therefore, extended by resolution of the
borough council, approved December 5, 1906, for a period of four months
from April 1, 1907. Further delay was occasioned by delay in the con-
48
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
struction of the Northampton Heights bridge and the company's time
limit was further extended until January 1, 1909. Finally, by an ordinance
approved September 10, 1913, the company (now the Easton Transit Com-
pany) was authorized to extend its tracks on Fourth Street from Elm to
Spruce Street and to abandon and remove its tracks from the portion of its
original route extending through Elm Street, Fifth Street and Spruce
Street. The branch of the original route extending through Birch Street,
private right-of-way along the railroad, Graham Place and Brodhead
Avenue appears never to have been constructed.
The terms of the Easton Transit Company's franchise follow in gen-
eral the terms of the South Bethlehem franchises which have already
been described. The more important variations will now be noted. The
franchise required that the tracks be constructed of flange girder rail
weighing not less than 85 pounds to the yard, and that when the Borough
paved the street with material other than Macadam the company should
remove its flange girder and the substructure and substitute the Trilby
or Velvet rail not less than seven inches high and weighing not less than
95 pounds to the yard, the rails to be double bonded with two 4/0 bond
wires. The ties were to be at least seven feet long with six inch face and
six inches deep and to be placed not more than 24 inches apart from center
to center. The roadbed was to be not less than four inches deep, of inch
and a half crushed stone. The railroad committee seems to have passed out
of power again by this time, as the control of the company's street work
was left with the street committee alone. The five-cent fare provision of
this franchise provided for a continuous ride within the limits of the bor-
oughs of South Bethlehem, Bethlehem, Fountain Hill, Northampton
Heights or Freemansburg over the company's own tracks or the tracks of
any company with which it might be merged or consolidated or to which
it might be leased. Transfers were to be issued within the limits men-
tioned and over the tracks of the South Bethlehem and Saucon Street
Railway Company within the limits of South Bethlehem. The company
was further to exchange transfers with any other trolley company whenever
such other company would exchange them on equal basis. Under this
franchise the company was permitted to carry not only passengers, but
also express, United States mail, baggage, and parcels allowed by law.
Apparently the borough authorities were not so sure as they had pre-
viously been as to the advantages of olive green, for under this franchise
the color of the poles was left to be designated by the street committee.
The company agreed to substitute iron poles for wooden poles at such
points as the borough council should designate and at such times as it
should direct. The hearts of the borough authorities had also been
softened with respect to the penalty to be collected for the removal of
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
49
so.
snow where the company failed to remove it when directed to do
Under this franchise only 10% instead of 20% was to be added to the cost.
While the use of salt for the purpose of cutting away snow and ice on the
tracks in the winter was forbidden as in the earlier franchise, the ban
seems to have been lifted from "any other injurious chemical compound."
The company's bond under this franchise was fixed at $10,000, and its
annual assessment for the privilege of laying and maintaining its tracks.
was fixed at $200. Besides this there were the usual license fees of $1 per
pole and $5 per mile of trolley wire, but a new charge was introduced in
the form of a car license tax which was to be $1 per annum for the first five
years, $2 per car for the next five years and $5 per car thereafter. The com-
pany was required to furnish the borough council with an annual state-
ment containing a list of the number of cars operated in the borough dur-
ing the year, together with the number of poles and miles of wire in use.
The company was also required to pay the sum of $3,000 toward the
liquidation of damages caused by the opening, widening and grading of
East Fourth Street from Hill Street to the eastern borough line. Cars
were to be run over the company's entire route so as to provide at least
40-minute through service at all times of the year. The company was re-
quired to pave with vitrified brick the intersection of Fourth and Spruce
Streets according to plans and specifications prepared by the borough
authorities.
The franchise granted to the South Bethlehem and Saucon Street
Railway Company by ordinance approved February 26, 1906, was, in most
respects, identical with the one granted 10 days earlier to the Freemans-
burg Street Railway Company, which we have just described. The chief
points of difference will now be referred to. The route commenced at the
intersecton of Fourth and New Streets and extended thence southwardly
on New Street to Packer Avenue, westwardly on Packer Avenue to Brod-
head Avenue, southwardly on Brodhead Avenue to Wood Street, west-
wardly on Wood Street to Wyandotte Street and Southwardly on Wyan-
dotte Street to the city line. This franchise called for T rails instead of
flange girder rails and contained no specification of the character of con-
struction to be installed in the streets about to be paved by the Borough.
The company was required to exchange transfers with the Freemansburg
Street Railway Company, good on the lines of the two companies within
the borough of South Bethlehem. The South Bethlehem and Saucon
Street Railway Company was to pay $100 a year for the privilege of using
the streets, plus the same car' license, pole and wire fees as were required
by the franchise to the Freemansburg Street Railway Company. The fre-
quency of service required by the two franchises was the same, that is to
4
50
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
say, a maximum headway of 40 minutes. The South Bethlehem and Sau-
con Street Railway franchise contained no provision corresponding to the
provision in the other franchise requiring the Freemansburg Company to
contribute a sum of money to the cost of opening and improving Fourth
Street. The road was to be completed within nine months, but in this case
also an extension was granted to four months from April 1, 1907. By
resolution passed by the borough council July 17, 1916, the finance com-
mittee was directed to make a settlement with the South Bethlehem and
Saucon Street Railway Company on account of the bill due for license of
poles and wires. The settlement was to be on the basis of the company's
paying $1,084, a sum which had been arrived at through the suspension of
the payment of the annual operating license fee for the period of the first
five years of operation and one-half of the fee for the next three years.
The resolution also provided for a continued suspension of one-half of the
license fee for a period of five years from December 1, 1916.
By an ordinance approved September 30, 1907, a franchise was
granted by the borough of South Bethlehem to the South Mountain Trac-
tion Company for a route commencing at the intersection of Philadelphia
Road and Eighth Street and extending thence eastwardly along Eighth
Street and University Avenue to Grant Street, thence northeastwardly and
and eastwardly along Grant Street to Thomas Street, thence northeast-
wardly along Thomas Street to Sixth Street, thence eastwardly over Sixth
Street to Oak Street, thence northwardly along Oak Street to Fifth Street,
thence eastwardly over Fifth Street and an eastward extension of Fifth
Street to the borough line. From this point the route was to continue
eastwardly along the extension of Fifth Street to William Street in the
borough of Northampton Heights. This franchise appears never to have.
been accepted; or at any rate it does not appear that the road covered by
it was ever constructed. This franchise was exceptional in that it was
limited to a period of 25 years. It also provided that the company should
have "one conductor in each car besides the motorman in the lead car."
It provided for a 30-minute service and authorized the company to use its
tracks for carrying “farm produce, garden truck, milk, merchandise and
other light freight and property", as well as for carrying passengers, ex-
press matter, mail and baggage.
By an ordinance approved September 10, 1913, the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company was authorized to connect its railway with the railway
of the Easton Transit Company at Fourth and New Streets and to operate
its cars over the Fourth Street line; to construct, maintain and operate a
diamond switch on Third Street between Linden and Poplar Streets (in
front of the Bethlehem Steel Company's office); to install a curve at the
southwest corner of Second and New Streets and to establish and main-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
51
tain a freight station at the northeast corner of this intersection. These
privileges were granted upon certain special conditions. The company
was to maintain not less than a 20-minute service at least until 11.00 P.M.,
between the eastern borough limits and the' end of the company's railway
on Second Street, near the Lehigh Valley Railroad depot. This service was
to be operated by the way of Fourth Street, New Street and Second Street.
The company was also authorized to extend its tracks on Second Street
and Brodhead Avenue to the depot, with the express stipulation, however,
that in case the construction of the proposed bridge between South Beth-
lehem and Bethlehem should be interfered with by this extension, then the
company would remove the extension at its own expense. The right to
operate the freight station and to use it for cars for the transportation of
"farm produce, garden truck, milk and other light freight" was granted up-
on the express condition that "no coal, oil, gasoline, dynamite, gun pow-
der or any other explosive, lime, manure, straw or hay (except in bales)"
should be transported under authority of the ordinance. The Transit
Company also was to pay to the Borough of South Bethlehem the cost of
the street paving removed in the construction of the curves, the switch
and the extension authorized to be built. A special transfer provision was
also inserted in this ordinance by which the company was required to
issue transfers to passengers for any point in South Bethlehem on all
cars coming from Allentown and Rittersville to Bethlehem; also for any
point in South Bethlehem or Bethlehem coming from Allentown by way of
South Bethlehem to any point in Bethlehem and to Rittersville. Transfers
issued by the company to passengers on any cars in South Bethlehem were
to be accepted by the Easton Transit Company as far as Freemansburg.
The company was required to pay the cost of the printing and advertising
of the ordinance. The ordinance was to be accepted in writing within 20
days after its approval, and the work which it provided for was to be com-
menced within 60 days after such acceptance and to be completed within
90 days thereafter. The time allowance was later extended for a period
of 90 days from November 5, 1913.
A new element entered into the public utility franchise problem in the
cities of Pennsylvania upon the enactment of the public service company
law in 1913, which contained a provision that no franchise granted by a
municipality could be exercised until it had been approved by the commis-
sion. It appears that the commission refused to approve local franchise
grants unless they contained a clause expressly recognizing its continuing
jurisdiction under the public utility law. In this connection the South Beth-
lehem ordinance of September 10, 1913, was amended by an ordinance ap-
proved November 5, 1913, by the insertion of the following clause:
52
Report on the Transit Problems of
"Provided, it is hereby understood and agreed that it is not the
purpose or intent, nor is the obligation, of the contract, if and when ap-
proved by The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, such as to impair or in any wise affect the exercise by
the said Commission of the powers vested in it by. The Public Service
Company Law approved July 26, 1913."
The Easton Transit Company, by a companion ordinance approved
September 10, 1913, was authorized to connect its tracks with those of the
Lehigh Valley Transit Company, and was authorized to extend its tracks
on Fourth Street from Elm Street to Spruce Street as already pointed out.
This grant was on condition that the company should pay to the borough
the sum of $2,322 as the cost of the street paving which had to be removed
on account of this extension. The Easton Company was authorized by
this ordinance to operate its cars on the tracks of the Lehigh Valley Tran-
sit Company on Third, Fourth, New and Wyandotte Streets and Broad-
way as far as Fiot Street on condition that it permitted the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company to operate over the tracks on Fourth Street east of New.
The ordinance also provided that the Easton Company should issue trans-
fers at the junction of its tracks with the tracks of the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company in Northampton Heights to passengers going west on
Fourth Street. The Easton Company was authorized to construct a switch
or siding on Fourth Street between Centre and Oak Streets, but by reso-
lution of the city council, approved December 18, 1913, the location of this
switch was changed to the block between Oak and Poplar Streets. All the
expense of the change, including the cost of pavement disturbed, was to
be paid by the company.
What appears to be the final act of the Borough of South Bethlehem
in the street railway franchise line was the passage of an ordinance, ap-
proved April 2, 1917, granting to the Lehigh Valley Transit Company the
right to establish and maintain a freight station on a parcel of land to be
situated on the south side of Second Street between New and Birch
Streets; to install a single track on Second Street east of New Street with
spur tracks to the proposed station, and to do an express business and to
transport light freight and other property within the borough of South
Bethlehem. The new freight station was to be located on a parcel of land
80 feet by 80 feet in size on the south side of Second Street, a short dis-
tance east of New Street, and the company was required immediately after
the completion of the new station to abandon its present freight station
located at the northeast corner of Second and New Streets. The consent
to do an express business and transport light freight and property upon the
company's street railway lines in South Bethlehem and to charge and col-
lect reasonable compensation therefor was subject to the same limitations.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
53
as to prohibited articles as were contained in the previous ordinance of
September 10, 1913. The new ordinance also provided that no freight or
other property should be received or delivered except at the proposed new
freight station or at any other freight station which might thereafter be
lawfully established and maintained within the borough.
From this analysis of the street railway franchises granted by the Bor-
ough of South Bethlehem it is apparent that the borough authorities
followed during a period of about 15 years a fairly consistent policy with
respect to the terms and condition of street railway grants. It will be no-
ted that the five-cent fare and free transfer provisions were gradually ex-
tended so as to include the adjacent boroughs on the south side, Free-
mansburg, Bethlehem proper (the north side) and the district extending
west of Bethlehem to Rittersville. South Bethlehem also insisted upon
compensation in the form of annual lump payments for the privilege of
using the streets, plus a license tax for poles and wires, and later a car li-
cense tax. At the beginning of the investigation I was told that South
Bethlehem had given the Transit Company pretty shabby treatment; and
had at times insisted upon franchise conditions that were considered by the
company to be unreasonable. The franchise requirement that the com-
pany operate a route with regular 20-minute service from the Union Depot
to Northampton Heights is perhaps unwise. As a matter of fact, the com-
pany does not maintain a regular headway on this line, as the depot car is
very frequently turned south out of Third Street into New Street and sent
back to Northampton Heights by Fourth Street without ever going near
the depot. It may be that if the company's track facilities on New Street
were sufficient to make the operation of this ordinance route convenient,
its usefulness would be more apparent. A study of the South Bethlehem
Street Railway ordinances does not justify the conclusion that the borough
authorities seriously oppressed the transit companies. In this connection
it is worthy of note that Moody's Manual (public utilities section) after
describing the corporate history of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company,
states that all its franchises are unlimited and that they are not subject to
any burdensome conditions. This, I take it, represents the view of the
company itself, and is a fact that is emphasized by President H. R. Fehr in
his annual reports. For example, in his report for the year ended No-
vember 30, 1914, he said:
"Your company enjoys the good will of its many patrons,
due to the consideration and courtesy shown them in all branches
of the service and to the numerous improvements made for their
safety, comfort and convenience. The relations with the authori-
ties of the many municipalities served by your company continue
to be very satisfactory."
5+
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
A similar statement is found in Mr. Fehr's report for 1915, and in his 1916
report he makes it still stronger, as follows:
"The relations with the public and with the various local and
state authorities grow more satisfactory each year, as all parties.
concerned, including your company, realize more fully that their
duties and obligations are mutual and interdependent.'
And finally, in his report for the year 1917, Mr. Fehr stated that the com-
pany's relations with the public and with the various local and state
authorities had been "most satisfactory" during the year.
The printed ordinances of the Borough of Bethlehem do not include
the original street railway franchises which must have been granted 25 or
30 years ago and these franchises are not in the possession of the city so-
licitor. I have not examined the original minute books on file in the city
clerk's office for the purpose of finding them. I secured copies, however,
of two franchise ordinances passed by the Borough of West Bethlehem in
December, 1890. One of these ordinances granted consent to the Bethle-
hem & Allentown Street Railway Company to construct a single or double
track electric railway on Broad Street from the west end of the Broad
Street bridge to the western limit of the borough. This line was to be of
standard gauge, and in case the company used T rails they were to be put
down and maintained on a level with the surface of the street, and along
the outer side of the rails a stone guard not less than six inches in width
was to be maintained on the same level with the rail and care was to be
taken that at all times the entire portion of the street between the rails was
to be kept at the street grade, so that there should be no projection of the
rails above the surface. The company was required to construct its road
one block at a time, so as to interfere as little as possible with the general
use of the street. All damage to street structures, including gas and water
pipes, was to be repaired by the company and the portion of the street sur-
face within the rails and to a distance of one foot on either side was to be
maintained by the company with the same material, as far as practicable,
with which the roadway then was or might thereafter be constructed. The
track was at all times to conform to the grade of the street as then or
thereafter established. The City reserved the right to make street repairs
and street improvements, including the installation of gas, water or other
mains, and the construction of sewers, and for these purposes to open the
portion of the street used by the company's tracks. The company was not.
to obstruct such work and in case its tracks had to be moved or raised it
was to bear the expense involved in the operation. The poles were to be
placed immediately inside of the curb line in such way as to cause the least.
possible obstruction of the sidewalk and so as not to obstruct unneces-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
55
sarily the immediate fronts of private property. No car was to be run at a
greater speed than eight miles an hour and at street intersections the speed
was to be reduced to three miles. The company was not to charge for a
single fare any greater sum than five cents. It was to furnish a bond in
the sum of $5,000 before breaking ground for its work. The company,
within thirty days after the passage of the ordinance, was to file with the
borough secretary its written acceptance of all the provisions of the ordi-
nance and was to proceed with the completion of its road within one year
after the date of such acceptance.
The other West Bethlehem ordinance, passed in 1890, gave consent
to the Bethlehem & South Bethlehem Street Railway Company to con-
struct a single or double-track electric railway from the southern end of
Main Street at or upon the Monocacy Bridge at the line of division be-
tween the boroughs of West Bethlehem and Bethlehem and extending
thence southwardly on Main Street to the bridge of the Lehigh Bridge
Company. I have not learned whether the street railway was constructed
under the terms of this ordinance. At any rate, it appears to have no sig-
nificance at the present time.
By an ordinance approved September 17, 1901, the Borough of West
Bethlehem provided for the licensing of electric railway cars running
through or within the borough. A license fee of $15.00 per car was to be
paid on July 1 every year, and any street railway company maintaining
tracks within the borough on which cars were operated was required to
furnish the borough authorities once every six months a statement of the
number of cars "operated and running within the Borough of West Beth-
lehem over the tracks laid in the several highways therein." In case an
electric railway company should neglect or refuse to pay the license fee
within thirty days after its notification by the police committee of the
amount due, then the Borough would have the right to recover by suit the
amount of the license fee due and unpaid and an additional fee of $5 per
car.
The first street railway ordinance in the printed book of ordinances
of the borough of Bethlehem is one approved July 14, 1908, granting to
the Lehigh Valley Transit Company the right to construct, maintain and
operate a double track from Main Street west along Broad Street over the
proposed new bridge to First Amenue. Under this franchise the company
was authorized not only to install the tracks, poles, overhead wires and any
other apparatus necessary for the operation of cars, but also to install the
necessary fixtures for transporting the current of any electric light or
power company or other corporation then owned, leased or controlled
by the Transit Company. Consent was given to the installation of a
cross-over immediately east of Main Street and also between the west curb
56
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
line of Main Street and the east end of the proposed new bridge, as well
as to construct and maintain connecting curves at the intersection of
Broad and Main Streets. This grant was made upon condition that the
company pave with vitrified brick and maintain the portion of the street
lying between its tracks and also the whole of the intersection of Broad
and Main Streets. The franchise was conditioned upon the construction
by the counties of Northampton and Lehigh of a reinforced concrete
bridge 60 feet in width over Monocacy Creek along Broad Street. By
resolution approved February 14, 1910, the Lehigh Valley Transit Co.
was given permission to lay the northeast, southeast and southwest turn-
outs at Broad and Main Streets and the crossover east of Main Street
subject to an agreement to be drawn by the borough solicitor requiring
it to lay the northwest turnout and crossover west of Main Street when
requested to do so.
The only street railway franchises of importance granted by the
Borough of Bethlehem which I have seen are the three ordinances passed
in 1916, granting certain privileges to the Lehigh Valley Transit Co., the
Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Railway Company and the Easton
Transit Company. The Lehigh Valley Transit ordinance and the Bethle-
hem and Nazareth Passenger Railway ordinance were passed at the same
time and approved March 18, 1916. By the first of these ordinances the
Borough of Bethlehem authorized the Transit Company (a) to construct,
maintain and operate a second track on Broad Street from the end of the
double track as it then existed (at a point westward of New Street) to
Linden Street and thence northward on Linden Street to the beginning of
the double track as it then existed at Laurel Street; (b) to install a cross-
over in Linden Street between Laurel Street and Elizabeth Avenue; (c) to
connect its tracks on Linden Street with the tracks of the Easton Transit
Company by a single curve westward into Elizabeth Avenue and by two
curves northeastward into Easton Road (William Penn Highway); (d) to
install a second track on New Street south from Broad Street to the be-
ginning of the double tracks then existing; and (e) to install double track
curves at the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of the intersec-
tion of Broad and New Streets and to extend a double track northward
across Broad Street to the proposed double track of the Bethlehem &
Nazareth Passenger Railway Company. In the double-tracking of Broad
and Linden Streets the tracks were to be so placed as to be equi-distant
in both cases from the center line of the street, and this work was to be
completed by August 1, 1916. The other work authorized by this ordi-
nance, except that included under clause "e," was to be finished not later
than November 1, 1916, and, the company was to pay a penalty of $25 a
day into the borough treasury for failure to complete this work at the
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
57
time specified. For the installation of the special work at the intersection
of Broad and New Streets the company was given two years' time from
the date of the approval of the ordinance, and unless the work was per-
formed within that time the privileges conferred by clause "e" were to be-
come null and void.
Under this ordinance, prior to the paving of unimproved streets to
which this grant related or on which the company already operated a rail-
way, the company was to maintain the portion of such streets between the
rails and tracks and for a distanct of 18 inches on the outside of each outer
rail with the same kind of material as was used by the Borough on the re-
mainder of the streets; and later when the Borough put down improved
paving the company was at the same time for a like distance and at its own
expense to pave with vitrified brick and thereafter maintain the strip occu-
pied by its tracks and 18 inches more on the outside of the outer rails. It
was specified that the bricks "should be laid on a sand cushion of one and
one-half inches, laid on a six-inch concrete base, the joints between the
bricks to be filled with cement grout, and not only the bricks but the grade
of the work to be approved by the street committee." In the case of
streets occupied by the company's tracks which had already been paved
the company was to continue to maintain the portion in and about the
tracks with brick paving "of the same character and laid in the same way,
except that wherever the present paving extends less than 18 inches on the
outside of each outer rail there shall be no duty to relay or to widen the
same until the present paving shall be worn out." The ordinance re-
quired that in doing the construction work authorized the company should
have due regard for the use of the streets by the traveling public and that
no street should be torn up at any one time for a greater distance than as
approved by the street committee. The company was also required to re-
pair any damage done to street improvements, sewers, gas and water
pipes, private drains and other property occasioned by the construction
and maintenance of its tracks. The Borough reserved the right in making
repairs and improvements and in laying mains or constructing sewers or
"for any other purposes" to open the portion of the streets occupied by
the company's tracks, but the ordinance contained no provision requiring
the company to protect or move its tracks at its own expense in connec-
tion with such work. Section 9 of this ordinance provided for a five-cent
fare with free transfers throughout the borough and extending to South
Bethlehem, Freemansburg, Macada, Hellertown and Rittersville on all
lines operated by the company or its lessees or by any company using any
portion of its tracks. This provision was couched in the following
language:
58
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
"Section 9. The rights and franchises hereby granted are up-
on the condition that the Lehigh Valley Transit Company, its
lessees, successors and assigns shall give, upon payment of a
single five-cent fare, and upon tender of a lawful transfer without
further cash payment, accept such transfers to and from all cars
operated by said company or by lessee companies, or any of them.
or by any company using the cars or tracks or part thereof of the
said Lehigh Valley Transit Company or by any company whose
tracks or any part thereof are used by Lehigh Valley Transit
Company, so that any passengers boarding any car of any of the
above described companies within the limits of the Borough of
Bethlehem or of North Bethlehem as far as No.1 switch on the
Nazareth line, also all passengers entering the car as far out as
the limits of Edgeboro on the Easton road, shall be entitled to
transportation for said single five-cent fare or transfer upon said
car, or by free transfer to any other cars to any part of said
Borough to which the tracks of any of the above described com-
panies extend and to South Bethlehem, Freemansburg, Macada,
Hellertown and Rittersville if the tracks of the said companies
reach said places, and provided further that any passenger enter-
ing the Borough on a car of said companies shall be entitled to
transportation on said car, or by free transfer on other cars of
said companies to any part of the Borough without further
charge than the sum paid prior to entering the Borough. This
section to operate to and from all parts of the Borough as it now
exists and to all future extensions thereof by legal annexation of
outlying districts.”
The company was required to file a written acceptance of all the pro-
visions of the ordinance within one month after it became operative and to
pay the cost of printing and advertising the ordinance whether or not it
accepted it. As the public service commission had already been estab-
lished, the contract created by the acceptance of this ordinance was con-
ditioned upon its approval by the commission, and it was not to operate to
bind the Borough of Bethlehem except at the option of the Borough until
such approval had been obtained, and in case such approval was not ob-
tained within six months, then at the option of the Borough the contract
was to become null and void. The ordinance also contained a clause
similar to the one inserted in the South Bethlehem ordnance of November
5, 1913, preserving to the commission its full jurisdiction under the Public
Service Company Law. The company's time for completing construction
other than the installation of the special work at Broad and New Streets
under this ordinance was subsequently extended to January 1, 1917, but it
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
59
did not install the special work at Broad and New Streets and its right to
do so lapsed at the expiration of two years on March 18, 1918.
The companion ordinance to the Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger
Railway Company authorized the construction and operation of a second
track on New Street for a distanct of 240 feet north of the northern line of
Broad Street. The terms and conditions of this ordinance, so far as ap-
plicable, were substantially identical with those contained in the Transit
Company's ordinance just described.
By an ordinance enacted March 13, 1916, the Easton Transit Com-
pany was authorized to construct a curve at the southeast corner of New
Street and Elizabeth Avenue to connect its track on Elizabeth Avenue
with the track of the Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Railway Company
at New Street. I am informed that the installation of this curve was in-
tended to facilitate the handling of traffic caused by the opening of the
Bethlehem Steel Company's athletic field on Elizabeth Avenue, east of
New Street. The terms of this ordinance were substantially identical with
the terms of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company ordinance already de-
scribed, with the exception that in the section providing for fares and
transfers the limits of the single fare zone were made to extend as far out
as the northeastern limits of Edgeboro on the Easton road, whereas the
word "northeastern" had not been included in the other ordinance, and
also that the Easton Company was required to pay a car license fee of $25
per year "for each and every car traversing the tracks of the company or
any of the leased lines within the borough operated on a regular schedule
by said Easton Transit Company within the limits of the said borough."
While I have not had an opportunity to examine the street railway
franchises under which the Lehigh Valley Transit Company is operating
in the boroughs and townships adjacent to Bethlehem, I saw in the office
of the public service commission in Harrisburg, while I was there one day
last March in connection with this investigation, a petition filed by the
Transit Company requesting the commission's approval of a franchise
granted by the supervisors of the Township of Bethlehem, November 24,
1917, for the construction of a street railway in East Bethlehem on a route
lying partly within the area which became a part of the city about three
months ago. This franchise route extended from the intersection of Pem-
broke Road (Freemansburg Road), Newton Avenue (proposed) and
Yeates Street (proposed) northerly along Yeates Street about 600 feet to
Washington Avenue and thence northwesterly along Washington Avenue
about 1230 feet to Minsi Trail Street; also from the same point of begin-
ning easterly along Pembroke Road about 6175 feet to a point 120 feet
east of the center of New Street in the borough of Freemansburg. This
franchise was for single or double track and contained no time limit and
60
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
no conditions whatever, except the usual clause reserving to the public ser-
vice commission its continuing jurisdiction under the Public Service Com-
pany Law.
It will be seen from the analysis of the ordinances to which we have
referred that the boroughs of Bethlehem and West Bethlehem pursued
franchise policies generally similar to those pursued by the borough of
South Bethlehem, though differing in certain important, details. Fran-
chises were granted without time limit, but upon condition that the five-
cent fare should be maintained. The 1916 Bethlehem ordinances also con-
tained liberal transfer provisions. The paving obligations contained in
these ordinances were made to extend to the companies' already existing
tracks, as well as to tracks thereafter to be laid, and had the effect of
making these obligations uniform throughout Bethlehem and West Beth-
lehem. The portion of the street to be paved and maintained by the com-
pany includes a strip 18 inches wide outside of the outside rails. In the
South Bethlehem ordinances this strip is two feet wide. It is to be noted
also that the Bethlehem and West Bethlehem franchises here described do
not specify the type of rail to be used, nor the character of the poles to be
erected. Neither do they provide for the annual compensation or for the
pole and wire fees which are specified in the South Bethlehem ordinances.
Also they do not prescribe or restrict the routing or headway of the cars.
The analysis of these franchises and the doubt existing as to the provisions
of other franchises not contained in the official ordinance books, suggest that the
City should at an early date collect, classify and index all outstanding street rail-
way franchise grants affecting streets within the present city limits or within the
districts for which annexation proceedings have been instituted, and should take
advantage of the first good opportunity to negotiate with the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company a comprehensive modern franchise, the terms of which will
apply uniformly to all street railway lines within the present or future city limits.

EGYPT
BATH
SIEGFRIED
P&R. Ry
To Emaus
and Macungie
Jordan Cr
To Slatington
LV TRANSIT CO.
IRONTON RR
FAIR
GROUNDS
CAR SHOPS
ALLENTOWN
8th and
Hamilton Streets
Little
Lehigh
LV. TRANSIT CO
CAR
BARN
Allentown
Bridge-
(Toll)
RANSIT CO
LV. TRAN
COPLAY
HOKENDAUQUA
WEST
CATASAUQUA
FULLERTON
POWER HOUSE
STONE
CRUSHER
LEHIGH
RIVER
NORTHAMPTON
LY. TRANSIT CO
CATASAUQUA
NERR
Outer 5 cent tare zone.
B
STATE
NORTHAMPTON
COUNTY
LEHIGH COUNTY
Bath & Northampton R.R
1
MONOCAC
CREEK
1
VILLE
RITTERSVILLE
PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS
CENTRAL
PARK
BETHLEHEM LOOP (NORTH SIDE)
Inner 5 cant fare zone.
TO
BETHELEM
HOSPITAL
LEHIGH
RIVER
CRR OF N.J.
SOUTH
ALLENTOWN
MOUNTAINVILLE
To Philadelphia
LV TRANSIT CO
Outer 5 cent faur zone
FOUNTAIN HILL
Broad and
New Streats
Hill to Hill Bridge (Free)
(Proposed)
•New Street Bridge (Toll)
BETHLEHEM
BETHLEHEM LOOP (SOUTH SIDE
HIGHLAND
PARK
GAUFF'S HILL
Inner cent fare zone
thana
New Streets
BETHLEHEM
So Beth & Saucon Street Ry Co
NORTHAMPTON
LEHIGH
COUNTY
COUNTY
COLESVILLE,
5 cent fare zone
To Centre Valley
To Quakertown
and Lansdale
BINGEN
TEEL
Inner 5 cent fare zone
MACADA
Outer 5 cent fare zone.
[Outer
cent fare zone
BETHLEHEM
NAZARETH
LINE
BUTZTOWN
Outer 5 cent fare zone (from south)
MIDDLETOWN
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO
L.V.
SR..
EASTON - BETHELEM LINE
EASTON-
(EASTON TRANSIT Co.)
SOUTH BETHLEHEM LINE
Minai Trail Bridge (Toll)...
FREEMANSERG
REDINGTON PLANT
Outer 5 cent fare zone (from north)
(BETH STEEL CO.)
NORTHAMPTON
Beth. Steel Co.
Main Office
HELLERTOWN
HEIGHTS
Outer 5 cent fare zone.
IRON HILL
Inner 5 cent fare zone
COKE WORK'S
(BETH. STEEL CO.)
OF
(EASTON
TRANSIT Co.)
NAZARETH
www
D.L. & W. R. R
Bushrill
SON
/WEST
TOWNSHIP
EASTON.
MAP NO 2
MAP OF BETHLEHEM,PA., AND SURROUNDING TERRITORY
SHOWING STREET RAILWAY LINES OF LEHIGH VALLEY
TRANSIT COMPANY, TO ACCOMPANY A REPORT ON
TRANSIT FACILITIES PREPARED FOR THE BETHLEHEM
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BY DELOS F WILCOX. JUNE,1918.
SCALE 1"= 2000'
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
BUCKS
COUNTY
Creek
EASTON
DELAWARE
RIVER
PHILLIPSBURG
NEW
JERSEY
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
61
IV. EXISTING STREET RAILWAY TRACK FACILITIES IN
BETHLEHEM AND VICINITY AND THE EXTENSIONS
AND ADDITIONS REQUIRED, WITH THEIR RELATION
TO THE STREET LAYOUT, EXISTING AND FUTURE
BRIDGES, THE LOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL WORKS, THE
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, ETC.
The operation of the street car lines in Bethlehem is so much a part
of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's interurban service, that it is
necessary, in a description of the track facilities affecting Bethlehem, to
follow the company's cars wherever they go in their regular journeys to
and from Bethlehem. This means that the regularity and sufficiency of
service are dependent upon track facilities in Hellertown, Allentown and,
to a certain extent, even in Easton and Nazareth. In order to present a
complete picture of the trackage facilities affecting the Bethlehem service,
I have prepared a special map (Map No. 2) showing the company's system
in outline from Allentown to Easton, inclusive, and from Hellertown to
Nazareth. On this map the tracks, turnouts, cross-overs and connecting
curves are shown; also the company's lines branching out north, north-
west, southwest and south from Allentown, but not used as a part of the
Bethlehem trackage in ordinary operation; also the line of the South Beth-
lehem & Saucon Street Railway Company; also the location of the Le-
high Valley Transit Company's car-barn, car-shops, stone crusher and
Central Park. This map also shows the course of the Lehigh River, the
location of the steam railroads, the municipal boundary lines of Bethle-
hem, Fountain Hill, Northampton Heights, Freemansburg, Hellertown,
Allentown, South Allentown, Easton, West Easton and Wilson Township,
and the general location of other towns to which the company's lines ex-
tend. The map does not show the local car lines in Allentown and Easton,
except as they are incidental to the Bethlehem or other interurban ser-
vice. This map also shows the location of the Bethlehem Steel Company's
developed properties, the outlines of the proposed East Bethlehem hous-
ing development, and the boundaries of the district west and north of the
city with respect to which annexation proceedings have been instituted.
The map also shows the inner and outer five-cent fare zones with respect
to Bethlehem. A study of this map shows that the Allentown-Bethlehem
loop is double-tracked on the north side, except on the Lehigh River
bridge at Allentown, at the intersection of Broad and New Streets, Bethle-
hem, and on the New Street bridge; that the south side of this loop is
62
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
double-tracked, except on the bridge across the railroad tracks connect-
ing Allentown with South Allentown and on the eastern portion of the line
extending from Gauff's Hill in Salisbury Township through Foutain Hill
and South Bethlehem to the New Street bridge. On the single track por-
tion of this line are five turnouts; the first in front of the Palace Hotel in
Salisbury Township, where Delaware Avenue runs into Broadway; the
second on Seneca Street between Clewell and Bishopthorpe Streets; the
third on Wyandotte Street just north of the "Five Points;" the fourth on
New Street just north of the Philadelphia & Reading Railway crossing;
and the fifth on New Street between Third and Second Streets. On the
double track portion of the line there are eleven cross-overs; the first on
New Street just south of Church Street, the second on Broad Street just
east of Main Street; the third on Broad Street west of the city line; the
fourth on Broad Street at Rittersville; the fifth, sixth and seventh on
Hamilton Street, Allentown, between the river and Eighth Street; the
eighth on Eighth Street just south of Hamilton Street; the ninth on South
Ninth Street just north of St. John Street, near the branch line leading to
the car-barn; the tenth in South Allentown where the Emaus and Phila-
delphia divisions branch off; and the eleventh at Highland Park.
The car line used by the Bethlehem locals and the Hellertown cars is
single tracked from Hellertown to Battery "A," just east of Northampton
Heights, and double tracked from that point westerly to Fourth St. bridge
over the railroad, where the line is divided, one track running down Daly
Avenue and Third Street and the other running down Fourth Street to
New Street, there connecting with the tracks used by the Allentown-Beth-
lehem loop, running north across the New Street bridge to Church Street.
At this point the line divides again to form the North Bethlehem loop.
One branch includes the easterly track on New Street to Broad Street, the
southerly track on Broad Street east to Linden Street, the easterly track
on Linden Street north to Elizabeth Avenue. The other branch consists
of a single track line running west through Church Street to Main Street,
thence north on Main Street to Elizabeth Avenue, thence east on Eliza-
beth Avenue to Linden Street. On the single track portion of this line are
eight turnouts; the first near Hellertown; the second near the road to the
Coke Works; the third on Daly Avenue west of the Minsi Trail Bridge;
the fourth on Third Street opposite the Bethlehem Steel Company's office;
the fifth on Fourth Street between Poplar and Oak Streets; the sixth and
seventh on New Street between the Philadelphia & Reading Railway and
Second Street (already described as a part of the Allentown-Bethlehem
loop line); and the eighth on North Main Street just south of Elizabeth
Avenue. On the double track portions of this line are three cross-overs;
the first on Fourth Street in Northampton Heights; the second on New
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
63
Street just south of Church Street (already described as a part of the
Allentown-Bethlehem loop line); and the third on Linden Street just south
of Elizabeth Avenue.
The Nazareth line is single tracked all the way from Broad Street,
Bethlehem, to Nazareth, and the track on the Nazareth Pike shifts from
one side of the street to the other about a dozen times in the nine miles be-
tween Bethlehem and Nazareth. This line has five turnouts, the first of
which is near Hamilton Avenue, North Bethlehem, about one block north.
of Washington Avenue; the other turnouts are pretty evenly spaced be-
tween this point and the terminus at Belvidere Street, Nazareth.
The Easton-Bethlehem line has the use of double tracks in Bethlehem
from Broad and New Streets east on Broad Street and north on Linden
Street to the old Fair Grounds. From this point on the line follows the
William Penn Highway to Easton and is a single-track line with four turn-
outs and one siding as far as the western boundary of Wilson Township.
Just east of this boundary there is a considerable stretch of double track,
but beyond this it is single-tracked all the way to the intersection of South
Sixth Street and Northampton Street, Easton. From that point on to its
terminus at the Easton Circle it is double tracked.
The Easton-South Bethlehem line is also principally a single-track
line. It makes use of the Daly Avenue-Third Street-New Street-Fourth
Street loop in South Bethlehem and Northampton Heights, with the four
turnouts already described as a part of the Bethlehem-Hellertown line,
and branches off from this line at Bessemer Street in Northampton
Heights, continuing north one block to Third Street as a single track line
and thence running easterly along Third Street into lower Saucon Town-
ship and continuing northeasterly through the Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany's property, crossing to the north side of the Lehigh River at Free-
mansburg and continuing north through Freemansburg to Middletown
and thence running along Freemansburg Avenue to Easton as a single-
track line all the way to Walnut Street and Northampton Street, thence
continuing to Easton Circle, using the double tracks on Northampton
Street. Returning to South Bethlehem, this line runs west on North-
ampton Street where there is a double track all the way out to Wilson
Township, and then turns south through 17th Street, thus completing a
loop. Turnouts on this line are few and far between. There is one a short
distance east of the easterly line of Northampton Heights where the line.
passes through the Steel Company's property. There is another about a
mile and a half east of Middletown. The two Easton lines are connected
by a single track branch running from Butztown on the north to Middle-
town on the south. This connecting link provides shuttle and transfer ser-
vice and is not a portion of a through route.
64
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company is alive to the fact that in the
near future it will have to build many extensions and install considerable
second track on existing single-track lines in order to equip itself for hand-
ling the Bethlehem traffic. On three occasions, in the year 1917, it applied
to the Public Service Commission of Pennsylvania for certificates of pub-
lic convenience for various extensions of its charter rights in and about
Bethlehem and Allentown. Certificates were issued by the Commission
under date of April 23, August 28 and December 27, 1917, for the follow-
ing routes:
Certificate issued April 23, 1917.
Route No. 1. Extending from the intersection of Main and Center
Streets, South Allentown, to Mountainville Junction.
Route No. 2. Extending from Broad and Linden Streets, in the city
of Bethlehem, along Broad Street to Minsi Trail Road and thence along
Minsi Trail Road and over the Minsi Trail Bridge to Daly Avenue, South
Bethlehem. (The certificate of public convenience for this route over the
Minsi Trail Bridge was granted subject to the conditon that the Transit
Company should not operate over the bridge "any cars in excess of 40-ton
loaded.")
Certificate issued August 28, 1917.
I.
Route No. 1. Extending from a connection with the company's exist-
ing track in South Main Street, Bethlehem, just north of the Moravian
Seminary along the approach to the proposed Hill-to-Hill bridge and
across the bridge to South Bethlehem, thence down the ramp into Third
Street and through Third Street and Brodhead Avenue to a connection
with the company's existing line on Fourth Street.
Route No. 2. Extending from a connection with the company's exist-
ing line in Broad Street, West Bethlehem, south along Second Avenue
and Albert Street to the westerly ramp of the proposed Hill-to-Hill bridge
and thence along the ramp to a connection with Route No. I at the north
end of the bridge.
Route No. 3. Extending from a connection with the company's exist-
ing track at the intersection of Fourth and Wyandotte Streets north-
wardly along Wyandotte Street to the southerly end of the proposed Hill-
to-Hill bridge to a connection with Route No. 1.
Route No. 4. Extending from the end of the company's existing line
in Second Street, South Bethlehem, up along the Second Street ramp to
the main roadway of the proposed Hill-to-Hill bridge, there to connect
with Route No. 1.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
65
Route No. 5. Extending from the intersection of Broad Street and
Minsi Trail Road, East Bethlehem, (at a point in Route No. 2, granted by
certificate of April 23, 1917) northerly along Minsi Trail Road to its inter-
section with Goepp Street and Newton Avenue and thence northeasterly
along Newton Avenue to the William Penn Highway at or near the place
where the latter is intersected by the road leading to Freemansburg.
Route No. 6. Extending from a connection with Route No. 5 at the
intersection of Goepp Street, Newton Avenue and Minsi Trail Road,
northerly along Minsi Trail Road to Washington Avenue and thence
northwesterly along Washington Avenue to and across William Penn
Highway and thence on private right-of-way to a connection with the
tracks of the Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Railway Company at the
intersection of Washington Avenue and Nazareth Pike.
Route No. 7. Extending from a connection with the company's exist-
ing line in Fourth Street, South Bethlehem, in a southwesterly direction
along Broadway to a connection with the company's existing line in
Wyandotte Street.
Route No. 8. Extending from a connection with the company's exist-
ing line at the intersection of Broadway and Fiot Street, South Bethlehem,
in a southwesterly direction along Broadway to a connection with the
company's existing line at or near the intersection of Broadway and Ben-
ner Avenue, near the boundary line between the Borough of Fountain Hill
and the Township of Salisbury.
Route No. 9. Extending from a connection with the company's exist-
ing line (Slatington division) at the intersection of Chew Street and
Albright Avenue in Allentown, westward along Chew Street to and be-
yond the city limits into the Township of Whitehall, a total distance of
approximately 6,150 feet, to a point at or near the intersection of Chew
Street with a public road known as the extension of Liberty Street.
Route No. 10. Extending from a connection with the company's
existing line at the intersection of Twelfth and Gordon Streets in Allen-
town, northerly along Twelfth Street to Washington, and thence westerly
on Washington to a connection with the company's existing line at Ninth
Street.
Route No. II. Extending from a connection with the company's ex-
isting line at the intersection of St. John Street and Ninth Street in Allen-
town (south side), southward along Ninth Street to Cumberland Street
and thence westerly along Cumberland Street to Lehigh Street at a point
near the Fairview car-barn.
5
66
Report on THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Route No. 12. Extending from a connection with the company's ex-
isting track in St. John Street, Allentown (south side), southward along
Tenth Street to Cumberland Street to a connection with Route No. II.
Certificate issued December 17, 1917.
Route No. I. Extending from a point in the company's existing
tracks about 230 feet southwest of the road leading from Hellertown to
Allentown in the Township of Salisbury (at Gauff's Hill) westerly for a
distance of about 500 feet to another point in the company's existing
tracks. (To straighten out the line.)
Route No. 2. Extending from a point in the company's existing
tracks where Route No. I commences, in an easterly direction across the
public road leading from Gauff's Hill to Emaus, through private property
and across the road from Hellertown to Allentown and continuing
through private property and substantially parallel to the public road lead-
ing from Fountain Hill to Gauff's Hotel, to the intersection of Clewell and
Itasca Streets; thence easterly on Itasca Street to Wyandotte Street,
thence northerly on Wyandotte Street to Broadway, thence easterly on
Broadway to a connection with the company's existing line on Fourth
Street, South Bethlehem. (This route provides for a second track on the
south side of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop, from Gauff's Hill to Fourth
Street. It will be noted that this route on Broadway from Wyandotte
Street to Fourth Street, South Bethlehem, is identical with Route No. 7
under the certificate issued August 28, 1917.)
Route No. 3. Extending from a point in the company's existing line
at Gauff's Hill a short distance to the east of the public road leading from
Hellertown to Allentown in the Township of Salisbury by a semi-circle
and partly across said road and partly across the public road leading from
Fountain Hill to Emaus and partly through private property to a point of
connection with Route No. 2. (This semi-circular connection would facili-
tate the operation of South Bethlehem local service by a loop at Gauff's
Hill.)
Route No. 4. Extending from the intersection of Itasca and Ontario
Streets at a point in Route No. 2, northerly along Ontario Street to a con-
nection with the company's existing line on Broadway.
Route No. 5. Extending from a connection with Route No. 5 under
the certificate issued August 28, 1917, at the intersection of Pembroke
Road, Newton Avenue and Yeates Street, East Bethlehem, northwesterly
along Yeates Street to its intersection with Washington Avenue and No. 2
North Street and thence continuing in a northwesterly direction along
Washington Avenue to its intersection with Minsi Trail Road and No. 5
North Street, there connecting with Route No. 6 under the certificate
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
67
issued August 28, 1917. (This route is intended to be a modification of
Route No. 6 under certificate issued August 28, 1917, and as a substitute
for the portion of said Route No. 6 extending along Minsi Trail Road
from its intersection with Goepp Street and Newton Avenue northerly to
its intersection with Washington Avenue.
Route No. 6. Extending from a connection with Route No. 5 under
certificate issued August 28, 1917, at the intersection of Pembroke Road,
Newton Avenue and Yeates Street, East Bethlehem, easterly along Pem-
broke Road to a point about 120 feet east of the center of New Street in
the Borough of Freemansburg, approaching but not crossing the right-of-
way of the Central Railroad of New Jersey.
In addition to the new routes above described, for which the Lehigh
Valley Transit Company has secured from the Public Service Commission
certificates of public convenience, under date of March 7, 1918, the com-
pany addressed to the City Commission of Bethlehem an application for a
franchise to install a second track on its existing line commencing at the
southerly end of the New Street bridge and running thence south across
the Philadelphia & Reading Railway to Fourth Street, and thence west
along Fourth Street one block to Vine Street. This second track would
take the place of the two turnouts in New Street, one north and the other
south of Third Street. The company has also applied to the City of Beth-
lehem for a renewal of the franchise granted March 18, 1916, authorizing
the installation of special work at the intersection of Broad and New
Streets. The 1916 franchises athorized the Lehigh Valley Transit Com-
pany to install double track curves at the northwest, southwest and south-
east corners at this intersection, and to extend its existing double track in
New Street north to the north line of Broad Street, and authorized the
Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Railway Company to continue the double
track in New Street from the northerly line of Broad Street north for a dis-
tance of about 240 feet. The Transit Company now asks authority to install
double track curves at all four corners of this intersection, besides putting
in the double track on New Street covered by the terms of the 1916 ordi-
nance.
The company has also informally discussed with the city officials a
plan for double tracking the line of Fourth Street all the way from New
Street to Broadway, in connection with its plans for the construction of
extensions. It also plans, in connection with the tracks to be laid on the
proposed Hill-to-Hill bridge, to double track the line on South Main
Street from a connection with the Bridge approach near the Moravian
Seminary northerly to Broad Street. Furthermore, the company has had
surveys made looking to the relocation on private right-of-way of the por-
tion of its Hellertown line extending from a point just south of Battery
68
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
"A" to a point near the road leading to the Coke Works. If this reloca-
tion is effected, the company plans to double track this portion of the
Hellertown line.
All the new routes for which the company has received certificates of
public convenience, as well as the relocation of the Hellertown line, are
shown on Map No. 3 accompanying this report.
In determining whether this company's existing track facilities are
sufficient, and if not, what extensions should be built and what additional
tracks installed, we need to consider the specific character of the problem
with which the company has to deal. A reference has already been made
to a census of its employees taken by the Bethlehem Steel Company in
February, 1918, which showed that 5,575 of the employees regularly used
the street cars going to and from their work. Of this number 100
patronize the South Bethlehem & Saucon Street Railway Company, board-
ing the cars homeward bound at the intersection of Fourth and New
Streets. The remainder, 5,475, use the cars of the Lehigh Valley Transit
Company and the Easton Transit Company. Homeward bound in all di-
rections they take the cars at six principal loading points, all of which are
located at or near the car lines running through Third Street and Daly
Avenue to Northampton Heights and thence out Fourth Street and
Hellertown Road to Hellertown. A line of cars passing in both directions
along this route would be able to transport these passengers to their
several destinations either by a system of transfers or by the branching out
of the lines after it had passed beyond the loading points. The Steel Com-
pany traffic is much heavier to the west than to the east, and much heavier
to the north than to the south. For the purpose of analyzing this traffic
problem I have distributed the employees leaving each of the six loading
points into four groups:
(a) Those going west and north across the New Street Bridge, bound
for Bethlehem (north side), Allentown, Nazareth and other points most
conveniently reached by this route.
(b) Those going west and southwest by the Fourth Street line to
South Bethlehem, Fountain Hill, Allentown (south side) and other points.
along this route.
(c) Those going east by the Fourth Street route and continuing
northeast to Fremansburg, Easton and points along that line.
(d) Those going east on the Fourth Street route and southeast to
Hellertown and intervening points.
The six loading places cover a total distance of about 12,780 feet, or
nearly 2½ miles. Starting from Third and New Streets as the first load-
ing point, the distance to the next, at the main office of the Bethlehem
Steel Company, is approximately 2,080 feet; from there to the Gas House

Deleware Av.
Allentown
Seneca St.
וויון
To Gauffs Hil
lewell St
Fiot St.
Itaska St
To Tenth Av.
and Broad St
Spring St.
LEHIGH
To Center Valley
Broadway
Ontario St
Wyandotte St
Wyandotte St.
Secor
1y.
HILL TO HILL BRIDGE
South Bethlehem and
Saucon Street Railway
MAP NO. 3
MAP SHOWING (ON UPPER PART) PRESENT
PRESENT STREET RAILWAY
ROUTES OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY IN AND ABOUT
BETHLEHEM, PA.; ALSO ROUTE EXTENSIONS FOR WHICH CERTIFICATES
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, WERE SECURED IN 1917; ALSO (LOWER PART)
LOADING POINTS AND GENERAL DESTINATIONS OF BETHLEHEM
STEEL COMPANY'S EMPLOYES WHO USE STREET CARS, AND
EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRACK FACILITIES IN BETHLEHEM.
TO ACCOMPANY A REPORT ON TRANSIT FACILITIES PREPARED
FOR THE BETHLEHEM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BY DELOS F. WILCOX
Brodhead Av
Sub Plan No.1
of Lower Map
Main St
Route #9 Cert 8-28-17
Chew St
Gordon St
Second St.
The two bad grade crossings.
That on Third Street to be
eliminated by overhead
roadway from bridge ap-
proach to New Street.
N.W.-210
S.W.-O
NEW ST.
Third and
New Sts.
214
N.W.
S.W. -
MAIN ST.
BROAD ST.
NEW
STREET BRIDGE
MAN
ST.
THIRD ST.
FOURTH ST.
N.E.-2
S.E.-2
2080
North New St
12th St.
Elizabeth Ar
Company's Steel
getic field.
Aナカー
​Washington St
8-28-17
Route # 10 Cert
ALLENTOWN
Hamilton St
8th and Hamilton Sts.
Allentown
NEW STREET
P. & R. Ry
#12 Cert
8-28-17
Fairview
Car Barn
Allentown Bridg
8th St.
St. John St.
Route Cert. 8-28-17
BROAD ST.
Linden St.
JUNE, 1918
Linden St.
Route */ Cert. 4-23-17
To Mountainville
Nazareth Pike
To Nazareth-
NET TV LUWER MA
Existing trolley tracks
Trolley Extensions and tracks recommended
Trolley Lines to be abandoned
Scale 1" = 400'
RIVER
wm Penn Highway
To Easton-
---------------
Washington Ar
MINSI TRAIL BRIDGE
-Rittersville
To
To Minsi Trail Bridge
Newto
North Bethlehem
Yeates St.
To WPenn Highway
1
Sub Plan No.2
of Lower Map
Broad St
Main St
New
St
Elizabeth Ar
Linden St
Route
Pembroke Road
To Freemansburg-
Route
THE-F
HILL TO HILL
BRIDGE
Route #3 Cert.8-2841
Route Cert
8-28-17
NEW ST. BRIDGE
BETHLEHEM
Route #7 Certs-28-17
Third St.
Fourth St
Route #4 Cert. 12-17-17
Route #1 Cert.12-17-1
Route #2 Cert. 12-17-17-
Route #3 Cert. 12-17-17
Seneca St
Raga Secteer I BREADWAY
Runs
to Fourth St
including
Route 7 of 8-28-17
LEHIGH PLANT
BETHLEHEM
STEEL COMPANY
GAS HOUSE
SAUCON
GATE
MAIN
GATE
OFFICE
DALY AV.
GATE
Direction of travel of Bethlehem Steel Company Employees who regularly
use the cars of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company and the Easton Transit
Company from the several principal loading points for homeward bound
traffic.
N.W.-2167
S.W.- 586
Main
Office
3284
N.E.-171
S.E.-360
Across the New Street Bridge for
Bethlehem, Allentown, Nazareth, etc.
West on Fourth Street to South
Bethlehem, Fountain Hill, Allentown, etc.
2300'
N.W.-161
S.W.-O
NW-362.
S.W-1084
Gas House
Gate
167
N.E.-O
S.E.- 6
ALL GATES
5475
2600'
N. E.-283
S.E.-487
N.W-619
S.W.-251
Saucon
Gate
970
Anthracite St
Nazareth Pike
To NAZARETH:
Route
Washingto
Route
Cert 8-28-17
Cert. 4-23-17
MINSI TRAIL BRIDGE
wm. Penn Highway
TO EASTON
Newton
cart. 8-28-17
Ave
Route 6 Cert. 12-17-12
KEY TO UPPER MAP
Scale
Existing Trolley Routes.
New Routes for which Company
has secured certificates of
Public Convenience.
1" = 1600'
Proposed relocation
of Hellertown line to
be double tracked to
road leading to Coke
works.
To Coke Works
SAUCON
PLANT
Hellertown
THIRD ST.
BATTERY
"A"
Relocation at Helier,
eliertown
N.E.-41
NW-330
Battery
1800-
"A
612
S.E.-59
S.W.-173
N.E.- To Freemansburg and Easton.
S.E- To Hellertown.
N.E.-69
S. E.-40
To Hellertown
4000
Iron Hill
To Coke Works
Line (Private micly kiu,)
N. W. 134
S.W.-74
Coke
Works
228
N. E.-O
S. L. 20
COKE
WORKS
To Middletown Junction & Easton
T EASTON
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
69
gate the distance is about 2,300 feet; from, there to Anthracite Street,
where the men coming out through the Saucon gate get the cars, the dis-
tance is about 2,600 feet; from there to Battery "A" is about 1,800 feet and
from there on to the road leading from the Hellertown line to the Coke
Works is about 4,000 feet. The total number of employees boarding the
cars at each of these six loading stations, and the general directions in
which they go, are as follows:
Loading Station and Direction.
Third and New Streets:
Northwest
Southwest
Number of Employees.
210
O
Northeast
Southeast
All directions
Main Office:
Northwest
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
All directions
Gas House Gate:
2 2
214
2167
586
171
360
3284
Northwest
Southwest
161
O
Northeast
O
Southeast
6
All directions
167
Saucon Gate:
Northwest
Southwest
619
251
Northeast
41.
Southeast
59
All directions
970
70
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Loading Station and Direction.
Number of Employees.
Battery "A":
Northwest
330
Southwest
173
Northeast
69
Southeast
40
All directions
612
Coke Works:
Northwest
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
134
74
O
20
All directions
All Loading Points Combined:
Northwest
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
All directions
228
3621
1084
283
487
5475
These figures and the relative locations of the loading points referred
to are shown graphically on Map No. 3. The detailed analysis of the traffic
showing specific destinations will be found in Appendix D, entitled,
"Summary of Statistics Compiled from the Census of Employees taken by
the Bethlehem Steel Company, February, 1918, Showing Number of Em-
ployees Homeward Bound Boarding the Trolley Cars of the Lehigh Val-
ley Transit Company and Easton Transit Company at the Principal Load-
ing Points."
In view of the fact that the trolley cars and the steam roads together
carry only about one-third of the employees of the Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany, and apparently a much smaller proportion of the employees of other
industrial concerns in Bethlehem, to and from their work, it may perhaps
be presumed that if the facilities were adequate so that the men could ride
quickly and comfortably, the traffic would be considerably increased. Of
the total number who are now routed north over the New Street bridge, a
few turn east on Broad Street, following the North Bethlehem loop, and
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
71
a smaller number go out towards Butztown on the Easton line and to-
wards Nazareth on the Nazareth line. The great majority, however, are
destined for points west of New Street. If the proposed East Bethlehem
housing development is carried through according to the original plans,
and 2,000 houses are erected in the district extending east from the Minsi
Trail Road to Freemansburg, it is to be expected that the distribution of
the Bethlehem Steel street railway traffic will be considerably changed,
and a large number of employees in addition to those who now walk across
the Minsi Trail bridge will be candidates for transit facilities in the north-
eastern section of the city which is not acessible to the existing car lines.
From the point of view of the Bethlehem Steel traffic, the Transit Com-
pany's job is to carry men in large numbers in all directions from the string
of loading points located along the Third Street-Hellertown line over a dis-
tance of nearly 2½ miles.
The second part of the Transit Company's problem, from the point of
view of the City of Bethlehem, is to combine the business districts together
by convenient transit facilities. The principal retail business district on
the north side of the river is shaped like an inverted "L," with one arm
extending south on Main Street from its intersection with Broad Street,
and the other extending east on Broad from its intersection with Main
Street. In South Bethlehem the retail business is located for the most
part on Third Street from one block west of New Street east to the Bethle-
hem Steel Company's office; but there is considerable retail business on
Fourth and Wyandotte Streets from a block or so east of New Street to
the "Five Points." The Allentown-Bethlehem loop line connects the
secondary business district on the south side (Fourth Street and Wyan-
dotte Street) with the secondary business district on the north side (Broad
Street). It also intersects the primary business district on the south side
(Third Street) near its west end and the primary business district on the
north side (Main Street) near its north end. The infrequency and irregu-
larity of car service from the "Five Points" section in South Bethlehem to
the Broad and Main Streets section in Bethlehem (north side) discourage
car riding between these points, especially as it is often possible to make
quicker connections on foot by the more direct route crossing the river by
the temporary bridge. The connection that would be most effective in
unifying the business districts of the city would be a car line with frequent
and dependable service traversing Main Street on the north side and Third
Street on the south side. The present loop service on the Hellertown
line is too infrequent to be of any considerable importance for this purpose.
The third part of the Transit Company's problem in Bethlehem is to
provide as good general local service between different parts of the city
and its immediate environs as the size of the community and its traffic de-
72
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
mands will permit. The Bethlehemites unquestionably do a great deal of
walking, and at times an observer would suspect that they do some of it by
compulsion and not by choice. Dr. Thomas Conway, of the University
of Pennsylvania, testified May 8, 1918, in the Public Service Railway rate-
case in New Jersey, as follows:
"I have recently made an investigation of this matter of
walking in connection with riding on the Lehigh Valley Transit
Company lines in the neighborhood of Bethlehem. I find that a
great many of the workmen walk, because of various reasons.
One is that they want to smoke; another is that they want to be
in the air; another is that they want to stop and get a drink on
the way home and use the nickel to buy beer; there are various
reasons."
True, Dr. Conway did not suggest in his testimony that any of the
workingmen in Bethlehem walk home because they can get there more
quickly in that way, or because there are no trolley lines running in the
vicinity of their homes; from the observations I have made these motives
might well be controlling in a great many cases. Last winter I noticed
that a good many workingmen patronized the saloons at the corner of
Anthracite and Fourth Streets and at the corner of Third and New Streets,
but it looked to me that many of them were trying to keep from freezing
while they waited for a car.
There is practically no residential population located immediately ad-
jacent to the north end of the Minsi Trail bridge, but many men living in
East Bethlehem go to and from their work by this route. This bridge is a
mile east of the business center of the city. On the south end it connects
with Daly Avenue at a point that is pretty well isolated from the residential
district in the east end of South Bethlehem by the Philadelphia & Reading
Railway, and on the north side the bridge terminates in an uninhabited
district; yet the number of pedestrians crossing this bridge in August,
1917, was 61,471, as shown by the toll collections; in September the num-
ber was 55,191; in January, 1918, it was 34,821 and in February, 1918,
33,189. It is quite possible that some of the men who walk across this
bridge in the summer time find it more convenient in the winter to ride
around by the New Street bridge, but so far as the winter pedestrians are
concerned, it may be assumed that very few of them have street car facili-
ties available.
The New Street Bridge Company refused to give us the statistics re-
quested with respect to traffic over the New Street bridge and I, therefore,
took a twenty-four hour count of the pedestrians passing north and south
over this bridge. This count was made on Monday, June 3, 1918, and at
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
73
the same time the number of vehicles, the number of street cars, and the
number of street car passengers were noted. The record shows that during
the twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight a total of 4,477 persons
crossed this bridge on foot, 1,988 of them passing north and 2,489 passing
south. During the same period approximately 11,710 persons crossed the
bridge riding on the street cars. Of these 6,109 pere northbound and
5,601 southbound. It was to be expected that a larger number of persons
would walk to work in the morning down-hill than would walk home at
night up-hill. The figures show about 500 more pedestrians crossing this
bridge during the twenty-four hours southbound than northbound, while
with street car passengers the reverse is true.
A twenty-four-hour count of the pedestrians and vehicles crossing the
temporary bridge was made from midnight to midnight on June 5, 1918.
In this case the total number of persons crossing this bridge on foot was
6,384, of whom 3,098 were northbound and 3,286 southbound. It may be
that many of the persons using the temporary bridge would have found
the New Street bridge a more convenient route if it had not been for the
tolls. The combined pedestrian traffic on the two bridges comes within
about 850 of being equal to the street car traffic on the New Street bridge.
If those using the Minsi Trail bridge (from one to two thousand per day)
are added, we find that a larger number of people cross the Lehigh River
by the three Bethlehem bridges on foot than cross in the street cars. In
view of the rather heavy grades on the north side of the river, and in view
of the considerable separation between the business districts on the two
sides, it is probable that a very much larger proportion would use the
street cars if it were convenient to do so. This does not mean that the cars
are always or even generally crowded as they cross this bridge. The fact
is that the 420 passenger cars crossing on June 3rd could have furnished
seats for about 20,000 persons, if the traffic had been distributed in the
same way that the seats were. Of course, at cerain hours when traffic is
very heavy the cars in one direction are crowded, but the traffic peak in
Bethlehem is very high, and the problem of supplying enough cars to
handle the rush-hour crowds is a difficult one. But short-haul and non-
rush-hour traffic demands frequent and regular service or else it will
languish; and it is upon this traffic that a company ordinarily depends for
its margin of profit, and provision for this kind of traffic is an essential, if
not the most important, element in good local service such as a city at the
Bethlehem stage of development should seek. The four accompanying
graphs, entitled: "New Street Bridge Pedestrian Traffic, Monday, June 3,
1918;" "Temporary Bridge Pedestrian Traffic, Wednesday, June 5, 1918;”
"New Street Bridge Street Car Passengers, Monday, June 3, 1918;" and
"Temporary Bridge Vehicular Traffic, Wednesday, June 5, 1918," show in
74
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
a striking way the fluctuations in traffic on the two bridges during the
twenty-four hours and emphasize the difficulty of the problem with which
the Lehigh Valley Transit Company is faced in providing accommodations
for the Bethlehem rush-hour loads. The details of the traffic counts on the
two bridges are given in Appendix B, entitled: "Bridge Counts at Bethle-
hem, Pa."
Certain major difficulties stand in the way of first-class street railway
service in Bethlehem. They are (1) railroad grade-crossings, (2) inade-
quate bridges, (3) narrowness of certain streets, and (4) heavy street grades
at certain points.
Steps have been taken through the construction of the proposed Hill-
to-Hill bridge to eliminate some of the dangerous and obstructive grade
crossings, but the bridge is not yet built, and, even if it were, it would still
leave the grade-crossing problem largely unsolved, so far as street car
operation is concerned. To be sure, cars from the north side could cross
the river by the new bridge, but they could not get into the principal busi-
ness district and traffic center of South Bethlehem by that route except by
taking the troublesome grade-crossing on New Street, between Third and
Fourth Streets, or else by going down Fourth Street all the way to North-
ampton Heights, looping back by way of Daly Avenue and Third Street
and recrossing the river by the New Street bridge. This latter routing
would save the cars from crossing at grade, but would leave the passen-
gers to do so on foot. The location of the Philadelphia and Reading
Railway, separating South Bethlehem from Brodhead Avenue all the way
to Northampton Heights into two narrow strips, with the Steel Plant and
the principal business district shut in between the railroad and the river, is
extremely obstructive. Even with the Hill-to-Hill bridge built, Third
Street will continue to be cut off at both ends of the South Bethlehem busi-
iness district by "impossible" grade-crossings and the usefulness of New
Street will continue to be greatly curtailed by one bad crossing. To the
east, Third Street gets an outlet, though a rather poor one, through Daly
Avenue; but downtown where the street should be most useful, it is hope-
lessly obstructed by the diagonal many-track crossing between Northamp-
ton Street and Brodhead Avenue. The railroad all through the east end of
South Bethlehem is a continuing menace and obstacle to the proper de-
velopment of the city. As long as the railroad remains at its present grade,
it will constitute one of Bethlehem's chief problems. Everybody recog-
nizes that a separation of the grades would be very advantageous, but this
is a work of such magnitude and of so great a cost that it is not regarded
as possible in the near future. It is important, however, to decide now
whether the tracks will be raised or lowered when a general separation is
brought about. Throughout the Bethlehem district railroad tracks follow
་
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
75
the lowlands adjacent to the river banks, while the streets come down from
higher elevations. Fourth Street is already carried over the tracks in
Northampton Heights, and the Hill-to-Hill bridge will carry its roadways.
above the railroads. It seems reasonably certain, therefore, that, if grades.
are to be separated, the Philadelphia and Reading tracks will be lowered
and the streets raised. This is important, because it indicates that in any
temporary or partial solution of the problem as respects particular cross-
ings, care should be had not to start things the wrong way, as, for in-
stance, by constructing street subways under the tracks, where the tracks
will ultimately be lowered so as to let the streets pass over the tracks.
In this connection, we should not forget that the two bad grade-cross-
ings on Hamilton Street in Allentown in the lowlands west of the river
are also factors which help to determine the quality of street car service
in Bethlehem; for every car making the Allentown-Bethlehem loop and
every car operated on the north side of the loop have to take these cross-
ings. Their remoteness from Bethlehem, however, gives the cars a chance
to readjust themselves to a certain extent and restore their schedules be-
fore they get to Bethlehem.
Grade-crossing elimination on a large scale is not a promising pro-
gram just now, but the situation in Bethlehem would be immensely re-
liever from the trolley standpoint if either the New Street crossing or the
Third Street crossing east of Northampton Street could be gotten rid of.
To eliminate the New Street crossing by itself seems wholly impracticable,
but it is possible that the Third Street crossing could be eliminated by the
construction of an elevated roadway commencing at the west line of New
Street, passing over the railroad and continuing at the high level until it
joins the natural grade again at a point west of Brodhead Avenue where
the southeast approach of the Hill-to-Hill bridge would strike into Third
Street if kept on the same level as the bridge itself. This operation would
no doubt cost a good deal of money for construction, and also for
damages to abutting property, especially on that portion of Third Street
extending south of New Street to the railroad. If a ramp were to be con-
structed leading from this elevated roadway down through Brodhead
Avenue to Fourth Street, large additional costs would be incurred, but in
this way good connections would be provided between the Hill-to-Hill
bridge when built and the district on both sides of the railroad in South
Bethlehem, and Third Street would be given an outlet to the west. The
present Third Street grade would be extended and reduced. It would re-
quire a grade of about six per cent to bring the, elevated roadway down
from an elevation giving a clearance of 22 feet over the tracks to the pres-
ent grade at New Street. This is rather heavy, but not prohibitive in
Bethlehem and perhaps it could be eased off a little by a slight lowering
76
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
of the railroad tracks where they cross Third Street or by a shifting of
them a short distance to the west. Without the ramp in Brodhead Avenue
the Hill-to-Hill bridge would still have an outlet to Fourth Street by way
of Wyandotte Street, or, for that matter, a new street could be cut through
from somewhere near the intersection of Third and Wyandotte Streets to
Broadway and Fourth Street.
The operation here suggested is a major one, but it has large object-
ives, and I believe should be made the subject of careful engineering study.
That Bethlehem can tackle big problems which have long troubled it, and
solve them, is demonstrated by what has already been done toward the
construction of the new bridge. It would be a pity if the potential useful-
ness of the bridge as a means for the unification and development of
Greater Bethlehem should be curtailed by the City's failure to provide.
adequate means of access from the bridge to the districts in South Bethle-
hem on both sides of the railroad, and by this I mean to include access by
trolley cars. The proposed) Second Street ramp, if it could be made wide
enough to accommodate double tracks, would serve as the means for trolley
connection between Bethlehem and the South Bethlehem business district
over the new bridge, but I am informed that it is deemed impracticable to
make this ramp wide enough to accommodate even a single track suitably.
The Third Street elevated roadway here suggested would serve the double
purpose of giving the bridge a suitable outlet and of making Third Street
a real thoroughfare.
The second obstacle to be overcome in providing adequate trolley
service for Bethlehem is the inadequacy of the bridges. Here again the
Hill-to-Hill bridge, when built, will be of immense service, especially if the
suggestions made in the preceding paragraph can be carried out. But at
present and for at least two or three years more, the street cars will have
to depend on the toll bridges alone for the means of crossing the river in
Bethlehem. Moreover, the New Street bridge is so well located that it
ought always to be an important factor in communication between the two
sides of the river. It is the more unfortunate, therefore, that it was not
built either wide enough or strong enough to accommodate a double-track
car line. Its usefulness in connection with trolley service is limited not
only by this fact, but also by the fact that south New Street and Third
Street are without sufficient track facilities to make the full utilization of
the single track on the bridge at all times possible, and to a minor extent
by the delays at the toll house and at the stairway leading down to the
tracks of the Lehigh Valley Railroad on the east side of the bridge. Every
car, after taking the single track, has to stop at the toll house, while the
conductor delivers to the toll collector a slip stating the number of passen-
gers on board. Sometimes the collector meets him half way, but the rule
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
77
is that the conductor shall get off the car and take the slip to the toll win-
dow. The stop on the bridge to receive and discharge passengers at the
railroad stairway accomodates a number of people who leave the Steel
Works in that way, but interrupts the movement of cars across the bridge
and adds to some extent to the congestion of traffic at the rush hours.
Ultimately, the New Street bridge should be municipalized, and re-
built, wider and stronger, fully adapted to the demands of double-track,
street car service. But this program can hardly be undertaken until after
the Hill-to-Hill bridge is completed. Meanwhile, it is imperative that
South New Street be double-tracked from the bridge to Fourth Street.
Moreover, either the City by ordinance, if it has the power, or the public
service commission should make a regulation requiring the toll collector
to step out to the track so that the conductor's slip can be handed to him
while the car is in motion. If congestion of cars is still too great, it may
be necessary ultimately to eliminate the stop at the stairway. Delays are
also caused by the stops at either end of the bridge at Second Street and
Lehigh Avenue, respectively. Both of these are on the single track, and
sometimes cars routed in the opposite direction have to wait. The delay
at Second Street could be eliminated by double-tracking. The distance
from the end of the double track on New Street north of the bridge to the
turnout south of Second Street is about 1,550 feet. A car going at a speed
of eight miles per hour requires about 2½ minutes to cover this distance.
If the cars were operated across the bridge singly, this would be a serious
limitation upon the rush-hour schedule. But when traffic is heavy, the cars
are put across the bridge in groups. For example, an observation taken
on June 3, 1918, shows six cars crossing south between 5.53 A.M. and 6.04
A.M.; then three crossing north; then four south; then two north; then
three south; then one north; then two south; then eight north; then two
south; then two north; then one south; then six north up to 7.01 A.M.
Even during the middle of the day the cars often cross in groups of two
or three. In the afternoon rush-hour the bunching is even more pro-
nounced than in the morning. Starting at 4.20 P.M. on June 3, four went
south in a group; then one north; then two south; then two north; then
eight south; then three north; then seven south; then one north; then five
south; then five north; then one south; then three north; then three
south; then three north; then four south; then ten north; then one south;
then six north up to 5.54 P.M. During the entire 24 hours 431 cars
crossed the bridge. Only 70 of them went singly. Of the rest 184 went in
groups of two; 63 in groups of three; 48 in groups of four; 15 in groups of
five; 18 in groups of six; 7 in a single group; 16 in groups of eight; and 10
in a single group. I have classed all cars going in one direction before a
car went in the opposite direction across the bridge as in a group, although
78
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
in some cases they were not close together. A single-track line with heavy
traffic is always more or less of a "banana" line: that is, the cars operate
in bunches. This is a serious limitation of service; as a ten-minute head-
way with two cars passing at a time is not nearly as good as a five-minute
headway with cars going singly. Moreover, the bunching of cars during
the hours of heavy tripper service is quite likely to upset the schedule of
the regular service. This is shown by an actual observation of the head-
way of the Allentown-Bethlehem cars in the regular service crossing the
New Street bridge on the day referred to. A 20-minute service in either
direction across this bridge is called for by the operating schedules from
about 5.30 in the morning until midnight, and an alternating 20-minute
service in either direction from the "Five Points" (South Bethlehem) to
Allentown by the north side of the loop is scheduled for the period extend-
ing from about 12.40 P.M. to about 9.30 P.M. The Transit Company's
new cars of the' 900 series are used in this service. During the forenoon
and late evening one of these cars ought to cross the bridge in either di-
rection every 20 minutes, and during the afternoon and early evening one
ought to cross the bridge in either direction every 10 minutes. This is in
addition to occasional tripper service by one or two cars of this series.
The actual headways in minutes maintained on the regular service on June
3, 1918, were as follows:
Going North, Commencing at 5:25 A.M.
Regular 20-minute schedule service:
24 (5:49 A.M.)-19-20-23-18-19-22-19-17-20-21-20-21-21-16-24-
17-21-18-24-18-22.
Regular 10-minute schedule service:
10 (12:59 P.M.)-8-10-10-11-9-*21-10-7-12-12-8-11-10-10-9-14-
6-12-9-8-11-10-10-7-13-12-*14-17-5-11-9-14-16-10-10-11-10-
II-10-11-10-9-10-11-9-14-4-5.
Regular 20-minute schedule service:
19 (9:50 P.M.)-21-17-24-16-16-21-20 (11:49 P.M.).
Going South, Commencing at 5:34 A.M.
Regular 20-minute schedule service:
10 (5:53 A.M.)-21-20-20-18-23-19-19-20-19-21-19-21-21-19-24-
16-19-21-21-19-20.
Regular 10-minute schedule service:
9 (12:41 P.M.)-11-11-10-8-10-*22-9-10-9-13-5-13-8-12-8-12-9-
13-10-8-8-12-12-8-11-15-3-12-*23-9-9-11-14-15-8-9-11-10-8-
13-11-10-8-12-9-11-10-11-5.
Regular 20-minute schedule service:
20 (9:40 P.M.)-14-20-27-14-18-38 (11:51 P.M.).
*One trip omitted on alternating service (10-minute line).
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
79
The use to be made of the Minsi Trail bridge in connection with the
trolley service is one of the most difficult factors in the present problem.
This bridge was constructed a few years ago by a toll bridge company, and
a single street railway track was laid in the roadway. The bridge is not
wide enough for two tracks and was designed to carry not to exceed two
cars of 40 tons each on any one span at the same time. In its certificate of
public convenience, approving the Lehigh Valley Transit Company's ex-
tension across this bridge, the Public Service Commission of Pennsylvania
stipulated that no cars should be operated over the bridge whose weight
when loaded exceeded 40 tons. This restriction would not prevent the use
on the bridge of any of the Transit Company's cars now operated in Beth-
lehem, but would exclude the very heavy special type of cars operated on
the Philadelphia division, which weigh nearly 50 tons when loaded. The
Transit Company has made informal application to the commission for a
modification of this restriction and I have been informed that the com-
mission's engineers would be willing to recommend that the limit of loaded
weight be increased to 50 tons, if it should be decided that the public in-
terest would be subserved by the operation of the heaviest type of cars
over the bridge. The Transit Company has been working on a plan for a
more direct route for its limited service from Easton to Philadelphia and
under certain contingencies would be glad to construct a new line branch-
ing off from the present Easton-Bethlehem line on William Penn High-
way at a point northeast of Bethlehem where the Highway and the road to
Freemansburg join, and running thence southwesterly through the pro-
posed East Bethlehem housing development for the steel workers to and
across Minsi Trail bridge and thence around the easterly end of the Le-
high Mountains and across the country to connect with the present Phila-
delphia line at or near Coopersburg. This plan, if carried out, would take
the fast Easton-Philadelphia service through the outskirts of the city
about a mile away east of New Street, leaving the business and traffic cen-
ters of Bethlehem on one side. This raises a question of policy which
greatly complicates the issues involved in the use of the bridge. The
Transit Company is not disposed to enter into a contract with the bridge
company unless the weight limit is raised with respect to cars operated
over this bridge. The bridge company wants the Transit Company to pay
for the use of the bridge and the Transit Company wants to make sure that
the bridge is going to be useful to it before it enters into a contract bind-
ing itself to pay considerable sums of money for the privilege of using the
structure. Bethlehem is not quite sure that it is willing to have the pro-
posed high speed service to Philadelphia shunted off around the mountain
without ever passing through the Bethlehem business district. It is
thought that such a course not only would deprive Bethlehem of part of
80
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
the advantages of the more direct fast service to Philadelphia, but also
would not tend to develop business in Bethlehem in connection with the
traffic passing by on this line.
But preliminary to the use of the bridge for any electric railway ser-
vice, some way has to be found to supply suitable operating connections at
the south end of the bridge where the roadway comes down into Daly
Avenue. This bridge passes over the Bethlehem Steel Company's property
and for this reason is about 2,800 feet long, including its approaches, as
compared with about 1,500 feet for the New Street bridge and its ap-
proaches. The single track stretch can be reduced to about 1,200 feet in
the case of the New Street bridge and to about 2,200 feet in the case of the
Minsi Trail bridge. On the South Bethlehem side, the existing car line in
Daly Avenue is single tracked from the bridge approach eastwardly for
about 1,600 feet to a point on Fourth Street east of Anthracite Street in
Northampton Heights, near the Saucon Gate, and westwardly all the way
to and across the New Street bridge on one branch and through South
Bethlehem and Fountain Hill to Gauff's Hill on the other. The distance
from the southern approach of the Minsi Trail bridge along Daly Avenue
and Third Street to New Street is about 5,500 feet, and on this stretch
there are two considerable turnouts adequate to accomodate four or five
cars each.
If the East Bethlehem housing development is to be carried out as
planned, the use of Minsi Trail bridge for trolley service is necessary. If
the Lehigh Valley Transit Company is to 'short-cut its fast line from
Easton to Philadelphia, the use of this bridge is deemed essential to enable
the company to avoid either a detour through the heart of Bethlehem and
back east around the mountain or a nearly prohibitive grade over the
mountain along the route of the South Bethlehem and Saucon Street Rail-
way. For either use of the Minsi Trail bridge two-way operation is essential.
It would be ridiculous from the operating standpoint and also from the
standpoint of service to the East Bethlehem district to carry street cars
across this bridge in one direction only. Two-way operation can be had
only on a double-track line or on a single-track line with turnouts. Two-
way operation on Third Street was abandoned after the connections were
effected between the Easton Transit tracks and the Lehigh Valley Transit.
tracks under the South Bethlehem ordinances of 1913. To restore it now
without any more track facilities and with the greatly increased traffic con-
gestion resulting from the enlargement of the Steel Company's plant,
would be wholly impracticable. This means that two-way operațion on the
Minsi Trail bridge, with its long additional stretch of single track is out of
the question unless the Third Street-Daly Avenue line is double-tracked,
or unless a new outlet for the bridge traffic is found at the south end by a
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
81
crossing over the Philadelphia & Reading Railway, or unless the bridge
cars are operated as a sub-end or shuttle line.
The last would result in the dumping of the passengers at Daly
Avenue at a point remote from their destinations. They could be handled
by transfer, but as transfer service would be needed both east and west,
this plan would not be practicable without a two-way service on Daly
Avenue, which calls for double tracks.
The finding of a new outlet for Minsi Trail bridge traffic by a crossing
over the railroad tracks into Third Street or Fourth Street would not solve
the problem for the local street car traffic, because it is not on the south
side of the railroad but on the north side that practically all of this traffic
will originate. But if Third Street had a suitable outlet to the east into
Fourth Street and if a way could be found to eliminate the Third Street
grade-crossing east of the Steel Company's office where Daly Avenue be-
gins, then it might be practicable to abandon the Daly Avenue car line en-
tirely, and lay double tracks the full length of Third Street. This would
sacrifice the car service for the Steel Company's employees who leave by
the Gas House gate, but their number is comparatively small. This plan
would involve four rather expensive improvements: (1) lifting of the
eastern end of the bridge and projecting it across the railroad into Third
Street; (2) the construction of a street subway carrying Third Street under
the railroad just east of the Steel Company's office; (3) widening and ex-
tending Steel Avenue as an eastward extension of Third Street into Fourth
Street, and (4) the double-tracking of the entire Third Street line as modi-
fied. If the Philadelphia & Reading Railway is ultimately to be depressed,
it would be rather unfortunate to begin now building street subways under
it, and a subway at Third Street would not be satisfactory unless it was
wide enough to accommodate double car tracks and also vehicular traffic.
Moreover, the solution of the Minsi Trail bridge problem is complicated
by questions of jurisdiction. The bridge itself now runs from Bethlehem
at one end to Bethlehem at the other, but in its course, it not only crosses
a portion of the Borough of Northampton Heights, but also the narrow
tongue of Lower Saucon Township which protrudes westward between the
river and the Steel Company's property to the eastern boundary line of
South Bethlehem. The bridge is privately-owned and the consent and co-
operation of its owners would be required before the proposed changes
could be effected. Moreover, the Steel Avenue widening and extension
would be within the jurisdiction of the Borough of Northampton Heights,
unless the pending annexation plans were completed before the improve-
ment was made. On the whole, it seems to me that the difficulties in the
way of this solution of the Minsi Trail bridge problem are too great to
6
82
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
make it very attractive unless it proves absolutely impracticable to double-
track Daly Avenue on account of the narrowness of the roadway and the
difficulty of widening it.
Street car service on Minsi Trail bridge will always be handicapped by
the single track limitation on the bridge itself, but if the stretch of single
track is reduced to the minimum (about 2,200 feet) cars going eight miles
per hour without stops would be able to cross the bridge in about three
and one-third minutes. This would constitute a serious handicap to ser-
vice on a bridge intended to carry large numbers of cars on a regular
headway, but the normal service by way of the Minsi Trail bridge will be
largely for rush-hour traffic with the principal load going in one direction
at a time. Under these conditions cars can be put across the bridge in
groups, and the exclusion of car operation in the opposite direction for a
period of five or six minutes will not be as serious as it is on the New
Street bridge, for example. With a double-track line at either end, the
bridge can be used for two-way street car operation, probably for a good
many years to come, with moderately satisfactory results. This points to
the double-tracking of the Daly Avenue-Third Street line as the most
promising means of rendering the bridge available for car service. In this
connection, it should always be kept in mind that this car line (extended
toward Hellertown) passes in front of all the Steel Company's loading
points for street car traffic, and for this reason, if for no other, is the logi-
cal line for double-tracking. It has been objected that Third Street is a
very busy street, with a great deal of vehicular traffic to be accommodated,
especially between the Steel Company's office and New Street. The road-
way of Third Street is approximately 40 feet wide. This is sufficient width.
to permit of double tracking with a free space ample for the passage of
vehicles on either side, but is not sufficient to allow for parking of vehicles.
in addition. Two cars could be passing and two automobiles could be go-
ing alongside of them, but if they came to a place where vehicles were
standing at the curb, the moving automobiles would have to go ahead of
the street cars or else fall back behind them to pass. If Third Street were
a really crowded thoroughfare in a great city this might be the cause of
considerable inconvenience, but under Bethlehem conditions a 40-foot
roadway is not too narrow for double tracking, when that is the natural
solution of a very pressing transit problem. After all, the street cars will
not occupy the track space except for a small part of the time. During the
most congested hour only about 40 cars pass the intersection of Third and
New Streets, and outside of the rush hours the regular service on Third
Street, if it were double tracked, would probably not be more frequent
than a five-minute headway. At the rush hour when the Steel Company is
pouring its thousands of employees into Third Street there is bound to be
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
83
some temporary congestion, but in my opinion the facilitation of street car
traffic as a result of double tracking would more than offset the additional
interference, if any, between street cars and other vehicles caused by the
installation and use of the second track. On the Brooklyn Bridge, in New
York City, where traffic goes in one direction on each roadway, at times
more than 300 street cars per hour are moved along a single track with a
narrow passageway for vehicles on the side. In Newark, N. J., prior to
the construction of the Public Service Terminal about 500 street cars
passed the intersection of Broad and Market Streets in the busiest hour of
the day. Conditions are quite different on Third Street, South Bethlehem,
but I mention these facts to show how small the amount of street railway
traffic in Bethlehem is when compared with track capacity. Third Street
will undoubtedly continue for a good many years to be the principal busi-
ness street in South Bethlehem and double-track street car service will
help it, not hinder it. If Third and Fourth Streets were at approximately
the same grade and if they were not separated by the tracks of the Phila-
delphia & Reading Railway, and if the Minsi Trail bridge problem could
be solved without double tracking on the south side, it might be well
enough to consider one-way loop operation through Third and Fourth
Streets as a permanent possibility. But as it is, I am convinced that
double tracking the line past the Steel Company's office and principal exit
is the logical and necessary method for handling the Steel Company's
traffic, using the Minsi Trail bridge and developing the city's business dis-
tricts through adequate transit service.
A tentative plan has been considered by the city authorities for the
construction of a subway leaving Third Street at Poplar Street, crossing
under the railroad, then curving to the west along the south side of the
tracks and to the south again into Linden Street. This improvement has
been suggested as a substitute for the double tracking of Third Street and
as providing a means for looping the cars past the main entrance of the
Steel plant. If such a subway were constructed, and if the cars were to be
operated east in Third Street, instead of west as at present, the trippers
from Allentown coming by way of the north side could cross the New
Street bridge, turn east through Third Street to the Steel plant, and then
loop back with their loads by way of the Poplar Street subway connec-
tion, Fourth Street and New Street across the river again and back to-
ward Allentown. Trippers from the south side could turn north into New
Street, east into Third Street and south through the subway to Fourth
Street and then back to Fountain Hill and Allentown by the south side of
the loop. Every one of these cars would have to take the New Street
grade crossing either going or coming, but the plan has some merit as a
method of handling the westbound traffic from the office and main gate of
84
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
the Steel plant. But it leaves the Minsi Trail bridge problem untouched
and, in fact, does nothing for the service to the northeast or the southeast
or at any of the Steel Company loading points east of the main office. It
is also subject to the objection that street subways should not be built
under the railroad, if the ultimate plan for grade separation is to include
the depression of the railroad tracks.
There are many narrow and irregular streets in Bethlehem on both
sides of the river, but the north side is fortunate in having in Main Street,
New Street, Linden Street and Broad Street a nucleus of a fairly adequate
street system. South Bethlehem is less fortunate, partly as a result of the
grade crossings and partly on account of topographical difficulties. Third
and Fourth Streets are of fair width, and the latter is unobstructed practi-
cally through its full length. In Northampton Heights it is narrowed con-
siderably in crossing the bridge over the railroad tracks and at Wyandotte
Street on the south end, it is jogged off, narrowed, bent back and shunted
up-hill to the intersection of Third and Seneca Streets. Second Street is
also comfortably wide, but uncomfortably short. Broadway is broad for a
short distance but then narrows down too much for a real thoroughfare.
The widths between curb lines of these principal streets are as follows:
Broad Street
Main Street
.58 feet.
New Street
Linden Street
•
Third Street
Fourth Street:
•
50 feet.
.52 feet.
.46 feet.
•
.40 feet.
Eastern city limits to Hill Street.....37¼ feet.
Hill Street to Broadway...
Broadway:
40 feet.
Fourth Street to Wyandotte Street. .46.8 feet.
Wyandotte Street to west city limits...30 feet.
On Daly Avenue the car track is on the side of the roadway, and the
space occupied by the track is not now available for general street use.
The roadway outside of this track is only 24 feet wide.
In Fountain Hill, Broadway and Seneca Street are each 30 feet be-
tween curbs, and Delaware Avenue, which is a continuation of Third
Street, is 36 feet between curbs. In Northampton Heights, the Fourth
Street roadway varies from 36½ feet to 49 ½ feet in width except on the
bridge, where it is 29 feet.
In West Bethlehem, Spring Street has a width of only 30 feet between
curbs at some points, though it is considerably wider at others. In the
new East Bethlehem development, Minsi Trail Street will have a width of
Church Street
To Main Street
New Street Bridge
To Broad Street
LEHIGH
Second Street
To Union Station
RIVER
Street Railway Track
Layout on New Street,
Bethlehem, Pa., from
Church Street to Fourth
Street.
W.
Street Railway
Freight Depot
S.
Third Street
To Bethlehem Steel Works
DE.
To Fountain Hill
and Allentown
P.&R.Ry. (Grade Crossing)
Fourth Street
To Northampton Heights,
Hellertown, Freemansburg
and Easton
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
85
50 feet and Newton Avenue a width of 55 feet between curb lines. Pem-
broke Road is also down on the Transit Company's map with a total width.
of 70 feet, which would give a 50-foot roadway.
The New Street bridge roadway is only 17.8 feet from curb to curb
and the Minsi Trail bridge roadway is only four or five feet wider. The·
main roadway of the proposed Hill-to-Hill bridge will be about 40 feet in
width, but the roadway on the ramp leading down into Second Street, South
Bethlehem, will be only about 20 feet wide.
The points of serious constriction from the point of view of street rail-
way needs are the roadways of the New Street and Minsi Trail bridges,
the Second Street ramp of the Hill-to-Hill bridge, Daly Avenue, the
Fourth Street bridge in Northampton Heights, Broadway west of Wyan-
dotte Street and the eastern portion of Spring Street. "What can't be
cured must be endured,” and it must be admitted that many of these con-
strictions are well-nigh incurable. It looks as if Daly Avenue could be
widened somewhat in spots, and it is of very great importance that this
should be done.
Bad grades are plentiful in and about Bethlehem, and the Transit
Company cannot hope to escape them entirely. On Fiot Street and East
Fourth Street the grades of the present car lines are said to be as high as
nine per cent., and in Easton one line takes a grade of 14 per cent. The
Gauff's Hill grade also is a heavy one, and some of the grades on New
and Main Streets are considerable. The heavy grade on Third Street west
of Brodhead Avenue is one of the most troublesome ones in connection
with possible transit developments, and the grades on the Hill-to-Hill
bridge approaches in South Bethlehem will be between four and five per
cent. The tentative plan for the Poplar Street subway calls for a grade of
5.68% in getting up from the level of Third Street to the level of Fourth
Street.
The present center of street car congestion in Bethlehem is at Third
and New Streets on the south side. The inadequacy of track facilities,
conducive to this congestion, is shown on the accompanying sketch en-
titled: "Street Railway Track Layout on New Street, Bethlehem, Pa., from
Church Street to Fourth Street." This sketch shows at a glance the rela-
tions between the New Street grade-crossing, the turnouts, the New
Street bridge and the tracks extending east and west on Fourth Street,
east on Third Street past the Bethlehem Steel Works, west on Second
Street to the Union Station and west on Church Street to Main Street;
also the location of the company's present freight depot at the south end of
the New Street bridge. All of the Allentown-Bethlehem loop line cars
and all of the cars on the alternating 20-minute service from Allentown to
South Bethlehem pass the intersection of Third and New Streets in both
86
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
directions. The South Bethlehem local cars and the Hellertown-North
Bethlehem loop cars also pass this intersection going in both directions.
All of the trippers to the Steel Works pass this intersection either in one
or in both directions. The special Slate Belt cars also pass this point in
both directions and the Easton-South Bethlehem cars pass it when making
their loop from Third Street into Fourth Street. Special service and extra
cars are sometimes routed to this point as a terminus and switched back
to Rittersville or Allentown as the case may be. Moreover, the car dis-
patcher sometimes holds a car here until he can see how the traffic cat is
going to jump and then sends it off to some destination which is deter-
mined by the traffic demands of the moment. The complexity of operation
in view of the limited track facilities at this traffic center can be seen from
a more detailed statement of the points from which and to which cars are
operated past this intersection during a typical rush-hour period. An
observation taken on February 25, 1918, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., showed
cars being operated at this point as follows:
South on New Street:
From North New St. over New St. bridge, east on Fourth St..... 2
From East Broad St. over New St. bridge, east on Fourth St..... 8
From West Broad St. over New St. bridge, switched back from
turnout near Third St... . . .
7
From West Broad St. over New St. bridge, west on Fourth St.... 17
From West Broad St. over New St. bridge, east on Fourth St...... 12
From Church St. over New St. bridge, east on Fourth St...
From Depot on Second St., east on Fourth St.....
North on New Street, from West Fourth Street:
Over New St. bridge to West Broad St...
Over New St. bridge to Broad and New (to be switched back)....
West on Third Street:
North on New St. and west on Second St. to Depot..
8
I
. 15
I
I
North on New St. across New St. bridge and west on Church St.
to Main St. and North Bethlehem...
8
North on New St. across New St. bridge and east on Broad St. to
Linden St. and North Bethlehem.
7
North on New St. across New St. bridge, continuing to North
New St.
2
North on New St. across New St. bridge to West Broad St..
South on New St. and west on Fourth St...
ΙΟ
12
South on New St. and east on Fourth St..
I I
Total in all directions..
122
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
87
The intersection of Fourth and New Streets also presents certain diffi-
culties. An observation at this point on February 28, 1918, from 5:23 a.m.
to 9:08 a.m. showed a total of 96 cars passing, as follows:
East on Fourth St.-through service to Northampton Heights... 12
East on Fourth St. and north on New St....
South on New St. and east on Fourth St..
South on New St. and west on Fourth St..
Total in all directions..
•
13
47
24
96
The difficulties of operation with the present track facilities at this
intersection were clearly illustrated at one time in the course of this obser-
vation. At 7:41 car No. 302 coming south on New Street, bound for
Allentown, started to turn west into Fourth Street. At this point it met
car No. 909 from Allentown coming east on Fourth Street, which started
to turn north into New Street on the same track. Then ensued a dispute
between the conductors in the Bethlehem vernacular as to which car
should back up. Finally car No. 302 backed up far enough so that car No.
909 could get on to the curve and clear the through track on Fourth
Street so that another car behind it, from Allentown and bound for North-
ampton Heights, could pass on east. Then car No. 909 backed off the curve
west into Fourth Street and switched east past the curve so that car No.
302 could take the curve into West Fourth Street and go on its way to
Allentown. After that car No. 909 backed up to a point west of the curve
and then went forward, taking the curve into New Street, and passed on
to its destination.
The inadequacy of the track facilities in South New Street is ac-
centuated by the interference with street car operation resulting from the
grade crossing between Third and Fourth Streets. In this block New
Street is crossed at grade by the Philadelphia & Reading Railway, which
at this point has four or five tracks. In fact, this is the beginning of the
railroad's terminal yard, the main part of which is located west of Brodhead
Avenue and north of Third Street. For this reason a great deal of switch-
ing is done at this crossing and the crossing gates are frequently down.
On several different occasions I observed that the cars were held at this
crossing, even during the rush hours, from one to seven minutes by the
gates being down. The extent of the interruption of street car service at
this crossing was investigated by Mr. E. C. Spring, superintendent of
transportation of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company, who caused ob-
servations to be made at this point from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily for
the period of fifteen days from March 6 to March 20, 1918, inclusive. The
Transit Company supplied me with the tabulated record of these observa-
88
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
tions, which shows the total number of minutes 'during each twelve-hour
period (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) that the gates at the crossing were down,
and also the total number of minutes that the street cars were delayed at
the crossing by reason of the gates being down, as follows:
Day.
Wednesday, March 6...
Thursday, March 7.....
Friday, March 8..
Saturday, March 9.
Sunday, March 10.
Monday, March 11.
Tuesday, March 12.
•
•
Gates down-total
time in minutes.
100
II02
Street cars delayed-
total time in minutes.
21
342
172
145
76
332
22
93
12
182
1042
37
Wednesday, March 13.
103
162
Thursday, March 14.
1412
32
Friday, March 15..
123%
522
Saturday, March 16..
93
462
Sunday, March 17..
492
172
Monday, March 18.
88
132
Tuesday, March 19.
•
1032
17½
Wednesday, March 20.
•
13212
662
Total, 15 days....
16352
4302
In cases where the street cars were delayed the time was usually from
one to three minutes, but on 25 different occasions during the period of
the observation, cars were delayed from five to ten and one-half minutes.
In a letter addressed to me under date of March 21, 1918, transmitting
information which the Transit Company had previously been requested to
furnish, President H. R. Fehr made the following comment on the situa-
tion at the New Street crossing:
"I especially desire to call your attention to the record of delays at the
New Street grade crossing and to Mr. Spring's comments thereon. Only
those who have been actively engaged in the operation of this property can
thoroughly appreciate the operating difficulties which the delays at this
point occasion. With a single track line, delays of five minutes are fatal to
the maintenance of schedules, for the interruption delays not only the car
being held up at the crosisng, but every other car on the line, which must
wait on the passing sidings until the late car arrives. In fact, the tendency
is for the delay to be magnified, because when the cars are late they fre-
quently become overloaded, due to the accumulation of passengers along
the street during the unusual interval between cars. This requires more
To Allentown
To Hellertown via
Church Street and
South Bethlehem
Main Street
To North Bethlehem
Street Railway Track Layout
on Broad Street, Bethlehem,
Pa, through the Business
District
w 4
S
Broad Street
N
34
New Street
To New Street Bridge
To Nazareth
and South Bethlehem
To North Bethlehem
and Easton
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
89
stops, decreases the rate of acceleration and deceleration, overloads the
motors, multiplying the frequency of break-downs to equipment, especially
the motors and other electrical apparatus, and in other ways greatly in-
creases the operating difficulties.
"I am quite certain that you will agree with me that the closing of one
of the busiest streets in Bethlehem for from two to two and a half hours
out of twelve hours is a very serious matter, not only to the Transit Com-
pany but to every one using this highway. A particularly unfortunate
feature of the situation is the fact that these delays are very frequent and
extensive in the rush hours. If you will turn to the record for March 16,
for example, you will observe that from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. the gates were
down from 5:09 to 5:14; again from 5:15 to 5:18 and from 5:24 to 5:25;
a total of nine minutes. From 5:09 to 5:18 the street was open one minute.
From 5:09 to 5:25 the street was open seven minutes. These interrup-
tions occurred at the height of our peak load in this half-hour period.
"Seven cars on the Bethlehem loop line (including the so-called 10-
minute line) which operates from Allentown over the Bethlehem Pike,
New Street, Fourth Street to the Wyandotte Switch, South Bethlehem
and return, are scheduled to cross the New Street crossing from 5:00 to
5:30. Two cars on the Bethlehem local line, three cars on the Easton
local line, three cars on the Hellertown line and sixteen Bethlehem trip-
pers, either going to or coming from the Bethlehem Steel Works, are
scheduled across this crossing between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. The total
schedule movement in this half hour over this crossing is thirty-one cars,
or an average of one car every fifty-seven seconds, the operation of which
is a difficult problem at all times, and becomes exceedingly troublesome
with such extensive interruptions at the railroad crossing.
"I have no hesitancy in saying that the interruptions at this crossing
are the chief cause of most of our operating difficulties in Bethlehem.
While I realize that interruptions must occur at this point, yet I hope you
will agree with me that the City of Bethlehem should use every effort to
have them minimized. I would appreciate your cooperation in bringing
about this result."
Another point at which the Transit Company's present track facilities
are wholly inadequate is at the intersection of Broad and New Streets,
which is the second most important center of street railway traffic in Beth-
lehem. The track facilities on Broad Street, including the intersections
both at New Street and at Main Street, are graphically shown on the ac-
companying sketch, entitled, "Street Railway Track Layout on Broad
Street, Bethlehem, Pa., through the Business District." A glance at this
sketch will show the difficulty of operating cars in all directions past the
intersection of Broad and New Streets under present conditions. Observa-
90
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
tions made on February 15, from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., and on March 1, 1918,
from 5:34 a.m. to 8:04 a.m., showed cars being operated at this intersec-
tion, as follows:
East on Broad Street: ·
Through service toward Easton.
Turning south on New Street to South
Bethlehem
Turning north on New Street toward
Nazareth.
Switching back west on Broad Street...
West on Broad Street:
Through service-Easton cars..
March 1,
5:34 to 8:04 A.M.
February 15,
7 to 9 A.M.
4
5.
17
14
I
2
I
4
3
Turning south on New Street to South
4
3
Bethlehem and Hellertown...
South on New Street:
Through service from Nazareth to South
Bethlehem
Switched back north....
Turning west on Broad Street....
North on New Street:
Through service from South Bethlehem
to Nazareth
Turning east on Broad Street to the
•
North Bethlehem loop..
Turning west on Broad Street to Ritters-
ville and Allentown..
Total in all directions...
2
31
I
2
2
3
I
4
4
21
19
62
10
58
The difficulties of operation at this point are especially striking in the
case of cars running from South Bethlehem to Nazareth. During the past
winter two cars have been regularly operated from Bangor to the Bethle-
hem Steel Plant by the Slate Belt Railway Company, and the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company also operates one or two trippers each day to supply its
employees with additional through service to Nazareth. These cars, in
order to get past this intersection, if going north, have to be switched west
into Broad Street and then switched back north into New Street, being
turned around in the process. On May 4, 1918, a tie-up of another sort was
noticed at this intersection.
A car which had come east on Broad Street
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
91
and was turning south into New Street, bound for Northampton Heights,
split the switch where the single track becomes double just south of Broad
Street. This accident held up the cars in all directions. Two cars coming
north on New Street, one bound for Allentown and one for East Broad
Street and the North Bethlehem loop were held. Another car coming west
on Broad and desiring to turn south into New Street, bound for Heller-
town, was held. It also happened that a Slate Belt car from the Nazareth
way and three cars from west Broad Street, bound for Northampton
Heights, were held. Then after the trouble was over an Easton Limited car
came along from Allentown, which had to take the single track crossing
before the two cars coming north on New Street could turn into West
Broad Street and go on their way. The accident occurred just as I was
going west on Broad Street in an automobile. I went around by way of
Broad Street, Main Street, Church Street and New Street, and as the con-
gestion had developed considerably I then stopped to observe it. From this
time on the trouble lasted seven minutes.
Reference has already been made to the proposed housing development
in East Bethlehem. Already, in this direction, building has gone about half
a mile beyond the car line on Linden Street, and the extreme eastern limit
of the housing area included in pending plans is more than two miles east of
that line. If the plan to supply homes for the steel workers in this part of
Bethlehem is adhered to, street car lines should be extended in this direction
as soon as the streets are ready to receive them.
In West Bethlehem, also, there is need of additional street car service
for the district lying between Broad Street and the river. There are about
750 houses south of Prospect Avenue, more than half of them between
Spring Street and the river. In the Fountain Hill section, also, the build-
ing development is reaching points uncomfortably remote from the existing
car line, and either more frequent and regular service or more convenient
lines ought soon to be provided. The Transit Company plans to double-
track its route through this section by constructing a new line on private
right-of-way from the intersection of Itasca and Clewell Streets to Gauff's
Hill. This would accommodate the new section to the south of the present
car line but would leave the section to the north too far away for con-
venient service, especially if the line on Seneca Street should be transferred
to Broadway. If the Third Street grade crossing were eliminated and the
heavy grade east of Wyandotte Street reduced somewhat, Third Street and
Delaware Avenue would make an ideal through route for street car traffic
between South Bethlehem and points outside of the city on the way to
Allentown. But the eastern end of Delaware Avenue is a sort of Mil-
lionaires' Row, with very few houses and very few people who depend on
street cars for transportation. A loop, of which the northwesterly side
92
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
would follow Third Street, Seneca Street and Broadway west of Seneca
Street to Gauff's Hill, and of which the southeastern side would follow
Wyandotte Street and Broadway to Clewell Street, then turn south into
Clewell Street for one block and then follow a private right-of-way south of
the present car line to Gauff's Hill, would give the best operating and ser-
vice conditions for the entire Fountain Hill section.
It is difficult and dangerous to make final and inflexible recommenda-
tions where so many things depend on so many other things, but the sug-
gestions already made in the course of the preceding discussion may be
summarized, and the extensions and track additions proposed may be ar-
ranged in what appears to be the order of their importance with respect to
the immediate problem of transit improvement in Bethlehem
(a) I agree with the Transit Company that the double-tracking of New
Street from the southern end of the bridge to Fourth Street and the double-
tracking of Fourth Street for one block west to Vine Street should be placed
first, and should be undertaken immediately.
(b) I also agree that the installation of the double-track four-way special
work at Broad and New Streets should come next, but I disagree with what
appears to be the company's notion that this improvement may be post-
poned a while. I think this special work should be installed at once.
(c) If the East Bethlehem section is to be developed as an urgent
housing scheme, then the next thing is to plan for trolley service over the
Minsi Trail bridge. For this purpose the car line on Third Street and Daly
Avenue should be double-tracked from New Street to the bridge, and double
tracks should be laid from the northern end of the bridge along Minsi Trail
Road to Broad Street and west on Broad Street to Linden Street; also along
Minsi Trail Road north to Newton Avenue and northeast out Newton Avenue
as far as the housing development is to be extended at the present time.
These lines on the bridge and on the north side of the river have been
planned for by the Transit Company and certificates of public convenience
covering them have been secured. No certificate of public convenience is
necessary for the construction of an additional track on an existing line, but
a franchise would have to be granted by the City and approved by the public
service commission. This would also be necessary as to the lines within the
city limits on the north side of the river. As to the route on the bridge it-
self, it may be that no local franchise is required. If one is needed, recourse
would have to be had not only to the City of Bethlehem, but also to the
Borough of Northampton Heights, Lower Saucon Township and perhaps.
to the commissioners of Northampton County.
(d) Next in immediate importance, in my judgment, is the relocation and
double-tracking of the Hellertown line from Battery “A” to the road leading to the
Coke Works, with a single track spur along this road with suitable terminal
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
93
sidings immediately adjacent to the plant. The company has already made
surveys with a view to transferring a portion of the Hellertown line to
private right-of-way to get away from the bad turn and steep grade at Iron
Hill and also to get room for a double track. Whether this plan is de-
pendent, from the company's viewpoint, on the adoption of the scheme for
an Easton-Philadelphia limited line over the Minsi Trail bridge I do not
know. At any rate, I presume that a certificate of public convenience would
have to be secured for the relocation, and no doubt also a franchise from
Lower Saucon Township. So far as I know, the spur to the Coke Works is
not a part of the company's projected scheme of extensions. However, it
is essential if adequate service is to be given at this point.
(e) The next item should be the double-tracking of the Daly Avenue line
from the Minsi Trail bridge to the Fourth Street bridge. This requires the
widening of Daly Avenue as much as possible between the Steel Works and
the Philadelphia & Reading Railway tracks. Action by both the City of
Bethlehem and the Borough of Northampton Heights would be required
for the widening and also for the local franchise, and the latter would need
the approval of the public service commission.
(f) In connection with the East Bethlehem housing development and
to provide better service between the Steel plants and Edgeboro, North
Bethlehem and the Steel Company's Athletic Field, I place next the con-
struction of a single-track extension as planned by the Transit Company
from Newton Avenue north on Yeates Street to Washington Avenue and
thence northwest along Washington Avenue to William Penn Highway and
thence continuing northwest across country into Washington Avenue
again to a connection with the Nazareth line. For the portion of this
route between the William Penn Highway and the Nazareth Pike, Wash-
ington Avenue should be opened as a public street rather than have the
car line constructed on private right-of-way. The necessary sidings and
turnouts should be installed, and in connection with this improvement a
long turn-out or siding should be put in adjacent to the Athletic Field on New
Street, south of Elizabeth Avenue; also a curve connecting the existing
tracks on these two streets.
(g) Next in order I should put the double-tracking of the South
Bethlehem line from Gauff's Hill in, but here we get into the region of con-
troversy. If West Third Street is to be made available for street car traffic,
I should favor abandoning the portion of the present car line on Fiot
Street, and extending the Seneca Street line to Third Street and thence
east on Third Street to connect with the existing lines at Third and New
Streets. Broadway in the Township of Salisbury and in Fountain Hill,
and Seneca Street, are both too narrow to admit of double tracks on so
important a transit line under the traffic conditions that prevail in the
94
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Fountain Hill section. No other street is available east of Delaware
Avenue and, therefore, the company's plan for a private right-of-way from
Gauff's Hill to a point near the southwestern boundary line of the city
seems to be the best one. But in my judgment this line should run into
Broadway near the southwestern city limits, and follow that street to a
connection with the existing line at the "Five Points." This is on the as-
sumption that West Third Street can be made available for street cars. If
this proves to be impracticable, then the line coming from Gauff's Hill by
private right-of-way could properly follow the Itasca Street-Wyandotte
Street route for which the company already has secured a certificate of
public convenience. It would be of very considerable advantage if the Fiot
Street grade could be avoided, but I hesitate to recommend that the north
branch of this double line be removed as far south as Broadway, as this
would leave too large a section on the north without car service. It is
very important for the future development of this whole district that one
branch of the loop be at least as far north as Seneca Street. If Seneca
Street and Broadway were to be used for the two sides of the loop, the
cars could be routed west on Third Street so as to carry the passengers
up-hill at night on their way home, and east on Broadway so that the
long walk would be down hill and in the morning, when leg muscles are
fresh. Pending the solution of the Third Street problem the southern
branch of the loop should be brought as far east as Broadway and Fiot
Street, and the remainder of the line left with single track as at present.
(h) We now come to a big item, namely, the elimination of the grade cross-
ing on Third Street by the extension of an elevated roadway from the Third
Street hill cast to the present grade at New Street. This could be undertaken,
either as a part of the Hill-to-Hill bridge scheme, or as an independent im-
provement, though if undertaken separately the two improvements should
be properly correlated. When the Third Street elevated structure is ready,
then double tracks should be laid west from New Street to Wyandotte Street,
one track continuing up Third Street hill to Seneca Street and the other curving
south to a connection with a track to be laid on Wyandotte Street from Fourth
Street to the bridge.
(i) The construction of double tracks on the main roadway of the Hill-
to-Hill bridge extending by the curved approach southeasterly into Third
Street and also extending on the north side over the northeasterly ap-
proach into Main Street to a connection with the single track already in
that street. From the end of the bridge approach north to a point north
of Broad Street, the Main Street line should be double-tracked, and connected
with the Broad Street line by double-track four-way curves.
(j) The construction of double tracks on the northwestern approach of
the Hill-to-Hill bridge from the main roadway west to Albert Street (Second
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
95
Avenue extended), and thence a single track curving into Spring Street and
continuing west, with the necessary sidings and turnouts, along Spring
Street to Tenth Avenue, and through Tenth Avenue to connections with the
tracks in Broad Street. The company has not planned for an extension
on Spring Street, but rather for a double track connection through Second
Avenue from the bridge to Broad Street. The Second Avenue route
would enable the company to route Allentown cars over the new bridge
into South Bethlehem without taking them through the business section
on the north side of the river. This would have advantages from the
operating standpoint, especially as to the Steel Works trippers. But if the
regular Allentown-Bethlehem loop service were to be routed this way, it
would be disadvantageous to business interests on the north side. At the
same time, the flexibility of the system would be increased by a connection
to the new bridge from some point west of Main Street for use in
emergency, and for the tripper service. The Spring Street-Tenth Avenue
single-track line could be used for this purpose. There would be no par-
ticular advantage to the business district in compelling the Transit Com-
pany to go out of its way to carry workmen to the Steel mills by way of
Main Street before seven o'clock in the morning, unless the shopkeepers'
habits change. I do not recommend the Second Avenue street car con-
nection from Broad Street to the bridge.
(k) The line extending east from Newton Avenue and Yeates Street
along Pembroke Road to a terminus in Freemansburg just west of the Cen-
tral Railroad of New Jersey, as planned by the Transit Company, should be
built as soon as the housing development in this section warrants it. A
single track with sidings and turnouts will be sufficient here.
(1) Ultimately the New Street bridge should be made free by the City
and be strengthened and widened so as to accommodate double street car
tracks and whatever traffic load may present itself. Its position is so im-
portant strategically that its permanent usefulness should be fostered and
developed.
I do not recommend the construction of the Poplar Street subway,
nor the extension of the Minsi Trail bridge over the railroad into Third
Street, nor any plan which calls for one-way operation over the Minsi
Trail bridge. Speaking from the standpoint of the City of Bethlehem, I
do not recommend the operation of a fast interurban service over this
bridge from Easton to Philadelphia. I do not recommend the attempt to
put a street car track on the Second Street ramp of the Hill-to-Hill bridge
unless that ramp can be made wide enough to accommodate double tracks,
in which case Second Street from Brodhead Avenue to Third Street should
also be double-tracked. I do not recommend the double-tracking of
Fourth Street west of Vine Street at the present time, nor the construction
96
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
of the Brodhead Avenue extension in connection with the building of the
Hill-to-Hill bridge. But if for any reason it should prove impracticable to
eliminate the Third Street grade crossing east of Brodhead Avenue, these
Fourth Street and Brodhead Avenue additions to the Transit Company's
track facilities would be necessary.
Ultimately, with the extensions and double-tracking which I have
recommended complete, the present tracks on Fiot Street and Second
Street in South Bethlehem and also the track on the Hellertown road from
Battery "A" to a point near the road to the Coke Works should be re-
moved. In connection with the improvements recommended enough
cross-overs, sidings and connecting curves should be installed at the
strategic points to make the entire track system flexible with respect to the
routing and operation of cars. I would not recommend the removal of
the existing siding on Wyandotte Street at the "Five Points" even when
the double-tracking of the South Bethlehem side of the Allentown-Bethle-
hem loop is completed by the construction of an additional line in a
parallel street, as this siding may be useful for the temporary storage of
cars for the theatre service.
Some of the improvements which I have suggested involve serious
engineering problems and will be quite expensive, but topographical diffi-
culties, accentuated by unregulated, haphazard investments and unplanned
and poorly coordinated public improvements, cannot be overcome by any
cheap and easy method. I believe that the industrial and civic future of
Bethlehem warrants the City in taking a broad view and planning big
things. Of course, during the period of the War a policy of conservatism
should be followed with respect to all expensive improvements which are
not essential to the War program, but the double-tracking on South New
Street, the special work at Broad and New Streets and the double-track-
ing and extensions necessary for convenient trolley service in connection
with the East Bethlehem housing development ought not to be postponed.
The general scheme of track facilities here recommended is vitally related
to city planning and, therefore, should be considered by the City Planning
Commission in connection with the development of its program.
One thing I am certain of is that adequate transit facilities and service can-
not be provided for Bethlehem, if the South New Street and the West Third
Street grade crossings are both to be retained indefinitely. One or the other must
be eliminated, and of the two the West Third Street crossing will be the more
important when the Hill-to-Hill bridge has been built.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
97
V. CHARACTER AND EFFICIENCY OF THE
COMPANY'S
ROLLING STOCK, AND THE LOCATION
THE LOCATION AND SUF-
FICIENCY OF ITS CAR BARNS AND SHOPS.
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company has a varied assortment of cars,
but most of those in use in Bethlehem are reasonably well adapted to the
service. One or two ancient single-truckers may be found wandering
about in South Bethlehem and making a pretense of going to the Union
Depot, and occasionally one or two others of this type are brought over
from Allentown on tripper service. But the regular Hellertown line cars.
and the regular Allentown-Bethlehem loop cars are modern and com-
modious. In fact, the company is quite proud of its twenty-four new cars.
of the 900 series, of which the majority are operated on the lines between
Bethlehem and Allentown. These cars were ordered early in 1917 for
delivery last August, but on account of freight congestion and other causes
they were not actually put into service till 1918. The last one was de-
livered March 26.
The car equipment of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company (including
the new 900 series not then in service) and of the Easton Transit Company
(including the Phillipsburg Transit Company) was described in summary
in President Fehr's last annual report, for the year ended November 30,
1917, as follows:
Cars of Lehigh Valley Transit Company:
Double truck closed cars.
Single-truck closed cars.
Single-truck open cars..
•
•
Total passenger cars...
Double-truck motor freight cars..
Double-truck freight trail cars.
Total freight cars.
•
141
13
34
. 188
12
2
14
7
98
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PRoblems of
Single-truck snow sweepers.
Single-truck snow plows.
Single-truck work cars.
Double-truck work cars.
Single-truck line cars.
Double-truck line cars.
•
ΙΟ
4
2 5 3 3 H
Single-truck sand car.
Single-truck sprinkling cars.
Single-truck test car..
Single-truck trail ash cars.
Total service cars...
Grand total ..
I
2
I
6
•
Cars of Easton Transit Company:
37
· 239
Single-truck closed cars..
Double-truck closed cars.
Single-truck open cars...
42
19
20
12
Single-truck open trailers..
Total passenger cars.
93
2 snow plows
I line car
3 snow sweepers
I trail car
3 work cars
I sand car
I freight car
Total service cars.
Grand total ..
12
•
105
The detailed list of cars furnished me by the Lehigh Valley Transit
Company, with allowance for two of the 900 series cars not yet delivered
at the time the information was furnished, accounts for only 187 passenger
cars, one less than the number given in the 1917 report. Of these cars 34
are suitable for summer use, leaving 153 available for use the year around.
Of the latter, 13 are single-truck cars with a rated seating capacity of 28,
and 140 are double-truck cars with seating capacities ranging from 42 to
60. Altogether the company has twelve different types and sizes of cars in
service. They vary from 8 feet to 9 feet in width, from 26 feet 6 inches to
55 feet 10½ inches in length, from 18,330 pounds to 82,600 pounds in
weight, and from 28 to 60 in rated seating capacity. It can readily be seen
that with such variety in the equipment, the statistics of revenues and ex-
1
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
99
penses per car mile and per car hour are, to a considerable extent, vitiated,
and it becomes more difficult for the company itself or for anyone
analyzing its financial statements to make detailed comparisons and ar-
rive at accurate results. Obviously, it takes much more power per pas-
senger to move a 56-seat car weighing 82,600 pounds than to move a 57-
seat car weighing 41,860 pounds, or a small 28-seat single-truck car weigh-
ing 20,880 pounds.
In comparing the financial results of the operation of the limited ser-
vice on the Philadelphia line with the results on the Allentown-Bethlehem
loop, the fact that the 800 series limited cars weigh twice as much per
seated passenger as the Bethlehem cars must be given due consideration.
Likewise, the fact that the 600 series cars used on the Hellertown line
weigh about 25 per cent. more and seat 20 per cent fewer people than the
new 900 series cars used on the Allentown-Bethlehem loop is a very im-
portant factor in a comparison of the operating results on the two lines.
On the other hand, it takes just as much per car hour in trainmen's wages
to operate the small 400 series cars, with 28 seats each, as it does to oper-
ate the larger cars with 50% or even 100% more seats, and where the
small cars run on a slower schedule, as they often do, the relative ex-
pensiveness of their operation is still greater.
The type of cars in use also has an important bearing on track con-
struction and possible use of bridges. Reference has already been made
to the limitation on the weight of cars which can be permitted to cross the
Minsi Trail bridge. Even if the limit on this bridge should be raised, still
the New Street bridge will continue subject to the limit that no car shall
be moved across it whose live load is in excess of 80,000 pounds. This
means that cars of the 170 series weighing 61,400 pounds empty are about
as heavy as can be used in Bethlehem at the present time, as a rush-hour
load of 100 passengers would probably add about 15,000 pounds to the
car's weight. In like manner, a difference of one foot in the width of the
car makes a difference of two feet in the width of the roadway required for
a double-track line. In width, however, the difference between the single-
truck cars operated on the Depot line and the cars of the 600 series oper-
ated on the Hellertown line is only four inches. The big contrast comes
between the open summer cars, which are eight feet wide, and the Phila-
delphia Limiteds, which are nine feet wide. On the Minsi Trail bridge and
Daly Avenue the extra four inches taken by the limited cars as compared
with the widest cars now in service in Bethlehem might become important.
The car capacity of the turnouts on a single-track line and the operation
around street corners or other sharp curves on a double-track line are
affected by the length of the cars. Obviously, a two-car switch for single-
100
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
truck cars 31 feet 1 inch in length becomes a one-car switch for 47-foot
cars.
}
I have compiled from data furnished by the company the number of
its cars of each different type, and their width, length, weight and rated
seating capacity. These facts are shown on Table VII as follows:
TABLE VII. LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY-
CAR EQUIPMENT—1918.
Series Number
Rated Width Length
seating over over
Weight
in
numbers of cars
Type
capacity all all
pounds
23-99 26
Ten-bench open (sum-
mer) .
50 8'
30'
19,240
130-135 6
Third Avenue type:
44
8'6"
42'
41,700
137-169. 20
St. Louis type (narrow).
48
8'8"
45'6"
58,140
170-186 16
St. Louis type (wide)....
43
8′11″ 45'9″
61,400
187-208 22
Semi-convertible
•
44
8'6" 42′4″
43,040
213-233 8
Eight-bench open (sum-
mer)
•
40
8'
26'6"
18,330
301-304 4
Liberty Bell convertible.
56
8′11″ 45'
54,200
400-412 13
600-623 24
Single-truck closed.... 28 8'4" 31′1″.
20,880
"City "pay-as-you-enter”.
44 8'8" 43'4"
51,780
700-711 12
800-811 12
Philadelphia Local......
Limited (Pullman).
81
60
8'10" 50'
69,180
56
9' 55'10½" 82,600
900-923 24 City center entrance....
57 8'6" 47'
41,860
The Easton Transit Company has 19 double-truck cars of the types
that are ordinarily operated into Bethlehem. Of these, two are used for
regular service to South Bethlehem and three for service to Bethlehem,
with others for rush-hour or tripper service when needed. The Easton
Transit cars of the series from 214 to 223, are 42 feet 7 inches long and 8
feet 22½ inches wide, weigh 52,000 lbs. and have 43 seats. The series from
208 to 213 are 9 inches shorter, 2½ inches wider, 3,200 lbs. lighter and
have one seat less. A single-truck car with 32 seats is sometimes sent to
Bethlehem for tripper service.
The new 900-series cars of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company are
excellent in some respects. They are comparatively light and only 8 feet 6
inches wide. Their seating capacity is rated at 57, but not being able to
find that many seats after two or three inspections I was compelled to call
in the superintendent of transportation to my assistance. Then I was in-
formed that the corner bench at either end of the car upon which two
grown persons can sit if they are willing to spread over the edge a little
bit, is rated as a three-passenger seat. Our conclusion was that three pas-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
101
sengers under ten years of age might occupy one of these benches, if they
turned their faces to the window and sat on their knees, as small children
usually do. To credit these cars with 55 seats is being liberal. These cars
have a double door in the center where the fare box is located, and a
single door at the front end. Persons boarding are supposed to go in
through the forward half of the center doorway, pay their fares and pass.
either forward or backward to seats. When getting off, persons in the rear
portion of the car are supposed to pass out by the rear half of the center
doorway, and persons in the forward portion of the car to pass out by the
front exit. Where there are no crowds, this arrangement works very well,
but at congested traffic centers at the rush hours a certain amount of con-
fusion and delay results from the conflicting currents of passengers getting
off and on at the same time at the center doorway and from the effort of
the crowds boarding the car to pass in through both portions of the door-
way. The starting of the car is delayed by the absence of any platform
space to serve as a reservoir for passengers who have not yet paid their
fares. The conductor has to collect practically every fare before giving
the motorman the signal to move forward. The 24 new 900 series cars are
the only ones of the center-entrance type used by the Lehigh Valley Tran-
sit Company. The 600-series cars used on the Hellertown line, though of
quite different construction, are also of the pay-as-you-enter type.
According to a record submitted by the company showing the use of
its cars on February 26, 1918, 86 of the Lehigh Valley Transit passenger
cars were in actual service on all lines except the direct lines to Philadel-
phia. Counting out the summer cars, and the 700 and 800 series cars used
on the Philadelphia service, the company had approximately 129 passen-
ger cars on that date. This indicates that two-thirds of them were in ser-
vice. This was Tuesday, and it was far enough away from the difficult
weather conditions of the early and middle winter so that the service
should have reached a nearly normal condition. Most of the new series
cars had been delivered and were available for use. I made no special
traffic observation on February 26, but the Transit Company took obser-
vations of the carloads at various points on the lines entering Bethlehem
and submitted the results to me. While this record shows a good many
cars overloaded at the rush hours, some of them heavily, the margin of
equipment not in regular use should be sufficient to improve this condition
and give reasonably adequate service if the cars are kept in proper repair.
The number of revenue, transfer and free passengers carried, outside
of the Philadelphia division, averged about 242,000 per car in 1917. This
includes the summer cars, but excludes the new 900 series cars, and the
cars used on the Philadelphia division. With the 24 new cars counted in,
if the number of passengers remains the same as in 1917, the average num-
102
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
ber of passengers per car outside of the Philadelphia division will be about
211,000 per annum. Counting the entire system, exclusive of the Easton
Transit lines, and counting all the passenger cars now owned by the com-
pany of all types, each one would be called upon the average to handle
about 250,000 passengers on the basis of 1917 traffic. A recent study of
the Public Service Railway Company's traffic in Newark, N.J., showed an
average of only 200,000 passengers carried per year by each of the 2395
revenue cars owned by the company, and yet it was maintained by the
company and by officials of the state board of public utilities that the com-
pany was short of rolling stock to enable it to give first-class service.
This would tend to make it appear that the Lehigh Valley Transit Com-
pany's supply of equipment may still be inadequate for the traffic it is
called upon to handle, but such comparisons are not conclusive without a
detailed study of the relative peak loads, the average length of haul, etc.
In fact, the passenger figures used for the Lehigh Valley Transit Com-
pany's system are based on the assumption that every five cents of revenue
represents a separate passenger, and to the number so obtained are added
the transfers and deadheads reported by the company. I have an impres-
sion that the Transit Company's revenues per passenger mile are unusu-
ally high, but this cannot be demonstrated with any of the data now avail-
able. If they are high, it means that the average haul for five-cents is
short, and, therefore, that a car on the average could handle more passen-
gers as passengers are here counted than would be the case if the average
ride for five-cents was longer.
The actual distribution of the Transit Company's rolling stock among
the several operating divisions in March, 1918, accounted for 77 cars
assigned to regular service, as follows:
Bethlehem loop line....
Bethlehem "10-minute" line.
South Bethlehem local line.
Hellertown line.
Nazareth line...
· •
•
Hamilton Street local line (Allentown)
Tenth Street local line (Allentown).
Seventh Street local line (Allentown).
Sixth Street local line (Allentown).
Tilgham Street local line (Allentown).
•
•
Muhlenberg and Fullertown Junction line (Allentown).
Coplay and Egypt..
Northampton and Siegfried line.
со
сл
5
I
26
I
I
2
I
•
4
4
3
Macungie line...
2
1
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
103
Emaus line....
Slatington and Slatedale line.
Philadelphia local main line.
Philadelphia Limited line..
•
I
H.
3
7
6
I
·
Lansdale to Norristown line (Philadelphia division).
Lansdale to Chestnut Hill line (Philadelphia division).
Telford local line (Philadelphia division)...
Quakertown local line (Philadelphia division)
•
31
I
I
Total, all lines...
69
The tripper service to the Bethlehem Steel plant and Coke Works
shown by the company's traffic check on February 26, 1918, accounts for
about 40 more individual cars, though the number of trips run by them is
much greater. All this seems to indicate that the company surely has a
large margin of rolling stock that is not used at all on an ordinary day.
If an allowance of ten per cent be made for cars undergoing repair, there
will still remain about 30 closed passenger cars that are not used that
could be used if necessary. The apparent extreme shortage of rolling
stock during the severe weather last winter seems to have been chiefly due
to the company's failure to keep its cars in condition to run. The short-
age of skilled labor and the fact that the company went into the winter
without the usual overhauling of its cars, coupled with the severe strain
put upon them by the storms of December and January, made the problem
a difficult one, but it is clear to me that these troubles, not an actual short-
age of cars, were primarily responsible for the unusually inadequate ser-
vice which served as the immediate cause prompting this investigation.
We must now consider briefly the adequacy and location of the com-
pany's car shops and car barns. That the car shop facilities should be im-
proved and expanded is, I. believe, recognized by the company, but during
the War prudence counsels conservatism in new building enterprises. The
shop facilities are now pretty well scattered. The principal shops are or
Madison Street, between Wayne and Monroe Streets, two blocks away
from the main office in Allentown. The carpenter shops are in a building
opposite the main office on the northwest corner of Fourteenth and Gordon
Streets. The shops are located on or in the vincinity of the Gordon Street.
loop line, with which they are connected. Minor repairs are done at the
Fairview car barn on the opposite side of the city. But the company's
principal shop difficulty during the past year or two has been in scuring
and keeping the right kind of labor. The competion of the high wages
paid by the Steel Mills has made it hard for the Transit Company to hold
its men. It is almost too much to expect a street railway company with
104
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
its income limited by fixed fares to meet the wage competition of great in-
dustrial concerns working on vital and urgent government contracts in the
midst of the great War. For this reason, the company is bound to have
trouble in getting a sufficient supply of skilled labor as long as present
conditions last, but the work of maintaining its rolling stock is so vital
from every point of view that it should make every possible effort to
make its jobs attractive enough to hold at least the minimum labor force
required to prevent the recurrence of last winter's breakdown in service.
The Fairview car barn was completed in May, 1914. It is a fireproof
concrete building with two bays 400 feet deep, each containing four tracks.
There are five additional storage tracks on the outside of the building,
and plenty of room for expansion. The main question concerning this
car barn relates to its location with respect to the company's track sys-
tem. It is on the south side of Allentown about half a mile southeast of
the southern end of the Allentown bridge. It is reached by a single track
through a narrow street. That it should be made more accessible is recog-
nized by the company, which has already laid out routes and secured certi-
ficates of public convenience for car lines extending south from St. John
Street through South Ninth and South Tenth Streets to Cumberland
Street and thence west through Cumberland Street to Lehigh Street at the
car barn. Even with these proposed new track connctions the car barn
will not be convenient as the sole storage place and sleeping quarters for
the company's cars. To be sure it is only a half mile removed from the
Allentown-Bethlehem loop line, which at this point is identical with the
Emaus-Macungie and Philadelphia lines. It is only about a mile and a
quarter from Eighth and Hamilton Streets, and if the Transit Company
would only pay the Allentown Bridge Company a liberal toll for all cars
crossing the bridge, perhaps the Bridge Company would be able to pay
dividends on its stock, which is held by the Transit Company. It is un-
necessary for me to express an opinion as to the convenience and economy
of this Fairview location, so far as Allentown car service is affected
by it; but I am clearly of the opinion that the company should have a car
barn at or near Bethlehem. A convenient location would be somewhere
on the Hellertown road, just outside of Northampton Heights. The ser-
vice on the Hellertown-North Bethlehem loop line is bound to be seriously
interfered with from time to time by cars going out of commission, unless
storage facilities are provided near by so that crippled cars can be run in
promptly off the line and substitute cars be put into service, without un-
necessary delay. To depend on a car barn five or six miles away, and
reached by a route which is in part single-tracked and which is likely to
be obstructed by rush-hour traffic, is not good from the operating stand-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
105
point or from the point of view of the public, which has a right to demand
regularity of service. The record of service on February 26, furnished
by the company itself, shows that three cars scheduled to go south on
Main Street crossing Broad Street did not appear at this point. They "did
not reach destination." As a result, on that day a car went south on
Main Street at 7:00 A.M. and the next one came along at 7:55 A.M. Other
serious irregularities were caused by one being 17 minutes late and two
others 30 minutes late. My own observations on different dates confirm
the existence of this difficulty on the Hellertown line. Double-tracking
would help the situation considerably, and one-way operation around
the North Bethlehem loop would conduce to greater regularity to some ex-
tent, though objectionable on other grounds, but double tracks and one-way
operation will not make crippled cars run or provide quick substitutes
for them from the Fairview car barn. Car storage capacity would also
help out to a considerable extent in the economy and efficiency of tripper
operation to the Steel Works. In my judgment, the City of Bethlehem
ought to insist on it.
106
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
VI. THE PRESENT ROUTING AND OPERATION OF THE
TRANSIT COMPANY'S CARS WITH RESPECT TO POSSIBLE
IMPROVEMENTS IN SERVICE.
I found that prior to the investigation undertaken by the Bethlehem
Chamber of Commerce, the complaints of irregularity in the trolley service
had been general and bitter. The company ascribed the poor service
mainly to the weather conditions, to the difficulty in getting a sufficient
supply of skilled labor for the repair of the cars, to the delay in the de-
livery of new cars which had been ordered for August, 1917, to the interfer-
ence of vehicular traffic, and to delays at railroad grade crossings It was
evident after the investigation got under way that service was consider-
ably improved. It will be remembered that the Transit Company was
criticized in January even by the city authorities of Allentown for the
deficiency of cars used in the Bethlehem loop service as contrasted with
the overabundance of cars provided on the local Hamilton Street line in
Allentown. Moreover, the Bethlehem Steel Company got after the Transit
Company with a sharp stick and even introduced a pair of automobile buses
into Bethlehem to show what competition could do.
Under the admittedly severe handicaps that prevailed in December,
1917, and January, 1918, it would be difficult to apportion with entire ac-
curacy the blame for the bad service. I found a disposition on the part
of some of the Steel Company's officials who had come into most intimate
contact with the problem to ascribe the blame largely to relative indiffer-
ence on the part of the Transit Company to the interests of Bethlehem and
also largely to inefficiency of management in the operating division. The
causes of the bad service ascribed by the company, when taken in con-
junction with the manifestly inadequate track facilities, established a good
prima facie case from the company's point of view, and while it may be
that better results could have been obtained, even under the untoward
conditions, if more ability had been applied to the operating end of the
problem, it would be hard to prove this without having made observa-
tions in detail of what was done prior to the commencement of my investi-
gation or else having studied detailed records which, if they exist at all,
are to be found only in the company's files. Very soon after I came into
the problem, weather conditions improved, the new cars began to arrive
in considerable numbers, and the Steel Company changed its working
shifts and devised a new schedule of tripper service based upon a census
of its employees' transit habits and needs, which the Transit Company put
TABLE VIII.
COMPARATIVE TROLLEY STATISTICS OF LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR JANU-
ARY, 1917, JULY, 1917, AND JANUARY, 1918, SHOWING INCREASES AND DECREASES IN SERVICE, PASSENGER
REVENUES, SPEED OF CARS, ETC.
Part I-Service and Revenues.
Car Miles-
Division
January, 1917 July, 1917
I. Allentown Locals
•
37,905
44,488
53,229
Per cent increase (+) or
decrease (—) of service
Jan., 1918 (car miles) January, 1918,
compared with Jan., 1917
+40.4
January, 1917
-Passenger Revenue-
July, 1917
January, 1918
$11,698.05
$15,245.95
$19,930.70
2. Slatington ..
27,887
31,439
27,799
0.3
8,519.50
10,395.15
8,439.00
3. Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried..
61,664
63,434
59,329
3.8
23,678.80
25,235.35
22,677.35
4. Emaus and Macungie..
•
18,035
25,007
21,505
+19.2
5,662.60
6,827.75
5,216.95
5. Philadelphia
•
133,134
153,358
129,983
2.4
41,288.08
66,541.87
43,915.19
6.
Nazareth
12,540
12,982
12,165
3.0
5,072.45
6,019.20
6,543.19
7.
Bethlehem
65,189
96,980
50,622
-22.3
30,004.85
47,636.95
26,720.35
8.
South Bethlehem
41,494
41,955
32,980
-20.5
15,088.75
16,125.30
12,897.30
9.
Bethlehem Locals and Hellertown. 29,365 30,904
31,395
+ 6.9
12,349.65
14,758.05
12,526.10
IO.
Easton-Bethlehem
• •
II.
Easton-South Bethlehem.
26,649 27,534 25,762
21,533 22,693 21,713
3.3
10,463.55
13,609.00
10,512.05
+ 0.8
7,406.45
9,234.80
7,784.45
I2.
Easton and Phillipsburg, except 10
and II.
112,746
121,125
106,476
5.6
34,731.00
40,118.05
34,907.40
Passenger Revenues
Cents per Car Mile
Part II-Car Hours, Earnings per Car Mile and per Car Hour, and Speed of Cars.
Passenger Revenues
Dollars per Car Hour
Speed
Car Hours
Miles per Hour
January July January
1917
1917 1918
January
1917
July January
1917
1918
January July January
1917 1917 1918
I.
Allentown Locals
30.9
34.3
7,038
37.4
7,828 10,928
1.66
1.95
1.82
2. Slatington
3. Catasauqua, Egypt and Siegfried..
30.6
33.I 30.4
1,989
2,315
2,296
4.28 4.49
4.68
38.4
4..
Emaus and Macungie.
39.8 38.2
5,101
5,438
4,565
·
31.4
27.3 24.3
1,792
2,327
2,006
3.16 2.93
4.64 4.64 4.97
2.60
January July January
1917 1917 1918
5.4 5.7 4.9
12.0
14.0 13.6
12.1 11.7 13.0
IO.I
10.7 10.7
5. Philadelphia
31.0 43.4 33.8
9,600
11,358
6. Nazareth
40.5 46.4 53.8
765
892
821
6.63
9,723 4.20 5.86 4.52 13.9
13.5
13.4
6.75
7.97 16.4 14.6
14.8
7. Bethlehem
8. South Bethlehem
46.0
36.4 38.4
49.I
52.6
6,152
II,142
5,796
4.88
4.28 4.61
10.6
8.7
8.7
39.I
5,747
5,363
4,600
2.61
3.01
2.80
7.2
7.8
7.2
9.
IO.
Bethlehem Locals and Hellertown.
Easton-Bethlehem
42.I 48.0 39.9
3,688
4,217
4.575 3.35 3.50
2.74
8.0
7.3
6.9
39.3 49.4 40.8
2,003
5.25
12.9
II.
Easton-South Bethlehem
•
34.4
46.9
35.9
2,330
3.34
9.3
12.
Easton and Phillipsburg, except 10
and II.
30.8
33.I
32.8
13,818
2.53
7.8
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
107
into effect, with the result that service was noticeably improved before
the end of February. Nevertheless, a study of the monthly record of pas-
senger revenues and of car miles and car hours run, separated by oper-
ating divisions, clearly demonstrates that the company discriminated
against Bethlehem and in favor of the Allentown local service during
the critical winter months. I have prepared certain comparative statistics
for the months of January, 1917, July, 1917, and January, 1918, for the
company's operating divisions. The following table (Table VIII) shows
these comparisons in detail, including car miles run; percentages of in-
crease or decrease in service from January, 1917, to January, 1918; total
passenger revenues per car mile; car hours run; passenger revenues per
car hour, and speed of car:
The record of car miles run shows a decrease of 22.3% on the Bethle-
hem line and 20.5% on the South Bethlehem line in January, 1918, as com-
pared with January, 1917, while on the Allentown local service there was
an increase of 40.4% at the same time. The average speeds per hour on
these three lines were 8.7 miles, 7.2 miles and 4.9 miles, respectively. It is
true that even with the great increase in car miles run in Allentown, pas-
senger revenues per car mile increased on that service, but the average
haul on the Allentown locals must be relatively short and the speeds main-
tained were scandalously low, so that earnings per car hour in January,
1918, were only $1.82 as compared with $4.61 on the Bethlehem division,
$2.80 on the South Bethlehem division, and $2.74 on the Hellertown line
and the Bethlehem locals. The story of the Allentown locals, as shown on
Table VIII, and for a five-year period on Tables V and VI given in an
earlier division of this report, is a story of relatively uneconomical opera-
tion and "babied" service. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that
Allentown is the home city of the corporation and the center of its entire
street railway and light and power systems. This is a matter that might
be overlooked by Bethlehem, if the company always had enough equip-
ment and service to "go around," but when curtailment is necessary on ac-
count of insufficient equipment, or retrenchment is necessary on account
of excessive costs, Bethlehem immediately becomes interested in the ex-
tent and quality of service being rendered in Allentown, for the entire
system is controlled and operated as a unit. This fact emphasizes the
importance of clearly recognizing the special divergence of motives which
necessarily characterize a city interested in local service and an interurban
transit company.
It may be definitely stated that a disposition to favor Allentown,
whether an inherited or an acquired characteristic, was in part responsible
for the insufficiency of service on the Bethlehem lines last winter. It may
108
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
also be stated with confidence that the irregularity of service immediately
resulting from the breakdown of cars could have been considerably miti-
gated if the company had had a car barn in or near Bethlehem. As to the
alleged failure of motormen, conductors and car dispatchers to give the
best possible service with the facilities they had under the conditions that
prevailed, I am not prepared to express an opinion. Single-track opera-
tion, with grade crossing obstructions and other causes of delay, makes it
very difficult to hold trainmen responsible for irregularities of service and
the overloading of cars, and a few careless or incompetent men can make
it impossible for the rest to make a good showing even where other causes
do not.
The Transit Company submitted to me a record of a complete traffic
check on its Bethlehem lines made on February 26. These records con-
sisted of 88 separate sheets, each one of which gave for every car on the
individual line the time of passing the particular loading point and the
number of passengers on board at this point. A few errors in the records be-
came manifest upon careful examination, but most of them could be cor-
rected from internal evidence. A tabulation of these records will be found
in Appendix "F" attached to this report. The car lines affected, the de-
scription and direction of the service, and the loading points to which the in-
formation applies are as follows:
I. Allentown-Bethlehem loop line-north side.
Description of service.
Regular 20-minute schedule.
Morning trippers.
Regular "10-minute" schedule.
Afternoon trippers.
Loading points—eastbound.
Lehigh River Bridge, Allentown.
Rittersville.
Broad and New Streets, Bethlehem.
Loading points-westbound.
Third and New Streets, South Bethlehem.
Broad and New Streets.
Rittersville.
Lehigh River Bridge, Allentown.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
109
II. Allentown-Bethlehem loop line-south side.
Description of service.
Regular 20-minute schedule.
Morning trippers.
Afternoon trippers.
Loading points-eastbound.
Eighth Street Bridge, Allentown (regular service).
Ninth and St. John Street, Allentown (trippers).
Fountain Hill Silk Mills.
III. Hellertown-North Bethlehem loop line.
Description of service.
Regular 15-minute schedule.
Morning trippers (between New Street and Coke Works
only).
Afternoon trippers (between New Street and Coke Works
only).
Loading points-outbound to Hellertown.
Fair Grounds, Elizabeth Avenue and Linden Street (regular
schedule).
Broad and New Streets (every other car of regular schedule).
Broad and Main Streets (every other car of regular schedule).
Third and New Streets (regular schedule and some afternoon
trippers).
Fourth and New Streets (morning trippers and some after-
noon trippers).
Poplar Street.
Northampton Heights (regular schedule and some trippers).
Coke Works (regular schedule).
Hellertown switch (regular schedule).
Loading points-inbound from Hellertown.
Hellertown switch (regular schedule).
Coke Works (regular schedule and some trippers).
Northampton Heights.
Steel Office, at Poplar Street.
Third and New Streets.
Broad and New Streets (every other car of regular schedule).
Broad and Main Streets (every other car of regular schedule).
110
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
IV. South Bethlehem local line.
Regular 30-minute schedule.
Loading point-eastbound.
Third and New Streets.
Loading points-westbound.
Northampton Heights.
Gas House Gate,
V. Easton Limited line-Allentown to Bethlehem Fair Grounds at Eliza-
beth Avenue and Linden Street.
Regular hourly schedule.
Loading points-eastbound and westbound.
Lehigh River Bridge, Allentown.
Tenth Avenue, West Bethlehem.
Broad and Main Streets, Bethlehem,
Elizabeth Avenue and Linden Street.
VI. Nazareth line-Allentown to Nazareth, via Bethlehem.
Description of service.
Regular hourly schedule.
Afternoon trippers.
Loading points-northbound and southbound.
Broad and Main Streets, Bethlehem.
No. 1 Switch, North Bethlehem.
Hecktown.
Fair Grounds (up the line).
The tabulation in Appendix "F" gives the number of each car, the
service schedule to which it belonged, the time it passed the first loading
point on the route, the number of minutes since the last preceding car
passed the point, and the number of passengers on board at this and each
succeeding loading point. A glance at the tabulation will show, therefore,
loads at different points on the line, the theoretical headway of the cars
and their actual headway at the first loading point. Actual headways at
other loading points also could have been shown from the records sub-
mitted by the company, but this would have made the tabulation more
complex than seemed desirable.
The company's check was made and its records prepared primarily
for the purpose of showing the passenger loads at different points with a
view to determining the sufficiency or insufficiency of the quantity of service
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
111
being given at different points and at different hours of the day. For this
reason, the car loads were shown graphically by perpendicular lines and
the seating capacity of the cars in use by horizontal lines. Wherever a
perpendicular line shows its head above a horizontal one, we find a car
loaded beyond its seating capacity. For the new 900 series cars on the
Allentown-Bethlehem loop, the horizontal line is placed at 57. It should
have been brought down a couple of pegs to represent actual seating
capacity. For the other cars the horizontal lines on all the routes are
placed at 42. For the South Bethlehem locals this should have been
brought down to 28, which is the rated seating capacity of the 400 series,
single-truck cars used in this service.
Of 56 cars on the regular 20-minute service passing Lehigh River
Bridge, Allentown, en route for Bethlehem by the north side, only nine
carried at that point more passengers than seats; ten had an excess at
Rittersville, and eight still had an excess at Broad and New Streets, Beth-
lehem. The aggregate number of seats provided during the entire 24
hours was greatly in excess of the number of passengers, but some rush-
hour loads were too heavy. Four of the 56 cars, or about seven per cent.,
left Allentown with more than 80 passengers each; one of them carried
125 and another 94, according to the company's record. These were morn-
ing cars leaving Allentown between six o'clock and seven o'clock. At
Rittersville the earlier one's load had reached the almost incredible num-
ber of 135. This car still held its load of 135 at Broad and New Streets.
Of the 22 morning trippers following this route, nine left Allentown with
more passengers than seats. These cars had a seating capacity of 42. Two
of them carried more than 80 passengers. One of these had increased its
load to 92 at Rittersville, and dropped back to 63 at Broad and New
Streets, while another car got up to 90 at this point. Of 18 afternoon.
trippers only two left Allentown with more passengers than seats, and the
more heavily loaded of these showed a maximum of 67 at Broad and New
Streets. Of 26 cars on the "10-minute" line operating over this route,
only three were beyond their seating capacity as they left Allentown. One
of these was up to 93. Generally, on these cars the loads diminished as
they approached Bethlehem. At Broad and New Streets, the highest load
observed was 38. Of 17 Easton Limited cars passing along this route,
five carried more passengers than seats as they left Allentown, but the
heaviest load was only 66. Thus it appears that out of 139 cars in all
(exclusive of Nazareth cars) passing the Lehigh River Bridge bound for
Bethlehem, 28, or 20% of the total, were loaded at that point beyond their
seating capacity, and in general the loads were somewhat lighter when
they reached Bethlehem.
112
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
Westbound for Allentown by the north side of 57 cars, nine were over
their seating capacity when they left Third and New Streets, and three
more when they left Broad and New Streets. At Rittersville the number
was down to eight, but at Lehigh Bridge as they entered Allentown the
number was up to 12 again. Only one of these cars had above 80 pas-
sengers. That was a six o'clock car which left Broad and New Streets
with 100. Of 17 morning trippers, four were beyond their seating capacity
at Third and New Streets, and three at Broad and New Streets. At Le-
high Bridge the total number of trippers shown by the records had in-
creased to 21, of which four had excess passengers. The afternoon west-
bound trippers were much more heavily loaded. Out of 13 in all, eight
started from Third and New Streets with excess loads. This number was
reduced to four at Rittersville, and to three at Lehigh Bridge. Only one
car carried more than 80 passengers at the start. Its initial load was 100,
but that was reduced to 60 at Broad and New Streets, while two others
went slightly above 60 at that point. One of these went up to 91 at Rit-
tersville and was at 86 when it reached Lehigh Bridge. On the "10-
minute" line 22 passed Third and New Streets and two others started for
Allentown from Broad and New Streets. At the latter point, two of the
24 had more passengers than seats. At Rittersville this number had in-
creased to four, and one load had gone up to 137. That was at 5:20 p.m.
I should have liked to see that car. Of 16 Easton Limited cars
westbound for Allentown, five were above their seating capacity at Broad
and Main Streets, Bethlehem. One had 89 passengers, a very heavy load
for a 42-seat car of the Easton Transit type. Altogether, of 125 west-
bound cars, 30, or 23%, left the business district of Bethlehem with more
passengers than seats.
Conditions on the south side of the loop were much the same, though
there were fewer cars. Two regular 20-minute eastbound cars were much
overloaded at Fountain Hill, one carrying 116 and the other 130 pas-
sengers. Two morning trippers were also heavily loaded at this point, one
with 95 and the other with 85. Of the westbound 20-minute cars only two
carried more than their seating capacity. One of these started with 95 and
the other with 71. But of 16 afternoon westbound trippers, II carried an
excess load, and six of these started with from 83 to 91 passengers apiece,
and one of them still had 73 at Ninth and St. John Streets, Allentown.
Of the Hellertown 15-minute service, 15 outbound cars, out of a total
of 76 passing Third and New Streets, carried excess loads; 6 of them hav-
ing more than 80 apiece. One had 120, and this number went up to 129 at
Poplar Street. Several morning trippers were overloaded at Fourth and
New Streets. One had 128 passengers; another 106, and a third, 101. At
Poplar Street the maximum loads were 135 and 103. The four Coke
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
113
Works trippers carried 35, 59, 75 and 71, respectively, as they passed
Northampton Heights eastbound. These were 42-seat passenger cars.
Of the 70 regular cars inbound to Bethlehem, II had more passengers
than seats as they left the Coke Works. One had a load of 103 and an-
other of 88. The maximum morning load at this point was 70. At 5:45
p.m., an inbound regular car passed Northampton Heights with 117 on
board. It was 20 minutes late. Its load increased to 124 at Poplar Street.
This car was bound for North Bethlehem by way of East Broad Street.
It still had 90 on board at Broad and New Streets. One morning west-
bound tripper carried 98 as it passed the Steel office, and three afternoon
westbound trippers left Northampton Heights carrying 85, 90 and 99
passengers respectively. At the Steel office six out of 28 westbound trip-
pers were above the 80 mark.
The South Bethlehem locals were not generally crowded, but one 28-
passenger car, westbound, passed the Gas House gate at noon with 60
on board, which was doing pretty well for a single-trucker.
The count of traffic on the New Street bridge on June 3,1918, showed
a total of 420 passenger cars crossing. Of these only 15 were rated as
carrying as many as 80 passengers, and the highest number assigned to
one car was 95. It is hard to believe the figures of 125 to 137 which are
given by the company for a few cars in the February 26 checking. On
February 25, in my observation at Third and New Streets, extending from
3 p.m. till 7 p.m., I ascribed loads of 80 or more to 15 cars leaving that
point. Of these, six were checked off at 100 or more. One was marked
120, with a note to the effect that about 15 were on the bumpers. The
passengers were hanging onto the outside of this car at all four corners.
It was overloaded. At Fourth and New Streets, between 5:23 a.m. and
9:08 a.m., I observed five more cars carrying from 100 to 110 apiece, and
six others carrying from 80 to 90. At Broad and New Streets on March 1,
between 5:34 a.m. and 8:05 a.m., I observed six or seven cars with loads
of 80 or more. On coming south from the Nazareth line one car had
about 120 aboard when it passed on toward South Bethlehem.
From the records supplied by the company and from my own observa-
tions, I am convinced that since the new cars were put into service, only a
few cars per day are inexcusably overcrowded. Some of the existing over-
crowding is due to irregularity of service and some to the extraordinary
peak load that the company has to carry. It has sufficient cars, how-
ever, so that persistent overcrowding need not take place, and of course.
should not be permitted.
The next item of service upon which the traffic records and observa-
tions give us a check is regularity. I have already given the headway on
8
114
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
the New Street bridge, northbound and southbound, of the regular cars
in the Allentown-Bethlehem loop service and the "10-minute" line as
observed June 3, 1918. That record showed a variation from 16 minutes
to 24 minutes in the forenoon 20-minute schedule; from four minutes to
23 minutes in the "10-minute" afternoon and early evening schedule, and
from 14 to 38 minutes in the 20-minute late evening schedule. On the
whole, this service was pretty regular in both directions, except that the
schedule was considerably disorganized during the afternoon rush-hour.
The Hellertown-North Bethlehem loop service was not so good, however.
The southbound theoretical 15-minute schedule by actual observation was
as follows, beginning with 4:42 a.m.:
17 (4:59 a.m.)-20-16-18-17-7-21-15-19-10-18-18-9-12-17-10-21-17-
14-10-24-5-21-9-20-13-19-8-21-10-20-11-17-11-24-7-20-9-20-9-19-
13-19-10-22-10-19-10-20-12-21-14-16-19-51-18-8-20-12-22-19-18-
12-25-6-18-10-23-8-19-9-21 (11:33 p.m.).
The northbound theoretical 30-minute schedule, routed via Church
Street to north on Main Street, was on actual observation as follows, be-
ginning at 5:48 A.M.:
34 (6:22 a.m.)-34-32-16-36-35-21-33-27-32-27-31-30-30-32-29-29-29-
31-30-30-35-34-36-51-25-27-33-29-31-30-34-26-29.
The northbound theoretical 30-minute schedule, routed to East Broad
Street, was as follows, beginning at 6:07 A.M.:
36 (6:43)-31-29-38-17-26-30-34-31-26-32-31-27-31-30-29-32-29 - 30-
31-28-34-35-*15-*0-67-29-31-31-29-35-25-32-27-31-(11:36 p.m.).
If we allow for a normal variation of 2½ minutes either way on a 15-
minute schedule, we see that the southbound Hellertown car schedule was
abnormal 61 out of 73 times; the North-on-Main schedule was abnormal
only 4 times out of 34 times; and the East-on-Broad schedule only 6 times
out of 35. This makes it appear as if the irregularities which are so marked
in the outbound service were the result of two-way operation around
the North Bethlehem loop. And the company has already, in its letter to
the City Commission dated March 7, 1918, suggested that the service could
be improved by one-way operation.
In order to ascertain definitely what is the matter we shall have to
study the situation more closely Six cars are used in the regular service
on this line. From the point of observation at the railroad stairway near
the southerly end of the New Street bridge the round-trip schedule time.
of 90 minutes is divided into two parts of 25 minutes for the journey
around the northern loop and 65 minutes for the journey to Hellertown
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
115
and return. This is shown by the records of the several cars in operation
on June 3, as follows:
Car No. 623-North on Main:
Minutes taken going around the loop: 23-24-23-25-26-24-27-26-
23-24-28-23. Average, 2434.
Minutes taken going to Hellertown and back: 66-77-63-58-65-66-
63-64-79-53-65-67. Average, 65 5/12.
'Car No. 620-East on Broad:
Minutes taken going around the loop: 25-18-28-22-24-26-25-27-
26-33-25. Average, 25 4/11.
Minutes taken going to Hellertown and back: 68-71-63-67-67-64-
64-64-*153-65-59. Average (omitting the extraordinary one),
652/5.
Car No. 616-North on Main:
Minutes taken going around the loop: 25-29-26-26-27-24-25-23-
29-28-25. Average, 26 1/11.
Minutes taken going to Hellertown and back: 69-57-63-66-62-64-
65-70-90-64-62. Average, 666/11.
Car No. 621-East on Broad:
Minutes taken going around the loop: 23-*9-32-28-25-26-27-26-
29-22-28. Average (omitting the short trip to Broad Street and
return), 26 7/10.
Minutes taken going to Hellertown and back: 74-75-64-59-62-65-
65-66-*151-66-62. Average (omitting the extraordinary one),
65 4/5.
Car No. 615-North on Main:
Minutes taken going around the loop: 20-20-22-26-25-24-27-24-
23-27-26. Average, 24.
Minutes taken going to Hellertown and back: 69-64-69-64-65-65-
66-72-63-62-63-63. Average, 65 5/12.
Car No. 614-East on Broad:
Minutes taken going around the loop: 20-23-24-25-29-22-25-21-
27-25-30. Average, 247/11.
Minutes taken going to Hellertown and back: 70-64-67-65-64-62-
68-72-61-64-64-60. Average, 65 1/12.
It may be noted from the above that the variations in the time taken
for the Hellertown end of the trip and for the North Bethlehem loop are
in both cases very considerable. The pot cannot call the kettle black in
116
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
this connection. There are many contributory causes to the irregulari-
ties of headway on this line-grade-crossings, single-track operation, rush
hour Steel traffic, and two-way operation on the loop. The double-track-
ing of the portion of the line in South New and Third Streets, Daly Avenue
and on the road to Hellertown as far as the Coke Works, would eliminate
most of the trouble from grade crossings, rush-hour congestion and single-
track operation on the south side of the river. We would then have the
two-way loop operation to deal with. There are few traffic obstructions
on the north side of the river to interfere with regular operation around
the North Bethlehem loop, and with the full double-track 4-way curves
at Broad and New Streets, the rush-hour street car traffic could be moved
without congestion at that point. All that would seriously interfere with
regular two-way operation would be the improper location of sidings on
the single-track. The portion of the line on New, Broad and Linden
Streets is already double-tracked, and we do not need to worry about
that. On the other portion of the loop there is but one siding and that is
on North Main Street just south of Elizabeth Avenue. A few measure-
ments and mathematical computations will show that this siding is in the
wrong place and that two-way operation around the loop with a regular
15-minute schedule on the rest of the line is now impossible. If we take
the railroad stairway near the south end of New Street bridge as our
point of departure, the distance around the loop and back to this point is ap-
proximately 17,150 feet and the running time is about 25 minutes at pres-
ent speeds. That is 686 feet per minute, or eight miles an hour, which
is about right for such a line. If cars go southbound to Hellertown 15
minutes apart, and operation on that end of the line is regular, they will
come back 15 minutes apart and pass on to take the loop. With split ser-
vice and a 25-minute journey it is essential that the car ahead shall be
15/25 of the way around when the car behind starts. That leaves two-
fifths of the journey to be covered by the two cars traveling in opposite
directions, which means that they must meet four-fifths of the way around
the loop in one direction or one-fifth of the way around in the other. In
this case, one-fifth of the journey is approximately 3,430 feet and four-fifths
is 13,720 feet. When the head car is going around the loop in the North-
on-Main direction, four-fifths of the way will obviously bring it somewhere.
on the stretch of double track where turnouts are not required, but if the
forward car is going in the East-on-Broad direction, four-fifths of the jour-
ney will as obviously be somewhere on the single track portion of the
route and at this spot a turnout is required. The entire 17,150 feet is made.
up as follows:
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
117
•
From Bridge Stairway to Church Street.
From Church Street to Broad Street.
From New Street to Linden Street...
From Broad Street to Elizabeth Avenue.
From Linden Street to Main Street...
From Elizabeth Avenue to Broad Street.
From Broad Street to Church Street.
From Main Street to New Street.
From Church Street to Bridge Stairway.
1,400 feet
1,250 feet
•
2,050 feet
2,850 feet
2,950 feet
3,100 feet
1,250 feet
900 feet
•
1,400 feet
Entire distance
.$17,150 feet
Going north over the bridge, East on Broad Street, and on around the
loop in that direction, 13,720 feet brings us to a point on Main Street about
120 feet south of Broad Street, This is only about 500 feet from the Adams
Express office, with its sidewalk warehouse at Market Street. One day I
observed one of the Transit Company's express cars unloading here, but
when a regular car appeared northbound in Main Street the express car
had to run north to the turnout near Elizabeth Avenue to get out of the
way. This was power and labor wasted, all for lack of a siding in the right
place.
If we turn the matter around and see exactly what happens now when
two passenger cars pass each other at the North Main Street turnout, the
demonstration will be complete. A northbound car has about 10,600 feet
to go from this point to reach the bridge stairway. A southbound car has
6,550 feet to go. If both travel at the same speed one car will cross the
New Street bridge bound for Hellertown 4,050 feet, or six minutes behind
the other. That emans that the second car will have to wait nine minutes
somewhere, or else the 15 minute schedule will go to smash. With the
southbound schedule on the bridge abnormal on 61 out of 73 trips, it is
easy to see what happens.
One-way operation would obviate the necessity of putting in another
turnout on Main Street. The company maintains that by the installation
of one-way operation it would be able to give a much more reliable and,
therefore, a much more satisfactory service and that in a short time the
patrons of the line would get used to spending the few additional minutes
required in riding around the loop to their points of destination, instead of
spending them in waiting for a car to take them the other way. One-way
operation around a loop formed by two parallel streets which are only one.
or two blocks apart, and which are not separated by heavy grades, dan-
gerous crossings or other obstructions to pedestrian traffic is in some
118
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
cases necessary and reasonably satisfactory from the point of view of ser-
vice. Mr. Fehr, on behalf of the company, called my attention to condi-
tions on one line in Easton where one-way loop operation has been in
effect for several years and has resulted, as he maintains, in a general im-
provement in service and the general satisfaction of the public. This is the
South Easton line which is the heaviest traffic line on the Easton division.
Mr. Fehr informed me that a 5-minute headway is maintained on this line.
He also informed me that one of the reasons for installing one-way opera-
tion there was the presence of a very heavy grade at one point which pre-
sented serious operating difficulties and dangers except with a one-way
up-hill routing of the cars. He also stated that the Lehigh Valley Transit
Company was about to take up with the Allentown authorities the matter
of installing one-way service on the Twelfth Street-Gordon Street loop
in Allentown. My investigation shows that conditions on the North
Bethlehem loop line are quite different from those on the South Easton
line in Easton, and from those on the Gordon Street loop in Allentown.
The South Easton line, after its divergence into two branches at the junc-
tion of Smith and Canal Streets, traverses for the entire length of the loop
a district, principally residential, which does not include any retail business
or amusement center. The same may be said of the Gordon Street loop in
Allentown. On the other hand, the North Bethlehem loop traverses the
principal business district of Bethlehem on the north side of the river, and
one-way operation as proposed in connection with the Hellertown line
would eliminate any convenient street car service between the North Beth-
lehem residential district and the business section on Main and West Broad
Streets. It is doubtless true that one-way service would be somewhat
more regular than the present service and that so far as the loop is de-
voted to the transportation of Steel Company employees from and to their
homes, one-way operation would be likely to cause some improvement in
transit accommodations, but it is necessary in this connection to take into
consideration the service to the business district of Bethlehem on the north
side of the river. A moment's thought will show that the retail business sec-
tion on South Main Street and on Broad Street near Main Street will be
considerably handicapped by a street car service which provides no way for
persons residing in North Bethlehem to get back home in case by any mis-
take they should be unlucky enough to get off a Hellertown car to shop or
attend to any other business in Bethlehem north of the river. It appears
to me that one-way operation around the North Bethlehem loop would
tend to make the residential district of Bethlehem north of Broad Street
primarily tributary to the business district on the south side of the river
east of New Street. The difference in the layout of the South Easton loop
and in that of the North Bethlehem loop in relation to the retail business
C
t
Berwick Street
·900
New Street
Bridge
Main Street
Elizabeth Avenue
2950'
Sketch showing One-Way Operation
of Street Cars as proposed by the
Lehigh Valley Transit Company in
Bethlehem, Pa., and as actually prac-
ticed in Easton, Pa., to accompany
Report on Transit Facilities.
Shaded areas represent retail
business districts
Linden Street
Broad Street
North Bethlehem-Hellertown Loop
Bethlehem, Pa.
Scale 1" = 1600*
2080
Bethlehem Steel Co's.
Office and main gate
Third Street
·600
Fourth Street
South Easton Loop.
Easton, Pa
= "10000"
Scale 1" = 1000'
Canal Street
1600
Easton Circle
Smith St
Hellertown
Third Street
N.
w4
DE.
S.
To
Coke
Plant
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
119
districts of the two cities is graphically shown on the accompanying map
entitled: "Sketch Showing One-Way Operation of Street Cars as Pro-
posed by the Lehigh Valley Transit Company in Bethlehem, Pa., and as
Actually Practiced in Easton." For the reason given I should not advise
the city of Bethlehem to accept one-way service as proposed by the com-
pany unless in addition to the regular Hellertown cars a special loop service
is installed for the north side of the river only. This might be done by the
running of one or two of the company's small cars on a continuous circuit
through Main Street, Church Street, New Street, Broad Street, Linden
Street and Elizabeth Avenue. In order to make this routing possible the
company would have to install a curve from the
from the Church Street track
northerly to connect with the northbound track in New Street.
A single car operating around this loop could maintain about a 20-
minute headway. This would not fit in with the 15-minute Hellertown
schedule, but if the latter were reduced to a 10-minute headway and two
local cars were operated around the loop a 5-minute one-way ser-
vice could be maintained that would be satisfactory from the public point
of view, but which at the present time would hardly be warranted by the
traffic. If it takes 20 minutes to go around the loop, local service will not
fit in with 15-minute service so as to give a regular schedule.. Under these
conditions it appears to me that the immediate remedy for irregular ser-
vice on this line is the installation of the switch on Main Street near Mar-
ket Street, with the retention of two-way operation around the loop under
improved conditions. Even then service will still be more or less irregular
until the obstructions on the Hellertown line south of the river have been
removed.
In its communication of March 7, 1918, to the City Commission the
Transit Company submitted a list of 27 car stops in the city of Bethlehem
which it characterized as unnecessary and proposed to eliminate if the
consent of the City was given. The determination of what the City's atti-
tude should be with respect to this request is a much less simple matter
than at first blush it would seem to be. A program for the elimina-
tion of car stops cannot be properly prepared merely by an examination of
a map and the measurement of distances thereon. Moreover, the fact that
the elimination of stops may be advantageous in one city under one set of
operating conditions, is no sure indication that it will be satisfactory in an-
other city under different operating conditions. The principal advantages
to be derived from the elimination of stops are: (a) the increase of speed,
and (b) the saving of power. The principal disadvantages arising out of
the elimination of stops are: (a) lengthening of the average distance which
the passenger must walk before reaching the car and after leaving it, and
(b) the increased annoyance of would-be passengers who miss their cars as
120
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
a result of not reaching the proper crossings in time. These disadvantages
constitute a reduction in service. From the standpoint of the company it
is particularly advantageous to eliminate stops on heavy grades, as through
the elimination of such stops there is a maximum saving of power, and a
marked lessening in the danger of operation at such points. On the other
hand, however, the saving in leg muscles is not to be considered as of no
account in comparison with the saving of electric current, and to eliminate
a stop on a long grade, thereby compelling large numbers of passengers
to walk considerable distances up and down hill in order to get car service,
is a very serious diminution of the service rendered, and in a city with the
characteristics of Bethlehem, where the local service now rendered is
comparatively scant, it is important not to reduce it unless absolutely
necessary. In the elimination of stops care should be taken to eliminate
the stops that are least used, not those that are most used. To illustrate
this point I call attention to the fact that the company proposes to elimin-
ate the three stops on Ettwein Street at its intersection with Linden Street,
New Street and Main Street respectively, while it proposes to retain the
stops on Laurel Street at its intersection with the same three streets. An
examination of the Population and Building map will show that Ettwein
Street is almost solidly built up all the way from Main Street to Linden
Street. In that distance (including the corners) it appears that no less
than 146 houses are located on this street between the limits mentioned,
whereas on Laurel Street in the same distance there are only 14 houses. In
the business district, where the traffic is heaviest, and where for obvious.
reasons the cars should operate at comparatively low speed, stops ought to
be more frequent than elsewhere unless frequent stops result in car
blockades. It should also be taken into consideration that the elimination
of a stop at the first block after a car has made a turn is a more serious
matter than would be the elimination of a stop at the same distance ou a
straight stretch of track where persons wishing to take a car would have
an opportunity to see it coming at a considerable distance away.
In connection with the car service in Bethlehem I have also been im-
pressed with the fact that the principal delays in car operation are not due
to an excessive number of stops for the taking on or letting off of passen-
gers, but rather to an excessive number of stops resulting from single
track operation, grade-crossing interferences and other causes which di-
minish rather than increase the amount of service rendered. Under such
circumstances it should be borne in mind that the stops and delays first
to be eliminated are not those which render service but those which hinder
service, and that from the standpoint of the development of traffic it is bad
policy to increase the handicaps of the traveling public to the extent that
the advantages of riding as compared with walking, which already are in
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
121
many cases very slight, will disappear entirely. Taking all these points in-
to consideration, I am prepared to make the following recommendations
with respect to the 27 stops which the company has listed for elimination.
Guetter Street on Broad:
Keep.
Municipal Building on Broad.
Keep.
Pine Street on Broad.
Eliminate.
Garrison Street on Linden.
Keep, unless schedule is increased to one car every five minutes.
Ettwein Street on Linden.
Keep unless schedule is increased to one car every five minutes.
Scott Avenue on Elizabeth Avenue.
Keep.
Grant Avenue on Elizabeth Avenue.
Eliminate.
Ettwein Street on Main.
Keep, unless schedule is increased to one car every five minutes.
Garrison Street on Main.
Keep, unless schedule is increased to one car every five minutes.
Cunow Street on Main.
Keep, unless schedule is increased to one car every five minutes.
Eagle Hotel on Main.
Eliminate and substitute a stop 100 feet farther south on the road
coming up from the rear of the hotel.
Chapel Street on Main.
Eliminate.
Cedar Street on Church Street.
Eliminate.
Bartow Street on Church Street.
Eliminate.
Wall Street on New Street.
Keep.
Cunow Street on New Street.
Eliminate.
122
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Garrison Street on New Street.
Keep.
Ettwein Street on New Street.
Keep.
With respect to the stops at Garrison and Etwein Streets on the Naz-
areth line, it should be observed that because the speed maintained
and the car earnings on the Nazareth line are already very high, a
reduction of service through the elimination of stops is not neccss-
ary.
Linden Street on East Third Street.
Eliminate.
Poplar Street on East Third Street.
Eliminate.
Cemetery Street on East Fourth Street.
Eliminate.
Oak Street on East Third Street.
Eliminate the two stops at South Oak and North Oak, and substitute
one on the south side of Fourth Street, midway between Oak Street
(south) and Oak Street (north).
University Place on West Fourth Street.
Eliminate.
Seminole Street on Broadway.
Eliminate this stop and substitute therefor a stop on the southeast
side of Broadway, midway between Bradley and Wyandotte Streets
for eastbound cars only; also substitute for the existing stop at
Dacotah Street and Broadway a stop on Wyandotte Street on the
near side of Dacotah Street for west bound cars only.
Freytag Street on Broadway.
Eliminate this stop, and also the stops at Jischke and Ontario Streets,
and substitute therefor a stop on Broadway, midway between Frey-
tag and Ontario Streets.
Alaska Street on Broadway.
Eliminate this stop and also the stop at Fiot Street and Broadway,
and substitute therefor a stop on Broadway, midway between Fiot
Street and Alaska Street.
Cherokee Street on Fiot Street.
Change this stop so that for traffic going in both directions the stop
shall be on the northwesterly side of Cherokee Street just above.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
123
the break in the grade. While the company desires to eliminate
this stop entirely on account of the bad grade, it is of service to a
large number of people and ought to be retained, particularly in
view of the fact of the double turn of the car out of Fiot Street into
Seneca Street going west, and out of Fiot Street into Broadway
going east. People coming to Fiot Street at Cherokee Street
would thereby suffer great inconvenience if they had to go 300 feet
up-hill to catch a car which they could not see coming around the
corner, or 400 feet down-hill under the same conditions.
The elimination of car stops is something of a fad just now. As a
measure for the conservation of fuel in the national interest, it should be
given due consideration, and for the
the time being doubts may
properly be resolved in favor of the elimination of stops. But this fact
should not be made the excuse for a reversal of fundamental street railway
policies. Street railways are for the people, not the people for the street
railways. The tendency to eliminate stops is a movement in the direction of
higher speed and that is a requisite of through service. On a system like
that of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company the tendency will be to neglect
local traffic outside of the home town and speed up the interurban service.
It is a serious question whether the Transit Company should be permitted
to maintain in West Bethlehem the extreme speeds now maintained by its
Easton and Nazareth Limited cars. So long as the city must depend to a
considerable extent on through cars for local service, they should be re-
quired to adapt themselves to some extent to local service conditions.
For example, the Easton and Nazareth Limited cars now make only three
stops in West Bethlehem, one at Tenth Avenue at the city line, one at
Sixth Avenue and one at Second Avenue. Complaints are persistent be-
cause these cars do not stop at Fourth Avenue the business and popula-
tion center of West Bethlehem. The existing stops are properly spaced
according to the map distances, but actual population and traffic condi-
tions seem to have been ignored in that connection. A study of the Popu-
lation and Building map will show that a stop at Fourth Avenue would
serve a great many more people conveniently than a stop at Sixth Avenue
does. Sixth Avenue is not open between Market Street and Prospect Av-
enue, so that the people living on Sixth Avenue south of Prospect Avenue
would naturally reach Broad Street by other routes. In the district from
Market Street north to the city-line, extending one-half of a full block on
either side of Sixth Avenue, there are about 58 houses. Even Seventh
Avenue within the same limits has 62, besides 48 more south of Market
Street. Fourth Avenue from the north city line to Prospect Avenue has
162 houses, with 58 more in the continuation of this district south of Pros-
pect Avenue. In my judgment the limited cars should make an addi-
124
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
tional stop in West Bethlehem, and I suggest that these stops be at Se-
cond, Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Avenues.
In my judgement, adequate local service cannot be furnished in Beth-
lehem until the Hill-to-Hill bridge and the various track and route exten-
sions recommended in this report have been completed. When these im-
provements have been made, the problem of car-routing will still be some-
what difficult on account of the irregular topography, the uneven distribu-
tion of population, the scattered business districts and the special traffic
requirements of the Steel Company. It may be advantageous then to in-
stall a local car line on Broad Street from the present western city limits
to Minsi Trail Street or perhaps even to some point on Newton Avenue
or Pembroke Road. That will depend on housing developments. It may
also prove desirable to install a two-way local loop service from the north
end of the Hill-to-Hill bridge north on Main Street, east on Broad Street,
north on Minsi Trail Street, north on Yeates Street, northwest and west
on Washington Avenue, south on New Street, West on Elizabeth Avenue
and south on Main Street to the bridge again. On the south side it may be
desirable to establish a local service from Gauff's Hill to the eastern limits
of Northampton Heights, using the Fourth Street single track with turn-
outs. Another line might be run from West Broad Street through Tenth
Avenue to the bridge, thence across the bridge to Third Street to the Steel
office, or perhaps to Minsi Trail bridge or even to Anthracite Street in
Northampton Heights. The Allentown-Bethlehem loop line should prob-
ably be split. Then the 20-minute cars operating on the north side from
Allentown would traverse Broad Street to Main Street, Main Street and
the Hill-to-Hill bridge to Third Street, and Third Street to the Steel Works
or a point further east, returning by the same route. The "10-minute"
cars coming in could continue east on Broad Street to New Street, then
south across the New Street bridge to Fourth Street and perhaps on to the
"Five Points" as at present, returning by the same route. This might
involve the ultimate double-tracking of Fourth Street, between Vine
Street and Wyandotte Street, in addition to the double-tracking already
recommended for the block from New Street to Vine Street. This service.
would have to be extended to the forenoon. Allentown-Bethlehem south
side cars could then come in by Broadway and Wyandotte Street to Third
Street at the southern end of the bridge and thence north across the bridge
to Main Street with the terminus of the line on Main Street at Broad
Street or on Broad Street at New Street. Or these cars could operate
by way of Fourth Street to New Street and thence north across the New
Street bridge and continuing on to a terminus at Broad and New Streets.
·
125
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
These routing suggestions are merely tentative. How the routing
of the cars would ultimately work out would depend largely upon future
traffic developments. The important thing now is to get the new track
facilities as quickly as possible so as to make a flexible system conveniently
reaching and binding together all the principal residence and business dis-
tricts.
126
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
VII. PRESENT SYSTEM OF FARES AND TRANSFERS WITH
RESPECT TO ITS EFFECT UPON LOCAL SERVICE PROB-
LEMS.
The fare and transfer systems of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company
and the Easton Transit Company within the Bethlehem zone are reasonably
liberal. From Third and New Streets, South Bethlehem, a person can
travel for a single five-cent fare, either by a direct route or by free transfer,
to the following points:
Butztown, via Freemansburg, 5 miles.
Hellertown, 434 miles.
South city line on Philadelphia Road (on South Bethlehem &
Saucon Street Railway), I mile.
Highland Park (just outside of South Allentown), via Fountain
Hill, 32/5 miles.
State Hospital, 3 4/5 miles.
North Bethlehem loop, 2 1/5 miles.
No. I Switch on Nazareth line in North Bethlehem, 24 miles.
Northeastern boundary of Edgeboro, 2 miles.
From Broad and New Streets, the one-fare zone extends to the follow-
ing points:
Hellertown, 5 2/5 miles.
Highland Park (just outside of South Allentown) via Fountain
Hill, 4 miles.
State Hospital, 3 1/8 miles.
North Bethlehem loop, I 3/5 miles.
Macada, 3 miles.
Freemansburg, via Butztown, 5 miles.
The fare zones are somewhat overlapping. For example, a person
boarding a car at the State Hospital will be carried for a single fare to No.
I switch on the Nazareth line, to Edgeboro on the Easton line, to Iron Hill
on the Hellertown line and to Fountain Hill on the south side of the Allen-
town-Bethlehem loop; while a person boarding a car at Tenth Avenue,
West Bethlehem, will be carried to Macada, Freemansburg, Hellertown
and Highland Park on these several lines. The inner and outer fare zones
are shown on Map No. 2, except that the transfer zone limit on the South
Bethlehem & Saucon Street Railway line is not shown. On that line a
single fare carries a passenger to Colesville, but a transfer from the Easton
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
127
Transit Company's South Bethlehem line is good only to the city limits.
The ride from the west city limits in West Bethlehem to Hellertown is about
six miles. It is about the same distance from Fountain Hill to Butztown
and about 62/3 miles from Highland Park to Freemansburg. The latter
appears to be the longest five-cent ride available in the Bethlehem district.
From Bethlehem, the fare to Centre Valley is 10 cents; to Allentown, 10
cents; to Nazareth, 15 cents, and to Easton, 20 cents.
Prior to June 1, 1918, the company sold monthly commutation books
as follows:
Allentown to Bethlehem and South Bethlehem, 50 rides, $2.50;
60 rides, $3.00.
Bethlehem to Nazareth, 50 rides, $5.00.
These commutation tickets were limited to the calendar month, and
were not good crossing the New Street bridge, for which supplementary
50-trip and 60-trip tickets were sold for 25 cents and 30 cents respectively,
to cover the toll charges of the New Street Bridge Company. For persons
paying cash fare the half-cent toll is paid by the Transit Company without
any extra charge to the passengers. The company's other commutation
rates from Allentown were as follows:
To Catasauqua
To Siegfried
To Coplay.
To Eagle Point
To Egypt.
To Emaus
To Emaus
•
•
•
•
•
•
54 trips, $2.50 per month.
54 trips, 2.70 per month.
54 trips,
2.70 per month.
54 trips,
3.50 per month.
•
.54 trips,
4.05 per month.
.50 trips,
2.50 per month.
54 trips,
2.70 per month.
•
50 trips,
2.50 per month.
6.00 per month.
To Jordan Bridge..
To Slatington .
•
• •
46 trips,
Trip tickets were not good on limited cars. The company's commuta-
tion receipts and the approximate number of monthly commuters between
Allentown and Bethlehem, and between Bethlehem and Nazareth for the
past five years ending November 30, are shown on Table IX, as follows:
.
128
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
TABLE IX. STATISTICS OF COMMUTATION FARES AND PAS-
SENGERS ON LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY'S
LINES ENTERING BETHLEHEM, PA., 1913 TO 1917.
ALLENTOWN TO BETHLEHEM
BETHLEHEM-NAZARETH
50-trip books
60-trip books
Average
number of
Average
number of
50-trip books
Average
number of
Year
Receipts
commuters
Receipts
commuters
Receipts
commuters
1913
$28,037.60
935
$1,282.30
36
$1,881.65
31
1914
29,061.50
969
1,047.70
29
1,747.95
29
1915
42,973.90
1,432
1,609.00 45
2,260.40
38
1916
70,651.85
2,355
3,445.50
96
4,428.15 74
1917
83,004.85
2,767
5,659.90 157
5,190.85 86
Five
years $253,729.70
1,692
$13.044.40
72
$15,509.00
52
On June 1, 1918, the company put into effect a new schedule of fares,
but this did not affect the fares and transfers in and about Bethlehem, ex-
cept as to commutation books. With respect to them rates were increased
to four cents per zone, which would raise 50-trip Allentown books from
$2.50 up to $4.00; 60-trip Allentown books from $3.00 up to $4.50, and the
50-trip Nazareth books from $5.00 up to $6.00. The company maintains
that the old commutation rates between Allentown and Bethlehem were un-
remunerative, as the average receipts for a car load of commuters were
actually less than the expense of running the car. My investigation has not
extended to the company's operating expenses and the cost of its service,
but I am disposed to accept as true the claim that on Bethlehem commuters
taken as a class the company lost money at the old rates. However this
may have been, the City of Bethlehem has no cause to complain of the re-
cent increase. Formerly, regular commuters got the equivalent of a five-
cent fare to Allentown, and this meant in practice that men working in the
Bethlehem industries could live in Allentown and have no more expense
for a car fare than if they lived in Bethlehem. While a city ought not to try
to erect a Chinese Wall around itself and prevent interurban communica-
tion and travel, there is no good reason why a premium should be offered to
induce workingmen to live in other towns. At the same time, if Bethlehem
is to keep its workers at home as far as possible, it will have to provide
housing acommodations for them. At times when there is a temporary
over-development of industry on a large scale in a particular community, it
may be cheaper in the long run, from the general public point of view, to
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
129
haul workers from a distance at low rates than to build houses for them near-
by. But such considerations cannot be expected to prevail except through
government intervention.
In a preceding section of this report and in Appendix "B" reference is
made to the number of employees of the Bethlehem Steel Company who
travel to and from their work by the steam railroads. The Steel Company's
census taken in February, 1918, showed 3,517 using the Lehigh Valley Rail-
road and 448 using the Philadelphia & Reading Railway. Figures furnished
to us by the railroad companies in February, 1918, showed 4,646 com-
muters in December, 1917, on the Lehigh and 581 in August, 1917, on the
Philadelphia & Reading. As the railroads' figures are larger than the Steel
Company's, it is probable that the latter's census data were not quite com-
plete. The important point for us here is to show the extent of the steam
railroad competition for the Steel Company commutation traffic, and the
rates under which this competition thrived. We have seen that the average
number of monthly commutation tickets between Allentown and Bethlehem
sold during 1917 by the Lehigh Valley Transit Company was about 2,924.
It is significant that during December, 1917, the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company sold 2,027 commutation tickets between the two cities, besides 98
others from Allentown to Redington and the Proving Grounds. The com-
mutation rate charged by the railroad was $2.70 for a 54-trip ticket and
$3.00 for a 60-trip ticket between Allentown and Bethlehem. This was
exactly the same rate per trip as that charged by the Transit Company. I
assume that General Order No. 28 of the Director General of Railroads in
effect as to passenger rates June 10, 1918, resulted in an increase of 10% in
the Bethlehem commutation rates on the steam roads. The Transit Com-
pany's increase in the Allentown-Bethlehem commutation rates in effect
June 1, 1918, was 60%. Under these conditions the steam railroad rates.
would be much lower: for example, $3.30 for a 60-trip book as against
$4.80 charged by the Transit Company. One should expect that a con-
siderable shifting of commutation traffic from the trolley lines to the Lehigh
Valley Railroad would result, and perhaps the indirect effect on the Transit
Company may be that a remunerative rate will cause it to lose more money,
through the loss of traffic, than an unremunerative one did formerly. The
developments should be carefully watched, as the public interests of Beth-
lehem may be affected by this unbalanced competition for commutation
traffic. The detailed figures as to the commutation rates and traffic on the
two steam roads serving the Steel Company's plants in Bethlehem and
vicinity, as furnished by the railroad companies themselves in February last,
are given in Appendix “G," accompanying this report.
9
130
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
In general, the system of street car fares and transfers in vogue in
Bethlehem seems liberal and not calculated to hinder rational community
development. The one important limitation on the transfer privilege is the
refusal of the company to give transfers from the Easton-South Bethlehem
line across the New Street bridge. This prevents the full use of the Easton
cars going west on Third Street past the Steel Works to New Street. In
the evening rush-hour it is advantageous to the steel workers to get to
Third and New Streets as quickly as possible in order to take advantage of
car accommodations on the regular Allentown-Bethlehem cars passing this
point, instead of depending entirely on the trippers. Conditions will be im-
proved when Third Street is double-tracked, so that cars going in both di-
rections can pass in front of the main gate of the Steel Company. But un-
less the Easton cars are turned back at this point, their capacity ought to
be available for carrying steel workers to New Street. In any case, the
transfers they issue ought to be good on other lines in any part of Bethle-
hem except where a return trip is involved. A system of transfers could
easily be devised that would prevent the people of Butztown and Freemans-
burg from joy-riding for a single fare around the loop made by the two
Easton lines with their connecting link-through the Butztown and Middle-
town division on the east and the New Street line on the west.
In my opinion a plan ought to be worked out by which the westbound Easton
cars would take on passengers anywhere from Anthracite Street (the Saucon
Gate) west to New Street and there transfer them without additional charge to
all points in Bethlehem, or within the first fare zone, except points on the Easton-
Bethlehem line beyond Edgeboro.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
131
VIII. THE REGULATION OF GENERAL STREET TRAFFIC IN
RELATION TO STREET CAR OPERATION.
In its communication to the City Commission dated March 7, 1918, the
Lehigh Valley Transit Company, after discussing the "elimination of un-
necessary stops," took up the "regulation of vehicular interference with car
operation." On this subject it said:
"In order to still further quicken the service and increase the
regularity of car operation, this company begs to suggest the ad-
visability of an ordinance prohibiting the 'dragging' of cars by
vehicles. Very serious delays due to failure on the part of vehicles
to give the right of way to street cars will be thereby avoided. It
is now well recognized that in the interest of the common good
vehicular traffic should give way to the cars in the use of the por-
tions of the streets occupied by the tracks, especially when the City
has provided ample improved paving on the sides of the streets for
use of vehicles. The company suggests the enacting of an ordi-
nance making it a misdemeanor to unduly interfere with the opera-
tion of cars, and begs to suggest that instructions be given to the
police to strictly enforce the proposed ordinance, in case it is en-
acted."
Last winter at the hearing before the City Commission in Allentown,
the company maintained that its service was being interfered with and its
schedules disorganized by vehicular traffic obstructions. This was said to
be especially noticeable during the severe weather when the snow was piled
up on the sides of the streets, and automobiles and horse-driven vehicles
found it convenient, if not necessary, to use the street car tracks almost ex-
clusively. Naturally, this condition prevailed to a marked degree on the
Bethlehem Pike (West Broad Street) between Bethlehem and Allentown.
With storms such as were experienced last winter, and with deep snow re-
maining on the ground for two or three months at a time, it will not be easy
to prevent vehicular interference with street car traffic on interurban lines
where no municipal authority is likely to expend the effort and money re-
quired to keep the snow cleared out of the roadways. Indeed, the City of
Bethlehem itself was extremely remiss last winter with respect to its most
congested traffic street. On East Third Street, between New Street and
the Steel Company's office, the snow and ice were piled up high on either
side of the roadway and vehicular traffic was forced to stick pretty closely
to the car track in order to get along at all. The snow and ice were con-
132
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
stantly being churned up and pushed back on the track, thus causing ad-
ditional interference with street car operation, particularly at the switches
at Third and New Streets. These conditions continued in Third Street for
about three months, and undoubtedly were to some extent responsible for
the bad car service.
Early in my investigation I asked the company to supply me with “a
statement, in as much detail as possible, of the number of noticeable delays
during the twelve months ending January 31, 1918, caused by the gates be-
ing down at grade crossings, particularly the crossing on New Street be-
tween Third and Fourth Streets, South Bethlehem, or by traffic obstructions
such as autos and other vehicles getting stalled on the tracks ahead of the cars."
I suggsted that this statement might be confined to operation within the
City of Bethlehem or on lines operated into or through Bethlehem, so that
the delays experienced had an effect upon the Bethlehem service, and fur-
ther stated that "if a complete record covering these matters is not avail-
able, then a statement as specific and in as much detail as possible covering
particular instances of traffic interruption should be given." In reply to
this request the company said that it was impossible to furnish the detailed
statement requested; that it had followed the practice of requiring con-
ductors to report the reasons for holdups or delays, but that it would in-
volve "tremendous labor” to analyze these reports. As a result of our re-
quest, however, the company put a checker on duty at the New Street grade
crossing and secured the records which I have already summarized with
respect to the amount of time during which the gates at this crossing were
closed, and the extent of the delays to which street cars were subjected
thereby. Moreover, the company stated that instructions had been given
to its motormen to report instances where the "dragging" of cars by
vehicles or other obstructions slowed up the service within the City of
Bethlehem, and that the results of these reports would be placed at my dis-
posal. However, no further information on this particular point was fur-
nished by the company, and I assume that with the passing of the severe
weather and the melting of the snow and ice street interferences of this sort
came practically to an end. Nevertheless, the difficulties of operation re-
sulting from vehicular obstructions in the winter time, when plenty of car
service and regular schedules are most important, is likely to recur again
under similar conditions, unless all practicable measures are taken to mini-
mize the trouble.
Grade crossings and car stops have been discussed to some extent in
previous sections of this report, but as these matters may properly be con-
sidered in connection with the general regulation of street traffic, I shall
summarize at this point the provisions of the South Bethlehem and Bethle-
hem ordinances relating thereto.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
133
By an ordinance approved October 15, 1900, the Borough of South
Bethlehem enacted that:
"No railroad company, nor any engineer, driver, conductor or
other person having control of the movement of any locomotive,
car, or train of cars, shall block or obstruct any street, crossing
any railroad at grade within the borough limits, by keeping such
locomotive, car, or train of cars at a standstill, or by passing to
and fro over said street crossing as aforesaid for a longer period of
time than three minutes at a time; after which opportunity shall be
given to all persons desiring to cross to do so."
This ordinance provided that any railroad company or individual vio-
lating its provisions should, if convicted, pay a fine of from $5 to $25 on
account of such violation. On the same day South Bethlehem passed an-
other ordinance, by which it was enacted that:
"Every railroad company whose tracks now cross at grade
any of the streets of the borough is hereby required, within fifteen
days after service of notice upon any such company so to do, to
erect, maintain and operate safety gates at the intersection of such
tracks and every street of the borough crossed by such tracks, and
every such railroad company is hereby required to operate such
safety gate or safety gates, both night and day."
The penalty for the violation of this ordinance was to be a fixed fine of
$50. So far as I have learned, these ordinances are still in effect, and the
City of Bethlehem is, therefore, in a position to punish by fine the Phila-
delphia & Reading Railway Company or its employees whenever the New
Street crossing is blockaded for more than three minutes at a time. It will
be remembered that in the 15-day check made by the Transit Company in
March, the gates were recorded as closed for as much as five minutes on
twenty-five different occasions, during the hours between six o'clock in the
morning and six o'clock at night. Evidently, if the provisions of the ordi-
nance were strictly enforced the interference with street car traffic at this
crossing would be considerably lessened, and at least until double tracks
are installed in South New Street, it is of the greatest importance from the
standpoint of the City as well as of the Transit Company that this crossing
should be clear for traffic, particularly during the evening rush-hour, when-
ever it is possible to have it clear. I am not informed as to whether the City
of Bethlehem or the Borough of South Bethlehem has made any serious
effort to enforce this ordinance, but until this grade crossing is eliminated,
or the main lines of street cars are routed some other way, the use of the
crossing by the railroad company should be kept under strict control.
134
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
The South Bethlehem traffic ordinance approved June 18, 1913, con-
tains certain provisions affecting street car operation. One is that when-
ever a vehicle meets or overtakes a street car which has stopped for the
purpose of taking on or discharging passengers, such vehicle shall not pass
the car on the side on which the passengers get on or off, until the car has
started on "and until any passengers who have alighted shall have gotten
safely upon the sidewalks." The ordinance also provides that no street
car shall pass another which has stopped for the purpose of taking on or
discharging passengers until such other car has started and any passengers.
who may have alighted have gotten safely off the tracks. Furthermore, this
ordinance requires all trolley cars to stop before crossing any of the follow-
ing intersections: Third and New Streets; Fourth and New Streets; Broad-
way and Dacotah Street; Fourth Street and Broadway; Second and New
Streets; Third and Poplar Streets; Third and Oak Streets; Third and
Cherry Streets, and Fourth and Cemetery Streets. A later section of the
ordinance provides that "all passenger cars shall be required to stop at the
near side of intersecting streets, when there are passengers to be taken on
or discharged therefrom." Apparently, this means not only that the stop
must be made on the near side of the street, but that it must be 1.ade at any
street no matter how unimportant, if passengers wish to get off there. At
the specific intersections listed above the cars are expected to stop anyhow,
whether or not passengers desire it.
Another section of this ordinance gives the street cars the right of way
on their tracks. It is couched in the following language:
"Street passenger cars shall have the right to the track as
against any person, vehicle or encumbrance put, driven or being
thereon which delays or embarasses the progress of the cars; and
no person or vehicle shall obstruct such track, or prevent the cars
from running or progressing thereon by placing, driving or stop-
ping, or causing to be placed, driven or stopped, any vehicle or
other obstacle in, upon, across, along or near such track, in the
way of any car, if there be an opportunity to turn out after being
notified by the ringing of the car bell. Provided, however, that
this section shall not apply to the temporary occupation of such
track by vehicles for the delivery or removal of property of any
description to or from the premises along the line of such track."
It will be noted that the proviso at the end of the section leaves the way
open for indefinite delays to street cars where vehicles are backed up to the
curb for loading or unloading any species of property. Certainly there
ought to be some specific limitation (say one or two minutes) upon the de-
lays that may be caused under such circumstances. The penalty for vio-
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
135
lating any of the provisions of the ordinance just described is a fine of from
$1 to $10 for the first offense, and of not more than $20 for each subsequent
offense. In default of payment the defendant may be imprisoned for not
less than twenty-four nor more than forty-eight hours.
Another South Bethlehem ordinance, approved August 4, 1915, regu-
lates the use and kind of headlights on trolley cars and motor vehicles. It
makes it unlawful for any person or company owning and operating any
such car to use on it "any light of such power or character or intensity as
to interfere with, obstruct or render useless for the time being the vision of
any person operating any trolley car, motor vehicle or horse-drawn vehicle
approaching from the opposite direction." If cars are equipped with lights
of this character their rays must be dimmed or extinguished within the
limits of South Bethlehem, but the ordinance left to the Burgess the dis-
cretion to suspend this provision with respect to certain streets on occasions
when it was deemed necessary that such lights be used.
The South Bethlehem ordinance approved September 13, 1917, relating
to the speed and parking of vehicles, has a certain bearing upon street rail-
way operation. I have strongly recommended in this report that Third
Street be double-tracked. In this connection it has been urged in some
quarters that the Third Street roadway is too narrow to be double-tracked
in view of the great amount of vehicular traffic which it is called upon to
accommodate. One of the most serious problems of the present time in
connection with the regulation of traffic and the utilization of roadways, is
the congestion caused by the parking of automobiles, which in recent years
have become so numerous. It is certainly impracticable to supply space in
busy traffic streets, with relatively narrow roadways, for the storage of auto-
mobiles in unlimited numbers and for indefinite periods of time. This fact
is recognized by the South Bethlehem traffic ordinance, by the terms of
which automobiles may not be left standing for over one hour on Third
Street between the western crossing and the eastern crossing of the Phila-
delphia & Reading Railway. Moreover, no automobile may be parked
within forty feet of any house line corner on Third Street between the same
limits, and parking on either side of New Street between Second and Fourth
Streets is prohibited. The ordinance further provides that no car shall be
parked on any street within twenty feet of a house line corner, or within
twenty feet of a fire plug, or in any block where there is a trolley turnout,
except beyond twenty feet from either end of such turnout. Another sec-
tion of this ordinance remedies to a certain extent the difficulty in the 1913
traffic ordinance to which I have referred. It provides that trucks or other
vehicles shall not be backed against the curb to load or unload except where
the construction of the vehicles or the nature of the goods to be handled
makes it "absolutely necessary;" and that the time allowed shall be the
136
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
amount "absolutely needed." This ordinance also contains a provision to
the effect that "vehicles must never pass trolleys on the left side, nor on the
side where passengers are getting on or off the cars, except it can be done
without encroaching on the Safety Zone." This provision covers in part a
subject already dealt with by a section of the traffic ordinance of 1913, and
insofar as the two are inconsistent, supersedes the 1913 act. It is not clear
whether or not the provisions of the later ordinance with respect to speed
relate to street cars. In its title the ordinance is described as one "regu-
lating the use, speed and parking of automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles,
wagons, carriages, street cars and all other vehicles," but the only provision
with respect to speed applies expressly to motor vehicles. It provides that
"no person shall operate a motor vehicle recklessly or at a rate of speed
greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard for the width, the
traffic and use of the street, or so as to endanger property or the life or limb
of any person, and under no condition shall a person drive a motor vehicle
at a greater speed than is permitted by the Act of Assembly regulating the
speed of motor vehicles." By this ordinance also "useless noises are abso-
lutely forbidden about schools and churches" and "cars must be under com-
plete control in blocks in which schools are located." It is not clear whether
these provisions were intended to apply to street cars.
The traffic ordinance of the Borough of Bethlehem was enacted in
August, 1912. Its provisions with respect to vehicles passing street cars,
and with respect to street cars being given the right of way, are substanti-
ally the same as the provisions of the South Bethlehem traffic ordinance.
An amendatory ordinance approved September 5, 1914, provides that “no
automobile, motor car, motor wagon, bicycle, tricycle, velocipede or vehicle.
of similar propulsion shall be propelled at a rate of speed exceding fifteen
miles an hour upon any street of this borough, and at no time shall a
vehicle be driven with a reckless or negligent disregard of the conditions
then obtaining and of the rights of others." Obviously, the old franchise
limitations upon the speed of street cars in South Bethlehem and in Bethle-
hem have either been superseded or else not enforced. I have not been
informed as to whether or not the provisions of the state law in regard to
motor vehicles relate to street cars and supersede the old franchise pro-
visions on the same subject. At any rate, the provisions in the old fran-
chise ordinance in the Bethlehems limiting the speed of street cars to three
or four miles an hour at all street intersections would now be considered
ill-advised and impracticable.
The Borough of Bethlehem evidently became dissatisfied with the pro-
visions of the original traffic ordinance with respect to the code of etiquette
prescribed for vehicles meeting or overtaking street cars in the streets. By
an amendatory ordinance approved March 28, 1917, this code was very
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
137
much elaborated. The new Section 8 enacted at this time contained the
following provisions:
"When a vehicle meets or overtakes a street passenger car,
which has stopped for the purpose of taking on or discharging
passengers, such vehicle shall not pass said car, until the car has
started and until any passengers who have alighted shall have
gotten safely upon the sidewalk. When a street passenger car
shall pass another street passenger car which has stopped for the
purpose of picking up or discharging passengers who have
alighted and are not safely off the track; and all cars with the ex-
ception of those at this time being operated as limited cars, shall
be brought to a full stop before crossing the intersection of the
street on which the car is running with any other street at the
present time established as a stopping point for the purpose of
allowing passengers to enter or leave the car, whenever there are
passengers desiring to board or alight from such car at any such
street intersections; and at Broad and Main Streets and Broad
and New Streets the cars, limited cars included, must be brought
to a full stop before crossing the street intersection, whether there
are passengers desiring to board or alight from the cars or not.
Except as otherwise herein provided for Broad and Main Streets
and Broad and New Streets, all cars at this time operated as
limited cars, shall hereafter be brought to a full stop to allow pas-
sengers to enter or leave the cars whenever there are passengers
to board or alight from the car, before crossing the intersection of
the street on which the car is running with Tenth, Sixth and
Second Avenues, Linden Street, Goepp Street and Elizabeth
Avenue which are hereby established as regular stopping points
for limited cars. All stops made by any car under this section of
this ordinance must be made so that the front end of the car at
rest will be at least twenty (20) feet behind the nearest building
line of the street, intersecting the street on which the car is run-
ning at the place where the stop is made; no car shall hereafter be
permitted to stop for the purpose of taking on or discharging pas-
sengers at any street intersection other than the first approached
(near side intersection) as contemplated by this section or at any
place between street intersections not herein authorized, and im-
mediately after crossing any intersecting streets all conductors in
charge of cars shall clearly announce to the passengers riding on
the car in a tone of voice clearly audible in any portion of their car
the names of the intersecting streets at which the car will next ar-
rive. All conductors in charge of cars being operated as limited.
138
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
cars shall announce to the passengers riding on their car at every
stopping point in a clear tone of voice, plainly audible in any por-
tion of the car, the fact that their car is being operated as a limited
car. No car arriving at Broad and Main or Broad and New
Streets ahead of the schedule time established by the company.
operating the car for such arrival, shall leave either of said points
before the time fixed by the schedule of such company for the ar-
rival or departure of such car, and in no event shall any car be per-
mitted to remain on that portion of Broad Street between Main
Street and the eastern end of the Broad Street bridge for a greater
period than two minutes. Any street passenger car having or
using Broad Street at Main Street as its terminal or not going
across the Broad Street bridge shall in no event be allowed to
cross Main Street to West Broad Street. All street passenger cars
while using or occupying the streets of the borough shall con-
spicuously display lighted lamps at the front and rear, from one
hour after sun down to one hour before sun rise, but all such
lighted lamps shall be dimmed within the limits of the borough. It
shall be unlawful to allow street passenger cars to stand parallel to
each other at any point in the borough. Operators in charge of
street passenger cars shall give due notice to the public of the ap-
proach of their cars towards any street intersection or street cross-
ing by sounding a gong at a point approximately fifty (50) feet
away from the street intersection or street crossing being ap-
proached.
"No street passenger car shall be operated from either North
or South Main Streets into East or West Broad Street, except over
the curve laid at the southeast corner of Broad and Main Streets;
nor shall any street passenger car be operated from either East or
West Broad Street into North or South Main Street, except over
the curves laid at the northeast and southwest corners of Broad
and Main Streets, Provided, that the provisions of this section so
far as they relate to the stopping of cars, shall not apply to special
passenger cars which are so marked, except at Broad and Main
Streets and Broad and New Streets."
A further provision in this ordinance not found in the South Bethlehem
ordinances is to the effect that "any vehicle or automobile carrying
materials or merchandise projecting more than 18 inches from or over its
sides or rear must give notice of such projecting merchandise by displaying
from the projecting ends thereof a red flag or other red danger signal.'
Furthermore, this ordinance provides that where vehicles have backed to the
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
139
curb for the purpose of loading or unloading, this operation shall be carried
on "with all possible dispatch, and a failure to load or unload within the
time actually required" shall subject the offender to the penalties prescribed
by the ordinance for wilfully obstructing traffic. The penalty is a fine of
from $5 to $10 with the alternative of imprisonment for not less than 24 nor
more than 48 hours.
Obviously, traffic regulations are more urgently required in proportion
to the density of traffic and the narrowness of the streets. If it becomes
necessary to install street car tracks in roadways which are so narrow as to
leave little room for the passage of other vehicles on either side, parking
must be strictly limited, if not entirely forbidden, at these points. Ordi-
nances enacted for the regulation of railroad operation at grade crossings
must be consistently enforced. Traffic regulations intended to facilitate
street car operation and the movement of vehicular traffic should be made
to apply uniformly throughout the city, where like conditions prevail.
Every effort should be made by the traffic police officers to inform the
general public as to the nature of the traffic regulations which are in force.
The street cars should have the right of way over the street car tracks;
otherwise it will be impossible for the Transit Company to maintain regular
headways, and the penalty will fall upon the car-riding public in the shape.
of poorer service. In narrow roadways it may be necessary to limit the
width of vehicles that may be used, and certainly of the loads that may be
carried on them. The existing ordinance provisions with respect to the
"dragging" of street cars should be made uniform and enforced as strictly
as circumstances will permit, and especially the City should undertake to do
its share in facilitating traffic on busy streets by keeping the snow and ice
cleared away in the winter. This last requirement, as I have already pointed
out, applies with particular force to Third Street in South Bethlehem,
140
Report on thE TRANSIT PRoblems of
IX. THE RELATION OF AUTO-BUS SERVICE TO THE EXPAN-
SION OF STREET RAILWAY FACILITIES AND THE IM-
PROVEMENT OF TROLLEY SERVICE.
The
Last winter, when street car service conditions in Bethlehem were
so bad and the Lehigh Valley Transit Company alleged that it did not
have a sufficient number of cars available for the traffic, the Bethlehem
Steel Company promoted an experimental bus line. Two cars were oper-
ated for several weeks from the Steel office by way of Third Street, North-
ampton Avenue, Brodhead Avenue, River Street, the old covered bridge,
and Main Street to Broad Street, from which point one car went west to
Tenth Avenue, West Bethlehem, and the other east to Linden Street and
Elizabeth Avenue. These cars were operated without a certificate of pub-
lic convenience from the Public Service Commission, but as they were.
marked "For Bethlehem Steel Company Employes" and did not cater to
general traffic, they were not publicly interfered with. The Transit Com-
pany requested the Steel Company to take them off, and as their operation.
under the restrictions observed was not particularly profitable, operation
was later discontinued. On March 2, I rode on one of these buses from the
Steel office to West Bethlehem and back to Broad and Main Streets. This
was on a Saturday. Both buses left the Steel office at 12:33 noon.
one I rode on had eight passengers and made the trip to Tenth Avenue
in 12 minutes. On the way out, one of the passengers remarked to
another that he would rather pay 10 cents at any time for such a ride than
a nickel for a ride on street cars. On this trip no questions were asked
as to employment by the Steel company, and evidently anybody was wel-
come to ride who was ready to pay a nickel. The other bus had a much
heavier load as it left the Steel office. These two buses were nice-looking
cars, with a comfortable capacity of 12 or 14 passengers, in addition to the
driver and the boy conductor, but they were sometimes overcrowded,
carrying loads of 20 or more, with some of them hanging on outside.
Those who had to stand certainly were less comfortable, except pos-
sibly in their imaginations, than those who have to stand in street cars
with the same proportionate excess of passengers as compared with seats.
One advantage of the jitney is its freedom of movement which gives the
passengers the impression that they are getting home quickly. Jitneys
are not subject to being blockaded by stalled cars ahead and single track
delays. Yet the actual average jitney speed is not so much greater than
the speed of the street cars as a casual observation would lead one to be-
lieve. In an investigation of traffic conditions in Newark, N. J., where 200
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
141
jitney buses operate in competition with the street cars, a test of relative
speeds and comforts of travel on competing lines was made early in May
of this year. This showed that the jitney on the average took 16 2-3 per
cent less time than the street cars to make the same trips. In other words
the jitney went 20% faster. This is considerable, but one would think
that the observed discomforts of jitney travel would make people prefer
the street cars, even at the loss of a few minutes' time per trip. But this
does not seem to be the case. I estimated that the Newark jitneys were
taking in about $700,000 a year, and the Public Service Railway Company
put the figure at $1,000,000 as a minimum for the communities served by
its lines, including Newark. My observations there showed that the
jitneys were on the average more crowded than the street cars, and that
they took a larger proportion of the non-rush hour traffic. It is notorious
that wherever they operate they get a larger proportion of the short-haul
than of the long-haul traffic. Thus the deadliness of their competition
with the street cars is accentuated in two important respects.
All over the country, the street railway companies have been loudly
complaining of increased costs of service and multiplying financial troub-
les. Automobile and jitney competition is undoubtedly responsible in large
measure for the weakened condition of the street railways, which has
made it difficult for them to meet the increasing expenses of war times with-
out increased rates. On the other hand, increased rates tend to drive
traffic away and stimulate the competition which was partly responsible
for the demand for higher rates. The jitney and the automobile present
one of the most serious public utility problems with which the American
people has ever had to deal. Just as we are coming to recognize the mo-
nopoly character of local transit service and to subject it to public regulation
on that ground, a new form of competition has developed, which, unless
checked, will necessarily lead to a radical change in public policy. Shall
we go on with regulation, endeavoring to make each public utility a bene-
ficent monopoly, affected with a public interest and subjected more and
more to public control and public protection, or shall we go back to com-
petition and let each utility be a speculative enterprise with no enforcible
obligations to the public except those dictated by the chance of financial
profit? It is fundamental that the state cannot permanently regulate
a utility as a monopoly, if as a matter of fact it is not one, but is a specula-
tive competitive enterprise. Playing with the jitney is playing with fire. Fire
is very useful if controlled and used, but it is a poor element to be turned
loose in a community.
In Pennsylvania jitneys are recognized as common carriers, subject
to regulation by the Public Service Commission. Just how such regula-
tion can be effected in a way to protect the street railways from financial
142
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS of
disaster and at the same time let the jitneys live, is a serious question. In
New Jersey and Massachusetts the jitneys have not hitherto been recog-
nized as common carriers, but by an act of 1918 they have been brought
under state regulation in Massachsetts. The special Street Railway
Investigation Commission of the Massachusetts Legislature in its report
dated February 1, 1918, estimated that private automobiles keep traffic
away from the street cars which would yield $5,000,000 additional revenue
each year in Massachusetts. That is about 12% of the present gross
revenues of the street railways. With respect to jitneys the commission
had this to say:
"The jitney operates in the same general territory as the
street railway, picking off the cream of the traffic (such as the
short-haul business), operating in many cases only under favor-·
able weather conditions, and often without a bond to protect
either the pedestrian or the passengers in case of accidents."
Massachusetts will try regulation, but in some communities in the
West, it has been deemed best to adopt regulatory measures that are in
effect prohibitive. Last year Dr. Adam Shortt, a well-known Canadian
authority, was appointed by the government of British Columbia as special
commissioner to investigate the economic conditions and operations of
the British Columbia Electric Railway Company, operating in Vancouv-
er, and "to decide definitely as to the possibility of street car service being
maintained in competition with the jitneys," Dr. Shortt, answering this
question in the negative, said:
"The urban and interurban street railway business, as proved
by long and wide experience cannot be conducted upon a basis
of free competition. It is a public utility and as such essentially
a natural monopoly, to be conducted on well-recognized princi-
ples as a united service, the various portions furnishing mutual
support. In the case of public utilities free competition has
never proved a permanent protection to public interests: quite
the reverse."
He then recommended a public utility commission as "the only prac-
ticable safeguard for the general interest." The City of Winnipeg, Mani-
toba, where about 200 jitneys were operating prior to May 1, 1918 has
since that time taken steps to abolish the jitneys entirely in connection
with an agreement with the street railway company binding the latter
to render improved and adequate service. The street railway company
itself will have the right, with the consent of the council, to operate a sys-
tem of motor buses, but the bus service is to be supplementary to the
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
143
street railway service "as a temporary means of giving the public ade-
quate facilities." In New Jersey, the Public Service Railway Company
has instituted a bus service to furnish transit facilities from Port Newark
to a connection with the company's street railway lines. In San Fran-
cisco the City operates a bus service connected with the Municipal Rail-
way and acting as a feeder to it from districts where no trolley lines have
yet been installed. Massachusetts has just passed an act authorizing
street railway companies to operate under commission control "motor
vehicles not running upon rails or tracks."
The questions for Bethlehem are these: Does the auto-bus offer pos-
sibilities of supplementary service which the street cars cannot render? and
if so, by whom shall the service be rendered? Unrestricted competition
is not to be thought of in Bethlehem, even though the buses were able to
get the consent of the state commission. If jitney buses are to be used in
Bethlehem, they must not closely parallel street car routes, but must
operate into those sections where car lines have not yet been built. For
example, at the present time a bus line might operate over the Minsi Trail
bridge and up through East Bethlehem. Or a line might operate from
the vicinity of the Calypso school in West Bethlehem east on Spring Street,
reaching Broad at Second Avenue or First Avenue to enable it to get
across the Broad Street bridge into the heart of the business district on
the north side, or else by Conestoga Street to South Main Street and
thence across the Temporary bridge to South Bethlehem. Or perhaps a
line might be operated to a terminus in the thickly-populated portion of
South Bethlehem south of Fourth Street and east of Lehigh University.
In view of the present limited street car track facilities and the inevitable
delay in getting the extensions and double-tracking needed, I am inclined
to believe that a supplementary bus service would be warranted, especially
in the winter months. In this connection it should be remembered that
12,000 people a day now walk across the river by way of the three
bridges. However, a bus service ought not to be rendered as a separ-
ate competitive enterprise. I do not believe that jitneys can operate
profitably from the point of view of private owners, if they are subjected.
to the restrictions which to me seem proper and necessary. Therefore,
the bus service must either be rendered by the Transit Company itself
under public regulation, in which case transfers should be exchanged with
the street cars, or by the Bethlehem Steel Company as a semi-public
means of conveying some of its employees to and from their homes, or by
the City of Bethlehem as a municipal enterprise. The City could adjust
the operation of the buses to the needs of traffic and could stand a loss, if
that were deemed necessary, in order to render the supplementary service re-
quired. The fact that the City would be in a position to compete, if neces-
144
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
sary, or to replace or supplement the street car service in an emergency,
would be a powerful inducement to the Transit Company to modify its inter-
urban attitude and manifest a continuing interest in Bethlehem's local tran-
sit problems. Until the major trolley improvements recommended in this re-
port can be carried out, I am of the opinion that a supplementary bus ser-
vice should be provided for, ready to be put into active operation in an
emergency such as arose last winter. One unfortunate handicap of such
service is the tolls charged on the New Street bridge and the Minsi Trail
bridge. These charges will operate, as long as they are permitted to re-
main, as a discouragement to bus service and a financial handicap which
may mean failure where otherwise moderate success would be possible.
In any case, so long as the City is not prepared to “throw over" the Lehigh
Valley Transit Company entirely, it ought not to authorize or permit unrestricted
jitney competition with the street cars, but rather should manage the jitney bus as
a supplementary means of transit, or at the most as a potential competitor under·
public direction.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
145
X. THE FINANCIAL BURDENS OF THE TRANSIT COMPANY
IN THE WAY OF BRIDGE TOLLS, SPECIAL TAXES, CAR
LICENSES, ETC.
I have already pointed out the provision of the Bethlehem and South
Bethlehem franchises, with respect to pole and wire license taxes, car license
fees and annual compensation payments for the use of the streets. These
provisions are quite numerous, but not very oppressive. The company's
local franchises are considered in financial circles, as represented by
Moody's Manual, to be free from burdensome conditions. From the com-
pany's income statements as given in its annual reports we get the follow-
ing facts with respect to the taxes paid by the company during the past
five years:
Total
operating
revenue
Total
taxes
Percentage of revenue
required for taxes
Year ended
Nov. 30
1913
$ 1,842,441 97
$ 77,524 82
4.2
1914
1,869,005 69
97,961 58
5.2
1915
2,056,875 44
73,551 87
3.6
1916
2,471,871 93
84,445 65
3.4
1917
2,875,073 82
104,173 86
3.6
5 years
$11,115,268 85
$437,657 78
3.9
That these percentages of gross revenues paid out for taxes are rela-
tively low, will be seen by a comparison of the figures with those for typi-
cal street railway companies in other parts of the country. For example, all
the street railways of New York City combined paid 7.2% of their gross oper-
ating revenues during the fiscal year 1917, in taxes; the Public Service Raii-
way Company of New Jersey, paid 8.3%; the Bay State Street Railway
Company of Massachusetts, 6.1%; the Boston Elevated Railway Com-
pany,5.7%; the Cleveland Railway Company, 6.3%; the Kansas City Rail-
ways, 6.4%; the Union Traction Company of Indiana, 4.7%; the Des
Moines City Railway Company, 6.1%; the Twin City Rapid Transit Com-
pany (Minneapolis and St. Paul) 9%; and the Virginia Railway and Power
Company (Richmond, Norfolk, etc.) in 1916, 7.2%. I have not had an op-
portunity to analyze the company's tax statements, or to ascertain the
amounts it spends from year to year for paving. But the figures given are
sufficient to show that the company is not heavily burdened with public
10
146
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
charges as compared with other street railway companies. The real bur-
den to which it is subjected is the payment of tolls for the use of bridges.
In Allentown the bridge over the Little Lehigh is supposed to have cost
about $500,000. The investment was in reality made by the Lehigh Valley
Transit Company, which owns the stock and guarantees the bonds of the
Allentown Bridge Company. I have not ascertained to what extent the
bridge is a source of expense to the Transit Company. But in Bethlehem,
the Transit Company has to pay a toll of ½ cent for every street car pas-
senger carried across the New Street bridge, and it recoups itself only in
in case of commuters. The toll-bill is about $60 per day, which is the
equivalent of 1200 five-cent fares, or approximately 10% of the revenues
derived by the Transit Company within the Bethlehem fare zone from pas-
sengers crossing the bridge. Just how much of this amount is recovered
from commuters, I do not know, but since the number of employees report-
ed by the Steel Company as coming to work by the north side of the
Allentown-Bethlehem loop from points west of the State Hospital is 1324,
I should not think that the Transit Company would be able to get back
more than $12 or $15 of the $60 per day that it pays for New Street bridge
tolls.
The increasing importance of the New Street bridge in the Transit
Company's business is shown by the rapid increase during the past five
years in the number of street car passengers carried across the bridge.
The figures are given on Table X as follows:
TABLE X. STREET CAR TRAFFIC OVER NEW STREET
BRIDGE, BETHLEHEM, PA., 1913 TO 1917, INCLUSIVE.
Passenger
tolls paid to
New Street Bridge Co
$ 9,456 94
9,587 35
II,IOI 04
Calendar
year
1913
Number of street car
passengers crossing bridge
1,891,388
Increase over
preceding year
1914
1,917,470
1.4%
1915
2,220,208
15.7%
1916
3,294,453
48.4%
16,472 26
1917
3,876,589
17.7%
19,382 95
Five Years
13,200,108
$66,000 54
Total increase from 1913 to 1917, 104.4%.
The number of street car passengers crossing the bridge varies con-
siderably from month to month. It is greatest in August, with the June,
July and September traffic following close behind. This summer increase
is doubtless accounted for principally by the travel to Central Park. It
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
147
has been suggested that the Steel workers ride more in the severe winter
weather than at other times; but if this is true the summer decrease caused
by this fact is more than made up by increases in other traffic. For exam-
ple, the number of street car passengers crossing the New Street bridge in
December, 1917 was 294,953 and the number in January, 1918, was 272,095,
as compared with 371,448 in June, 377,365 in July, and 367,449 in Septem-
ber, 1917. The monthly fluctuations of this traffic from December 1, 1912,
to January 31, 1918, are given in detail in Appendix "H" attached to this
report.
I am not informed as to original cost or the maintenance and opera-
ting expenses of the New Street bridge, but I am clearly of the opinion that
the street railway company upon which the city is dependent for a vital
public service ought not to have to pay $20,000 a year for the privilege of
carrying passengers from Bethlehem to Bethlehem. As the New Street
Bridge Company refused to furnish us with statistics as to the traffic across
the bridge and as to its toll revenues, and as investigation showed that the
Pennsylvania Public Service Commission, though clothed with power since
1913 to regulate toll bridge companies, had not yet gotten around to re-
quire them to file reports, I was compelled to depend upon the figures.
given me by the Transit Company and upon my own observations and the
traffic count taken on June 3, 1918. The bridge company's schedule of
charges as posted above the toll house window is as follows:
"New Street Bridge Company.
Bethlehem, Pa.
Tariff of tolls, issued May 20, 1915.
For cattle-one cent per head for each crossing.
For each foot passenger or bicycle one cent for each crossing.
For motor cycles-two cents for each crossing.
For crossing of teams or riders-five cents for each horse.
For automobiles-five, ten and fifteen cents for each crossing according to
size of car and number of seats in car.
For motor trucks, traction engines and road rollers-five cents for each.
1000 pounds whether by truck itself or load or both, as estimated by
the collector. Motor trucks, traction engines and road rollers exceed-
ing 5000 pounds in weight cross at their own risk.
Tariff for Lehigh Valley Transit Company-By articles of agreement be-
tween the New Street Bridge Company and the Lehigh Valley Tran-
sit Company dated July 2, 1910, the Transit Company is required to
pay one-half cent for every passenger carried across the bridge between
Bethlehem and South Bethlehem and ten cents for every car other
than passenger car moved by the Transit Company across the bridge.
148
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
The Transit Company is forbidden to move any car across the bridge
whose live load will exceed 80,000 pounds. This contract is good for
20 years commencing January 20, 1912.
W. E. Doster, President."
I was informed that the toll for a runabout with only one seat was
five cents; for a two-seated car, 10 cents; and for all larger automobiles,
15 cents. It does not appear that many vehicles use this bridge. The
count on June 3 was 322 as against 3924 crossing the temporary bridge
on June 5. At the same time the number of pedestrians was 4477 and the
number of street car passengers was 11,710 according to our count. Eleven
street cars not carrying passengers crossed the bridge. The Bridge com-
pany does not keep its toll house open during the wee small hours of the
night from about midnight till along towards 5 o'clock in the morning, and
thus it happens that a few pedestrians and vehicles get across without
paying toll, but the number is very small. I estimate that the Bridge Com-
pany's income from tolls on June 3, 1918 was approximately as follows:
From pedestrians
From vehicles other than street cars..
From street cars not carrying passengers
From street cars carrying passengers...
Total ..
$ 44 00
30 00
I IO
58 55
...$133 65
At this rate, counting Sundays as half days, the revenues of the New
Street Bridge Company from tolls would be about $45,300 a year. What
the public thinks of the toll bridge business is clearly shown by the com-
parative figures for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the New Street
bridge and the Temporary bridge. The bridge traffic counts were delayed
until after the old covered bridge was shut off and the Temporary bridge
substituted for it, so that we have no recent count of traffic on the old
bridge. But general observation does not warrant the conclusion that the
opening of the Temporary bridge has taken much traffic away from the
New Street bridge. Everybody who could, used the old covered bridge
utterly unmindful of the danger signs which, as I am informed, have been
posted on it and at the intersection of Third and Wyandotte Streets for
quite a number of years past. In fact, it looked to me as if traffic over
the old bridge had been stimulated by the warnings. At the north and
south ends of the bridge the legends were as follows:
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
149
"NOTICE-This bridge is unsafe. All persons using it do
so at their own risk. All motor vehicles are forbidden to use
this bridge."
"DANGER-Great care must be exercised in using this
bridge. (Signed) Commissioners of Lehigh and Northampton
Counties."
At Third and Wyandotte Streets, the warning was as follows:
"NOTICE-Covered bridge is dangerous. Motor vehicles
prohibited."
It certainly is a matter for comment that 6384 pedestrians and 3924
vehicles should brave dangerous grade crossings or make their way through
difficult approaches for the sake of getting across the river on a free
bridge, when only 4477 pedestrians and 322 vehicles use a toll bridge so
well located as the New Street bridge is. Persons who come from com-
munities where bridges are free have an instinctive feeling that the collec-
tion of bridge tolls is a species of highway robbery. This is especially true
of pedestrians who meet the toll-collector as they are about to walk off a
bridge.
One of the difficulties in the way of the extension of street car opera-
tion to the Minsi Trail bridge is the tolls that would have to be paid. The
Bridge Company and the Transit Company have been in negotiation for
a long time, and the contract for the use of the bridge in the latest draft
that I have seen calls for a minimum annual payment of $2,500 by the
Transit Company whether or not it uses the bridge, and a maximum an-
nual payment of $25,000. Between these limits a toll of 3-8 of a cent is to
be paid for every street car passenger carried across the bridge, with a min-
imum charge of 10 cents for every passenger car and a flat charge of 10
cents for other cars. The term of the contract is 20 years as in the case
of the Transit Company's contract for the use of the New Street bridge,
but under the Minsi Trail bridge contract the financial terms may be ad-
justed by mutual agreement or by arbitration on January 1, 1923, or any
year thereafter. In case of a readjustment the maximum annual payment
by the Transit Company is to be 5% upon the estimated cost of construct-
ing a sufficient trolley bridge within one-half mile, up or down the river
from the Minsi Trail bridge, plus depreciation charges and cost of main-
tenance of such a bridge. The Transit Company, under this agreement
would have to maintain the existing track on the bridge and also maintain
the roadway between the rails and for two feet on either side of the track.
Of course, it is not to be expected that bridge companies will patriotically
permit people or street cars to use their bridges for nothing so long as the
150
Report on tHE TRANSIT Problems of
investment remains private. But this does not alter the fact that the
bridge tolls seriously affect all plans for street railway development in Beth-
lehem as well as plans for a bus system. It is no wonder that the Lehigh
Valley Transit Company came forward with a big subscription for the Hill-
to-Hill bridge, and, indeed, it could doubtless afford to contribute further
to the project for the elimination of the West Third Street grade crossing,
but it is not in accordance with the most enlightened theory of street rail-
way service that a company should be compelled to pay toll for using high-
way bridges, or should have to contribute large sums of money to help
in their construction. It is true that there are many more or less conflict-
ing interests to be taken into considertion, and that ideal policies cannot
always be applied in particular cases, but the idea that I wish to convey is
that the policy of heaping financial burdens on street railway companies on
the theory that they are getting rich exploiting the public is an objection-
able one and quite inconsistent with the theory of public service regula-
、tion.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
151
XI. SUGGESTIONS AS TO PROPER MUNICIPAL POLICIES
WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE FRANCHISES, CONTINUOUS
REGULATION, STREET PLANNING, AND OTHER VITAL
MATTERS AFFECTING TRANSIT.
Every city ought to have a well-defined franchise policy. The public
interests are too vitally concerned in the development of local transit
facilities to warrant neglect or haphazard treatment. One of the weak-
nesses of American democracy has been the failure to exercise foresight,
and the lack of vigorous initiative on the part of city governments, al-
though the demand for foresight and initiative in municipal affairs is im-
perative. The adoption of the commission form of government and the
recognition that municipal functions are technical and important, requir-
ing both intelligence and special training for their proper performance,
are preparing the way for the formulation of definite policies and permanent
progress looking far beyond the terms of office of the individual mayors
and commissioners who happen to hold official positions at any given time.
City government itself is a continuous function. It cannot run for two or
four years and then stop. Likewise, public utilities are continuous func-
tions. A street railway, once started, goes on and is enlarged as the com-
munity grows. At least that is the usual and normal development. It be-
comes a matter of vast importance, therefore, that where cities have
started out blindly or haphazard in their relations to utilities, particularly
transit systems, without any adequate recognition of the continuity of the
function or of the necessity for its continuous development, an adjust-
ment of franchise conditions should be made and the whole matter gotten
upon a sound basis. This is often a difficult thing to do, as a wrong start
is a severe handicap. But the problem is not a temporary one. It is to
be assumed that the street cars will stay for an indefinite period, or that
if they are to be replaced, a new system of transit will be developed out
of the present one by evolutionary processes. The future is longer than
the past at least we hope so.
In this connection I call atention to the following brief statement of
fundamental purposes which the Committee on Municipal Program of the
National Municipal League has formulated in connection with its draft of
franchise sections for a model city charter:
152
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
"The public utility and franchise policy, embodied in a model
city charter should be so formulated as to conserve and further
the following purposes:
"I. To secure to the people of the city the best public util-
ity service that is practicable.
"II. To secure and preserve to the city as a municipal cor-
poration the fullest possible control of the streets and of their
special uses.
"III. To remove as far as practicable the obstacles in the
way of the extension of municipal ownership and operation of
public utilities, and to render practicable the success of such own-
ership and operation when undertaken.
"IV. To secure for the people of the city public utility rates
as low as practicable, consistent with the realization of the three
purposes above set forth.
"It should be no part of such policy to secure compensation
for franchises or special revenues for general city purposes by an
indirect tax upon the consumers of public utility services.
"In formulating a policy to carry out the four purposes
above stated the following principles should be recognized:
"1. Each utility serving an urban community should be
treated as far as practicable as a monopoly with the obligations
of a monopoly; and its operation within the city should be based
as far as practicable upon a single comprehensive ordinance or
franchise grant uniform in its application to all parts of the city
and to all extensions of plant and service.
"2. Every franchise should be revocable by the city upon
just compensation being paid to its owners, when the city is pre-
pared to undertake public ownership.
"3. The control of the location and character of public utili-
ty fixtures, the character and amount of service rendered and the
rates charged therefor should be reserved to the city, subject to
reasonable review by the courts or a state utilities commission
where one exists.
"4. The granting and enforcement of franchises and the
regulation of utilities operating thereunder should be subject to
adequate public scrutiny and discussion and should receive full
consideration by an expert bureau of the city government estab-
lished and maintained for that purpose, or in case the main-
tenance of such bureau is impracticable, by an officer or com-
mittee designated for the purpose.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
153
"5. Private investments in public utilities should be treated
as investments in aid of public credit and subject to public control,
and should be safeguarded in every possible way and the rate of
return allowed thereon should be reduced to the minimum return
necessary in the case of safe investments with a fixed and substan-
tially assured fair earning power."
As the general purpose and principles of franchise policy above set
forth meet with my earnest approval, I shall consider their applicability to
the concrete situation with which Bethlehem is now confronted.
special difficulties immediately suggest themselves:
Several
I. The principal local street railway lines are part of a large interurban
system passing through many municipalities and operated by two technic-
ally independent companies.
2. The city limits of Bethlehem are narrower than the boundaries of
the urban district within which local transit service should be operated and
controlled as a unit.
3. The existing franchises are perpetual.
4. The City's jurisdiction over the street routes essential to a local
transit system is limited by the existence of the privately owned toll bridges
over the Lehigh River.
5. The extent of the City's jurisdiction over the construction and use
of the proposed Hill-to-Hill free bridge is undetermined and doubtful.
6. The control of grade crossings and their elimination, including the
assessment of the costs incident thereto, is not vested in the City but in a
state commission.
7. As yet the city has no developed and adopted city plan.
8. The immediate and pressing requirements of the local situation as
created by the war do not admit of the long delay likely to ensue in case
the City opens negotiations with the Transit Company for a complete re-
adjustment of existing franchise conditions in connection with a program
of future development and then undertakes to secure the legislation and
consents of state authorities which may be necessary before such an ad-
justment could become effective and such a program be carried out.
9. The City has insufficient authority under the constitution and laws
of Pennsylvania to deal with the local street railway problem in a thor-
oughly comprehensive and far-reaching manner.
10. The Lehigh Valley Transit Company and the Easton Transit
Company have placed their property and franchise in and about Bethlehem
under various mortgages and have entangled themselves in a complicated
system of intercorporate relations, with the result that it might be very
difficult to find and get into negotiation with the persons who could deal in
an authoritive way on behalf of the companies.
154
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
II. The extraordinary industrial and financial conditions incident to
an unprecedented war make it hard to plan for the future, and existing
high prices of material and scarcity and high cost of labor and capital,
stand in the way of improvements which under less unfavorable conditions.
would be considered normal
12. The city of Bethlehem is not yet big enough and the amount of
local traffic available is still too small to make street railway service of the
extent and character that would be highly advantageous to the community
immediately profitable at the customary rates of fare, particularly if under-
taken on the basis of the abnormal investment costs that characterize new
construction at the present time.
Other major difficulties might suggest themselves upon further analy-
sis of the situation, but those already mentioned are sufficient to cause the
reflection that where a city in times of peace does not prepare for war, it
may find itself confronted with the infinitely more difficult task of prepar-
ing for peace in times of war. That is the Bethlehem situation now. Yet
conditions are critical, and the adoption of short-sighted policies in view of
these difficulties in the way of adopting long-sighted ones, may make the
future situation still worse, and may seriously handicap the city's develop-
ment at this critical stage in its career. Certainly the city cannot afford to
continue in a position where it has no power to procure improvements in
the local transit service, except as it is able, bit by bit, to induce the Transit
Company to extend a track here, install a siding there and run a car yonder
on the showing that each one of these particular additions to plant or ser-
vice will increase the company's net profits. The Lehigh Valley Transit
Company is now willing, so it appears, to do the double-tracking on South
New Street, an improvement that is critically needed. It also asks a re-
newal of the privilege to put in the four-way double-track curves at Broad
and New Streets, another much-needed improvement, but seems to be un-
willing to pledge itself to do this work within any definite period of time.
The estimated cost of the South New Street double-tracking, on the basis
of present prices, is about $36,000, and the estimated cost of the Broad and
New Streets special work, including its installation and the restoration of
the pavement, is about $25,000. The Easton Transit Company has not yet
installed the connecting curve at the southeast corner of Elizabeth Avenue
and North New Streets, near the Bethlehem Steel Company's Athletic
Field, although this connection was authorized by ordinance in 1916. No
definite time was specified within which the work had to be done. Appar-
ently, the company can do it when it gets ready, and in the meantime retain
its rights. This should never be permitted in street railway franchise
grants. In view of the urgent need for the improvements on South New
Street and at Broad and New Streets, I suggest that they be included in
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
155
one grant by the terms of which the work must be done immediately. But
as the granting of these privileges to the Lehigh Valley Transit Company
unconditionally will considerably weaken the City's position in the negotia-
tion for other improvements needed now or in the near future, I think that
the grant ought to be temporary, based upon the existing emergency con-
ditions, and that the City should reserve the right to bring these improve-
ments under the terms of a general franchise to be negotiated later on in
connection with the larger program of improvements which should be
made as soon as conditions permit. To make clear my meaning I suggest
tentatively the following as a draft of a clause to accomplish the purpose
which I have in mind:
It is understood and mutually agreed by the parties hereto
that this consent is granted as an emergency measure in view of
the immediate and pressing necessity for the relief of local transit
conditions, which have become acute as a result of industrial
activity connected with the War; and it is further mutually agreed
that at any time after the expiration of 6 months following the
end of the War between the United States and Germany, or at
any time after the expiration of 3 months following the opening to
traffic of the new Hill-to-Hill bridge, if such opening should occur
prior to the close of the War, the City of Bethlehem may revoke
this consent; and it is further mutually agreed that upon such re-
vocation the company shall within 6 months thereafter remove the
additional tracks hereby authorized and restore its tracks and
trackage facilities and the surface of the streets between the
points covered by this grant to their present condition: PRO-
VIDED that if at any time prior to such revocation becoming
effective the company shall have entered into a general agree-
ment with the City of Bethlehem for the construction of tracks on
such bridge, and for other contemplated or required extensions.
within the limits of the City of Bethlehem as now or at the time
of such agreement constituted, and if such agreement shall have
been approved by the Public Service Commission of Pennsylvania,
then and in that case the additional tracks and facilities construc-
ted and maintained under the provisions of this agreement shall
be subject in all respects to the provisions of such general agree-
ment, and any right hereby reserved to the City of Bethlehem to
cause the removal of said tracks and facilities shall be exercised
only in accordance with the terms of such general agreement, or by
virtue of the City's police power, and not by virtue of powers re-
served by this agreement.
156
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
If the Steel Company's East Bethlehem housing development goes
forward this year, it will be necessary also to deal with the Minsi Trail
bridge problem and the construction of track facilities at either end of the
bridge as an emergency matter. In this connection, and as illustrating the
way in which public rights of considerable value are acquired indirectly, I
call attention to the contract between the Saucon Land and Improvement
Company (a subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel Company) and John F.
Stefko, as grantors, and the Lehigh Valley Transit Company as grantee of
the right to construct a double track electric railway in Newton Avenue (to
be dedicated as a public street) through the property of the grantors. This
agreement was dated July 24, 1917, and the Transit Company apparently
holds that it has thereby secured a perpetual street railway easement in
Newton Avenue, superior to the rights of the public when the street is
dedicated, and that no franchise from the City of Bethlehem for the con-
struction and maintenance of the proposed Newton Avenue line is required.
If a situation like this has developed, the City ought to insist on the New-
ton Avenue line being brought under municipal control as a condition of
the grant of the right to construct tracks on public streets at either end of
the Minsi Trail bridge.
After the trolley improvements immediately required are taken care
of under the best arrangement that proves to be possible, I suggest that
the City bend its energies to the following program:
1. The adoption of a general city plan with respect to major im-
provements, including the elimination of grade crossings, the consruction
and municipalization of bridges and the widening of streets where neces-
sary.
2.
The annexation of all adjacent districts which are in fact a part of
the Bethlehem urban area, including Fountain Hill, Northampton Heights,
portions of Lower Saucon and Salisbury townships, Freemansburg, North
Bethlehem and portions of the two Hanover townships as at present
planned.
3. The construction of the Hill-to-Hill bridge.
4. The elimination of the West Third Street grade crossing.
5. The freeing of the toll bridges.
6. The negotiation with the Lehigh Valley Transit company and the
Easton Transit Company of comprehensive resettlement franchises.
covering all their existing lines within the present or future city limits of
Bethlehem, and all future extensions including the use of the bridges.
These franchises should reserve to the City the right to take over the
street railway properties at a definite price, subject to the right of the com-
panies to use the tracks for interurban service. The capital value upon
which the companies are to be permitted to earn a fair return should be
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY,
157
fixed and the control of service should be vested in the municipality. Rates
should be adjusted from time to time as the legitimate and necessary cost
of the service which the companies are called upon to render may require.
The company's ascertained investment should be protected and the street
railway business should be developed as the primary means for furnishing
local transit, with the possible use of buses as a supplementary rather than
as a competitive mode of transportation. The City ought to provide free
streets for street railway use, and ought not to attempt to help out the tax-
payers by levying indirect tribute upon the car riders. Urban transit is a
public service and should be treated as such. It is not my intention to sug-
gest that the public service commission should be superseded in its present
functions but that local control should be vitalized and made the primary
method of handling local utility problems. To this end, the City should
establish either in connection with the comprehensive resettlement fran-
chise here suggested, or independently of it, a permanent agency for the
exercise of the continuous watchfulness and control which are absolutely
essential to the public welfare wherever dependence is had upon private
agencies for the performance of public functions.
In concluding this report, I desire to express my appreciation of the
courtesy and forbearance of the Committee, in view of the unexpected
length of time which my investigation has taken. Also I wish to acknowl-
edge my debt to the Mayor, the City Solicitor, the City Engineer and other
city officials, to officials of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company, to officials
of the Bethlehem Steel Company, to the staff of the Chamber of Com-
merce, and to various others who have cooperated with me by preparing
and supplying information which was essential to my study.
Respectfully submitted,
DELOS F. WILCOX,
Consulting Franchise and Public Utility Expert.
Elmhurst, New York City, July 17, 1918.
158
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
APPENDIX A.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities)
LIST OF INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC
BUILDINGS AND, INSTITUTIONS IN BETHLEHEM, PA.
WITH LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON "POPULATION AND
BUILDING MAP TO ACCOMPANY REPORT ON TRANSIT
FACILITIES.”
I. In district north of Lehigh River and east of Monocacy Creek in
Northampton County (Bethlehem, North Bethlehem and East Beth-
lehem).
Street Location
Monocacy Creek and Mauch Chunk
Road
·
N. Main and Elizabeth Avenue.....
Scott Avenue and West Street.
West and High...
Elizabeth, E. of New..
Linden and Elizabeth..
Hill and Shipman Streets..
Hill and Center Streets.
Hottle Street (north end)..
Hamilton Avenue and Linden..
Hamilton Avenue and Elm Street...
Laurel and Orchard..
Mauch Chunk Road and alley.
Mauch Chunk Road..
Name
Henry Erwin & Son-Mfrs. of min-
eral paints
Moravian Theological Seminary
Philadelphia Hosiery Co.
Groman Bros. Planing Mill.
Bethlehem Steel Co. Athletic Field.
Park Hotel.
. Zion Reformed Church
.St. Stephen's Evangelical Lutheran
Church.
Tenements.
Mauch Chunk Road and Silk Mill
Street
Union and Monocacy.
W. Goepp and Monocacy.
E. Laurel, E. of Main.
E. Laurel, W. of Guetter.
N. Main and Fairview.
Goepp and New Streets.
Main and Garrison.
Union and Radley.
Goepp and New.
•
•
Alley South of Goepp.
Union and Center..
•
• •
• •
Hamilton School.
Moravian Church
Mennonite Church.
. L. C. Reese Foundry Repair Shop.
Lattig-Shimer Co., School desk man-
ufacturers.
•
Bethlehem Silk Mill
Uhl's Brewery.
Greenhouses.
Moravian Chapel.
Sawyer & Johnson, Florists
Penn Building School.
•
•
•
Ice Cream Factory
•
•
Washington Hotel.
German Catholic Church.
Bethany United Evangelical Church.
Ice Cream Factory.
Emanuel United Evangelical Church.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
159
•
New and Garrison...
North Street, E. of New..
North and Center Streets..
Spruce, W of Linden...
Spruce, W. of Linden...
Main and Broad Streets..
Main and North Streets.
Main and Raspberry..
Broad and Guetter Streets.
Main Street, S. of Broad.
Cunow and Guetter Streets.
Main and Market...
New and Cunow Streets.
Broad and New....
•
. •
Broad, between Long and School...
Broad Street, near School...
New Street, near Cunow.
Cunow and Center Streets.
Center and Garrison Streets
North and High Streets...
Cunow and High Streets..
Maple and North Streets.
Main and Market Streets.
Ohio Road and Monocacy Creek...
•
Main Street opposite Cunow..
Main and Market..
Main, S. of Broad.
Main, S. of Broad..
Goundie and Old York Road..
Old York Road...
Fourth Ward Hotel.
St John's Evangelical Church.
First Presbyterian Church.
H. O. Williamson, Planing Mill.
.J. M. Yeakel Wagon Shop.
Bethlehem Trust Co. Building.
Colonial Hall.
Lehigh & New England R. R. Office.
Lorenz Theatre, (Heiberger)
Sun Inn.
Boarding.
Bethlehem Post Office and Free Li-
brary.
Brighton Hotel.
American Hotel.
Municipal Buildings.
Grace Lutheran Church.
Bethlehem Club.
Christ Reformed Church.
Franklin High School.
St. Paul's Reformed Church.
Evangelical Lutheran Salem Church.
. Jefferson School.
Eagle Hotel.
D. & A. Luckenbach Grain, Flour
and Feed Mill.
First National Bank Building.
Lehigh Valley National Bank.
Woolworth's 5c and 10c Store.
Bush & Bull Department Store.
Smoke Stack Hotel.
J. Widman & Co. Brewery.
Main Street and Waterworks Road..New York Hotel
Main and Church Streets...
Church Street, E. of Main.
Main and Church Streets..
•
•
Church Street, between Main and
Bartow
Market and New Streets...
New Street, between Church and
Gambold
E. Lehigh Avenue on Monocacy
Creek
New and Lehigh Avenue.
Market Street, E. of Long.
Wall and School Streets.
Center and Wall Streets.
•
Church Street, E. of Center.
Church and Maple Streets...
•
Moravian Central Church.
Moravian Parochial School,
Moravian Seminary.
Widows' Home.
Bethlehem Steel Co. Band rooms
and hall.
Bethlehem Electric Light Co.
Bethlehem Cons. Gas. Works.
St. Edmund's Inn.
Trinity Episcopal Church.
Neisser Bldg. Public School.
Wesley M. E. Church.
Nisky Hill Cemetery.
Nisky Greenhouses.
160
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
II. In district north of Lehigh River and west of Monocacy Creek
(West Bethlehem).
Street Location
Monocacy Creek and Mauch Chunk
Road
Name
Vanderstuken-Ewing
Co.
W. Union Street, W. of Creek...... Kurtz Bros.
Construction
Eighth Avenue and North Street.... Bethlehem Preparatory School.
W. Broad, E. of N. 7th....
Between W. Union and W. Garri-
son, E. of Second Avenue..
Broad and Fourth...
. Olivet United Evangelical Chapel.
Wieskopf Greenhouses.
Fourth Avenue Hotel.
Terrace Ave., near Garrison Street. . Pure Oil Co.
Broad and Fourth.
Third and Broad..
Moving Picture Theatre.
Bowman's Broad Street Hotel.
Second Ave. and Schaeffer Street... P. O. S. of A. 3rd.
Fourth and Schaeffer Streets..
Third and Market...
S. Third Avenue, between Market
and Schaeffer..
Market and Fourth.
•
Third and Prospect..
Prospect and Third..
Bethany Reformed Church.
McKinley Republican Ass'n.
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church.
Fairview Bldg., Public School.
Tenements.
Moravian Church.
Broad Street and First Avenue...... First Church of Christ Scientist.
Ohio Road and Conestoga Street··. B. & B. Laundry Co.
Ohio Road and Conestoga Street... M. A. Krause, Sausage Mfg.
L. & N. E. R. R., north of Hill's
Row
Alvin Hill & Son, Hides Skins and
Tallow.
Spring Street and Tenth Avenue.... Calypso School.
Lehigh Avenue at W. City Line……..Guerber Engineering Co.
Liberty, nr. Franklin Alley.
The Brethren Church.
Franklin Street and Franklin Alley.. Franklin Hotel.
Franklin and Spring...
Prospect Avenue, between
Lane and Hanover Street. ·
Leibert and Franklin....
Spring Street, nr. Franklin.
Vineyard and West..
Vineyard, E. of West..
Town
. Higbee School.
Monocacy Tire Company.
Brethren Church.
Monocacy Silk Mill.
Lehigh No. 5 Fire Station.
B. Flammer Bottling House.
W. Lehigh Ave., E. of West Place... Labor Lyceum.
L. C. & N. Co. Canal..
Sauquoit Silk Mfg. Co.
Vineyard and Conestoga Streets... L. & N. E. R. R. Station.
Vineyard and Water Streets...
W. Lehigh Avenue....
King Coal Co., Coal Yard.,
Brown Borhek Lumber Yard.
So. Main Street, near Vineyard.....Moving Pictures.
Water Street...
. Bethlehem Dye Works.
Main Street and Lehigh Avenue.... Fetter Hotel.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
161
Street Location
Name
Lehigh Ave. and L. & N. E. R. R.... Brown-Borhek Lumber Yard.
Lehigh Ave., E. of L. & N. E. R.
Lehigh and Main..
..L. W. Strock & Co., Handle Fac-
tory.
L. C. & N. Canal, E. of Lehigh Val-
ley R. R. Bridge...
So. Main Street on Canal.
S. Main and Canal..
•
•
Brown-Borhek Lumber & Coal Co.
Limited.
Pettinos Bros. Graphite Factory.
Keystone Hotel.
T. D. Fritch & Sons Diamond Roller
Mill.
L. C. & N. Canal, E. of Main.... Mineral Spring Ice Co.
Main Street and Lehigh Avenue....C. R. R. of N. J. Station.
E. Lehigh Ave., E. of Main Street... C. R. R. of N. J. Freight Station.
E. Lehigh Ave. and Monocacy
Creek..
Peninsula, E. of New..
Peninsula, E. of New.
•
J. A. Eberts Wholesale Grocers
Warehouse.
...Tenements.
De Bergh Mfg. Co., Paint Mill.
III. In district south of Lehigh River (South Bethlehem, Northampton
Heights and Fountain Hill).
Street Location
Fourth and Cherokee..
Fourth and Wyandotte.
Wyandotte between
Fourth
Wyandotte and Third
Name
Fraternity House.
•
Boarding House.
Third
and
Fraternity House.
Wyandotte and Third
Wyandotte and Fourth.
Shawnee, near Fourth..
Broadway, near Fourth.
Broadway, near Fourth
Shawnee, near Third...
Wyandotte and Third
•
•
•
Lehigh, W. of Wyandotte
Lehigh, W. of Wyandotte
Wyandotte and Lehigh River.
•
Front and Temporary Bridge.
Fraternity House.
Church of the Nativity, Episcopal,
and Parish House.
The Sanford (Flats and Saloon).
.O. O.. Trone's Bottling House.
South Bethlehem Knitting Mills.
Fire Dept., Lehigh Station No. 1
Rankey Bros. Paper Box Factory.
. Fraternity House.
Lehigh Valley R. R. Offices.
Anthracite Building.
Pacific Hotel.
.Swift's, Wholesale Meats.
Wyandotte St. and L. V. R. R... ... Union Station.
Brodhead and L. V. R. R..
Brodhead, N. of Third.
•
•
Third and Brodhead.
Brodhead and Second
Northampton and Second.
New St. and L V. R. R..
•
•
U. S. Express Freight House.
Lehigh Valley R. R. Yard.
Mahlon Ritter Coal Yard.
Bethlehem Foundry & Machine Co.
Lehigh Vallev R. R. Frt. Station.
Artificial Ice Co.
11
162
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Street Location
Second and New Sts...
Northampton and Second.
Northampton, between Second and
Third
•
Name
Mansion House.
Lehigh Valley Hotel.
Boarding.
W. Second St., W. of Northampton. . P. & R. R. Freight House (Founda-
tion)
P. & R. R. R., S. of W. Second St... P. & R. R. Freight House.
Vine St. and Graham Pl..
Brodhead and Third..
Penn Coal and Ice Co.
Brown-Borhek Co., Lumber Yard
and Mill Work.
Graham Pl. and Brodhead Ave..... Broadway Hotel.
Rink, W. of New...
. Lehigh Steam Laundry.
Brodhead Ave., and W. Fourth.... Post Office.
Rink St., through to W. Fourth, E.
of Brodhead (since removed to-
wards Hellertown)
Rink St., W. of Vine..
•
Rink, between Vine and New.
Cor. W. Fourth and New.
New St., N. of School St..
Second St., E. of Birch.
•
•
•
The Silvex Co., Mfg. Metal Polish.
. Ice Cream Factory.
First Reformed Church.
E. H. Kresge Dept. Store.
Italian Beneficial Soc. Hall.
The Burkhardt Hotel.
Second St., between Elm and Birch.. Tenements
New and Third
•
Third and Birch
Third, near Birch.
Birch and Third
Birch and Third
•
•
Third St., E of Birch.
Elm and Third
Birch St. and P. & R. R. R..
Fourth and Birch.
Caffrey Hotel.
.The Belmont (lodgings).
E. Fourth between Birch and Elm
Sts ...
E. Fourth and Elm..
•
•
E. Second, between Elm and Lo-
cust
E. Third St., E. of Elm.
Third and Locust..
Mechanic and Pine..
P. R. R. R.,Elm and Fourth..
Fourth, W. of Elm.
Fourth, W. of Pine..
C. P. Hoffman & Co. Dept. Store.
South Bethlehem National Bank.
Municipal Building.
Moving Pictures.
Worsley Bros. Furniture Store.
Halcyon Knitting Mills Co.
Lehigh Valley Cold Storage & Ice
Co.
Excelsior School.
Y. M. G. T. A. Bldg.
Armour Hotel.
Palace Moving Picture Theatre.
Fagle Hotel.
Tenements.
South Bethlehem Brewing Co.
Holy Infancy Parochial School.
Fire Dept. Protection No. I.
Second, Pine, School and Spruce.... Bethlehem Steel Company, Pattern
Storage, Pattern Shop and Store-
Houses.
School, between Spruce and Linden. Bethlehem Steel Co. Electrical Shop.
E. Third, W. of Spruce.
School, W. of Linden....
E. O'Reilly, Dept. Store.
. Double three-story Flat.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
163
Street Location
E. Third, near Spruce.
Spruce and Mechanic.
Pine and Mechanic...
•
Name
Scott Hotel,
house and
Slaughter house, ice house
stable.
W. H. Repsher, Coal Yard.
Mechanic, Spruce and P. & R. R. R.. Coal bins first, tenements second and
Linden and Mechanic
P. & R. R. R. between Linden and
Spruce
Buttonwood, through to E. Fourth,
W. of Linden
third.
Tenements.
.United Cigar Mfgr. Co. Cigar Fac-
tory.
. D. G. Derry Silk Mills.
E. Third, between Oak and Linden.. Bethlehem Steel Co., Offices.
E. Third, between Poplar and Oak.. Bowling Alley.
Cor. E. Third and Linden.... . Majestic Hotel.
P. & R. R. R., between Poplar and
Linden
Fourth, between Linden and Poplar.
Poplar
•
E. Third and P. & R. R. R....
Buttonwood, E. of Oak
P. & R. R. R., W. of Cherry.
Cemetery and Buttonwood.
E. Fourth, almost through to
chanic, E. of Oak.
•
E Fourth, almost through to
chanic, E. of Oak……….
Thomas Quinn, Coal Yard.
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran
Windish Church.
.Jacob Green, Coal Yard.
Four 3-story single flats.
3-story (single) flat).
German Singing Society Hall.
Me-
Moving Pictures-Turkish Bath.
Me-
.Bayuk Bros. Cigar Factory.
Fortuna, between North and Hill... 2-story single flat.
Cor. Buttonwood and Hill.
E. Fourth and Hill....
E. Fourth, E. of Hill.
E. Fourth and Cedar.
North and E. Fourth..
•
New St., L. V. R. R.. Lower Saucon
Town. Line, Front St., Anthracite.
St., Daly Ave., Third St., Linden
St., and Second Street.
Cherokee, N. of Dacotah.
B'way, opp. Ontario...
Pawnee and Seminole
•
Dacotah, between Wyandotte
Pawnee
Pawnee, S. W of Freytag.
B'way and Wyandotte.
Ontario and Itaska...
•
Fourth and Wyandotte.
Wyandotte, near Fourth.
B'way, through to Fourth.
•
and
Hungaria Hall.
. Hotel Ortwein.
Tenements.
St. John's Chapel.
Fire Dep't., Good Will Hose Co.
Bethlehem Steel Company.
Fraternity House.
. First Baptist Church.
. St. Luke's Evangelical Church.
First Ward Democratic Ass'n, 2nd.
. St. John's A. M. E. Church.
Fulton Hotel.
Madison Public School.
Wyandotte Hotel.
. Fountain Hill Opera House.
.J. M. Degnan Dept. Store.
164
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Street Location
B'way and Fourth..
Wyandotte and Broadway.
Wyandotte and Wood...
Walnut and Wood...
Walnut, bt. B'way and Packer.
Walnut, S. of B’way .
Boyce and Cress...
Chestnut and B'way.
Chestnut, South of Cress.
Chestnut and Packer..
Chestnut and B'way.
Broadway and Fourth.
Fourth and Birkel...
•
•
•
W. Fourth and Brodhead...
Eighth and Brodhead...
Cor. W. Fourth and Brodhead.
Cor. Brodhead and W. Packer.
•
Name
E. P. Wilbur Trust Bldg.
Five Points Hotel.
Germania Hotel.
Brithsholem Talmud Tora.
Webster School.
Holy Ghost R. C. Church and Con-
vent.
Casine Club.
Coliseum Skating Rink.
Parochial School.
Fritz Memorial M. E. Church.
The Breeze Summer Theatre.
Moving Picture Theatre.
Northampton Club.
The Globe (Newspaper)
Fraternity House.
.. Library.
•
Bethlehem High School.
University Pl. N. of W. Packer.... F. G. Semple, Paint Factory.
W. Fourth, E. of Brodhead..... .St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran
University Pl., bet W. Fourth and W.
Church
Church.
. First Presbyterian Church.
Vine, W. Church, University Pl.... Central School.
Vine, N. of W. Packer..
Cor. Vine and W. Packer.....
. Liberty Fire Department.
.St. Peter's Evengelical Lutheran
Church.
Vine, bet. W. Fourth and W. Church Single 3-story flat.
Apple, S. of W. Church..
Fourth and New...
Fourth St., E of New.
New and Church ..
•
Between Birch and Rennig, S. of
Church
Cor. Birch and Packer.
Elm and Packer..
Packer and Brodhead.
Spruce and Spring Sts.
Cor. Elm and E. Church.
•
•
Cor. E. Fourth and Locust.
Spring, bet. Pine and Locust.
Church, E. of Pine.
E. Fourth, W. of Linden.
Fifth, bet. Pine and Spruce..
E. Fourth and Poplar..
E. Fourth and Oak.
E. Church, W. of Oak.
•
. Machine shop.
New Merchants Hotel.
The Orpheum Theatre (Moving pic-
tures).
Lehigh Inn.
First German Church.
•
3-story flat.
First Moravian Church.
Lehigh University.
Taylor Field (Athletic Grounds)
44 Cigar Co.
Holy Infancy R. C. Church.
Polish Hall.
•
Single 3-story flat.
Temploma Church.
St. Joseph's R. C. (Polish) Church.
Quinn School.
Hungaria Hotel.
3-story flat (single)
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
165
Street Location
E. Fourth, W of Center.
E. Fourth and Center..
E. Fourth, W. of Cemetery.
E. Church, W. of Center.
Fifth and Center...
Poplar and Thomas.
•
Linden and Thomas..
Thomas, N. E. of Hillside.
Hillside and Jackson.
Seventh, W. of Oak.
Poplar, W. of Oak..
Poplar, Cor. Oak..
Jackson, E. of Poplar.
• ·
•
Name
Our Lady of Pompey of the Holy
Rosary Church.
St. John's Parochial School.
Packer School.
Cement Block Mfg.
St. Stanislaus R. C. Church.
Slovenski R. C. Church.
Slovenski Parochial School.
Polish. Social Hall.
. Dance Hall.
2-story double tenements.
Italian Independent Assn' Hall.
Hotel Rome.
Hall.
Oak, S. of Fifth..
Sixth, E of Center.
Oak and 6th....
Sixth, bet. Center and Ridge.
Hall.
• 3-story flat.
Lehigh Valley Silk Mills, Lloyd Mill.
..Double. 3-story flat.
Center Alley bet. Sullivan and 7th..St. Stanislaus Church Hall.
NORTHAMPTON HEIGHTS AND VICINITY.
Street Location
E. Fourth, E. of Edward.
William and Fifth...
William and Fourth.
William and Fifth..
Sixth, E. of Brinker.
William St, E. E. of Aaron.
William St, E. E. of Aaron.
Second and Anthracite.
School, E. of Bessemer.
Emery and School....
•
•
•
Name
Playground.
Wyandotte Silk Co.
. Junction Hotel.
Shiloh Reformed Church.
Russian Greek Orthodox Church.
•
4-story double flat.
.3-story double flat.
•
Third, between Anthracite and Bes-
semer
Carbon and Mechanic.
•
Fourth and Anthracite...
Emery and Fourth...
Brodhead Public School.
2-story tenements.
Bethlehem Steel Co. R. R. Depot.
McIlvain Fire Co. No. I.
St. Matthew's Evengelical Lutheran
Church.
Saucona Hotel.
Battery A. Bethlehem Steel Co.
Fourth, bet. Anthracite and BessemerSt. Mark's Evengelical Church.
Fourth, bet. Carbon and Diamond.. Washington Public School.
166
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
FOUNTAIN HILL AND VICINITY.
Street Location
Name
Ostrum St. and Hospital Pl......
Fiot and School Alley..
St. Luke's Hospital.
Seneca, N. of Bishopthrope.
Chas. Vorkeller Greenhouses.
Gentlemen's Apartments.
Delaware Ave., N. of Bishopthrope. Leonard Hall.
Cherokee, S. of Fiot..
Cherokee and Fiot..
Broadway, near Bishopthrope.
•
Jeter and Clewell..
Jeter and Tombler..
Clewell, near Russell...
Kiefer, W. of Delaware.
Delaware and Tombler..
Delaware, near Bishopthrope.
Seneca and Clewell..
Seneca and Clewell...
Bishopthorpe and Cherokee.
•
Alacrity Knitting Mill.
Fountain Hill Hotel.
. Moose Home.
. Stone Swimming Pool.
Bishopthorpe School
Fountain Hill Fire Dept.
.St. Paul's Lutheran Church.
Foundations for two 3-story flats.
Fraternity House.
Lehigh Valley Silk Mill, The Warren
Mill.
Gillia Silk Mills.
. Electric Laundry.
Broadway, N. W. of Clewell........Hall Hosiery. Co.
Shoener's Alley, N. of Broadway....Grace Reformed Church.
Itaska and Benner.
Broadway and Stanley Ave...
School Alley and Seneca.
•
.East End Hotel.
. Palace Hotel.
..Stevens School.
Cor. Sioux and unnamed Street.... Public School.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
167
APPENDIX B.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
SUMMARY OF TRANSIT STATISTICS COMPILED FROM THE
CENSUS OF EMPLOYEES TAKEN BY THE BEHLEHEM
STEEL COMPANY, FEBRUARY, 1918-LOADING POINTS
FOR INBOUND TRAFFIC AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
BOARDING TRAINS OR CARS AT GIVEN POINTS.
I. ALLENTOWN TO BETHLEHEM-South Side (via Lehigh Valley
Transit Co.)
Loading Point
Eighth Street Bridge (North Side).
Sixth and St. John Streets...
'Men Women Total
24
II
35
128
I
129
Emaus Junction
Miller's Hotel
134
I
135
52
52
Highland Park
Fretz's Crossing
Fairview Park
Morningside
22
22
ΙΟ
ΙΟ
I I
II
16
16
Gauff's Hill
90
90
Children's Home
ΙΟ
ΙΟ
Weaver's Store
45
3
48
Seneca and Bishopthorpe Streets... 182
2
184
Five Points
•
189
II
200
Fourth and New Streets..
113 22
135
Fourth and Poplar Streets.
•
77
:
77
Heights Bridge
32
|:
32
Total.
.1135
51
1186
2.
COOPERSBURG TO SOUTH BETHLEHEM (via South Bethle-
hem & Saucon Street Railway Company).
Coopersburg
Loading Point
Centre Valley
Friedensville
•
Men Women Total
I
I
ΙΟ
ΙΟ
12
:
12
Colesville
20
20
Seidersville
University Park
Total ..
50
7
:
: : |
50
7
100
O
ΙΟΟ
168
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
3. HELLERTOWN TO SOUTH BETHLEHEM (via Lehigh Valley
Transit Co.)
Men Women Total
Loading Point
Walnut Street (terminus)
321
Depot Street
46
•
Cross Roads
103
Crest Avenue
Coke Works
•
Iron Hill
Fourth and Bessemer Streets.
Saucon Heights
Total ...
2
3
♡∞
8
I
3
487
:::
:
321
46
103
2
3∞
8
I
3
487
4. EASTON TO SOUTH BETHLEHEM (via Easton Transit Co.).
Loading Point
Easton ..
Wagnersville
Middletown
Butztown
Freemansburg
Miller Heights
Total ..
Men Women Total
98
98
6
6
32
32
27
2
29
106
6
•
I 12
6
6
1
..: 275
8
283
Loading Point
5. EASTON TO BETHLEHEM (via Easton Transit Co.).
Men Women Total
Easton
Prospect Heights
Country Club
Farmersville
7
7
15
15
I
I
4
4
I
I
28
O
28
6. NAZARETH TO BETHLEHEM (via Lehigh Valley Transit Co.).
Men Women Total
Edgeboro
Total ...
Loading Point
Nazareth
Bath Junction
Hecktown
Newburg
Macada
·64
:..
6'
3.2
12
64
6
3
12
3
3
Total ..
:. 88
88
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
169
7. MANHATTAN HOTEL, RITTERSVILLE, TO SOUTH BETH-
LEHEM, INCLUDING NORTH BETHLEHEM LOOP (via
Lehigh Valley Transit Co.).
Loading Point
Manhattan Hotel ..
Toll Gate
•
Park Avenue
Wilbur Avenue
Eleventh Avenue
Tenth Avenue
Eighth Avenue
Seventh Avenue
Sixth Avenue
Fourth Avenue
•
•
Third Avenue
Second Avenue
First Avenue
•
Broad and Main Streets..
Broad and New Streets.
Main and Elizabeth.
Broad and Linden Streets.
Total ...
Men Women Total
104
104
14
14
29
29
28
28
20
29
127
93
127
93
6
6
100
100
97
2
99
19
•
19
T
28
12
40
63
63
265
5
270
•
302
9
311
•
333 23
3.56
314
26
340
•
•
1936
92
2028
8. ALLENTOWN TO AMERICAN HOUSE, RITTERSVILLE (via
Lehigh Valley Transit Co.).
Loading Point
Men Women Total
17th and Gordon Streets...
39
39
17th and Hamilton Streets..
34
34
14th and Hamilton Streets.
12th and Hamilton Streets.
10th and Hamilton Streets..
46
3
49
307
I
308
2
2
8th and Hamilton Streets..
419
419
6th and Hamilton Streets.
282
I
283
L V. R. R. Depot.....
34
34
Second and Hamilton Streets..
84
84
East Allentown
State Hospital
79
79
•
19
2
2I
American House (Rittersville).
Total ...
23
:1
23
•
1366 9
1375
170
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
IO.
LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD (Westbound).
Loading Point
Men Women Total
Phillipsburg
159
29
188
Easton
•
407 50
457
South Easton
245
51
296
Lucy Furnace
37
12
49
Island Park
Redington
Freemansburg
44
7
51
3
3
I2
12
Total ....
907
149
1056
LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD (Eastbound).
Loading Point
Men Women Total
Slatington
84
84
Treichler's
Laury's
Cementon
Coplay
9
9
I
I
59
I
60
75
75
Hokendauqua
Catasauqua
Fullerton
26
26
160
2
162
78
78
Allentown-Tilghman Street
434
434
Allentown-Gordon Street
434
I
435
Allentown-Hamilton Street
579
43
622
Bethlehem
180
175
355
West End Junction.
4
ΙΟ
14
Pump House
7
7
Freemansburg
57
42
99
Total ..
…..2180
281
2461
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
171
II. PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY.
Men Women Total
I
I
Loading Point
Lansdale
Souderton
Telford
Sellersville
Perkasie
Quakertown
Shelley
Coopersburg
Centre Valley
Bingen
Hellertown
Total ..
From all Points
Total for Trolley Lines..
Total for Steam Roads..
Grand Total.
•
5
5
9
9
17
17
48
48
•
189
189
38
38
55
55
43
43
38
38
5
5
448
O
448
Men Women Total
5415 160 5575
·3535 430 3965
...8950
590 9540
172
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
APPENDIX C.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY.
Income Statement for the Years Ended November 30, 1915, 1916 and 1917.
OPERATING REVENUES:
Passenger Revenue
Mail Revenue
Nov. 30. 1915 Nov. 30, 1916 Nov. 30, 1917
Revenues from Transportation:
.$1,550,124 96 $1,852,505 88
$2,131,596 49
2,348 50
2,355 14
Express Revenue
•
20,966 44
23,945 63
2,515 37
27,672 12
Milk Revenue
1,566 60
1,754 57
I,297 04
Freight Revenue
•
71,888 73
84,072 43
106,408 42
Miscellaneous Revenue..
2,526 63
2,874 82
2,866 06
$1,649,421 86 $1,967,508 47 $2,272,355 50
Revenue from other Railway Operations:
Station and Car Privi-
leges
..$
5,389 51 $
6,045 86 $
6,542 28
Rent of Tracks and Fa-
cilities
455 79
403 87
400 00
Rent of Equipment. . . .
1,657 58
1,297 12
1,310 46
Rent of Buildings and
other Property
2,078 22
2,230 24
2,569 II
Power Sales
397,582 36
494,056 27
591,467 37
Parcel Room Receipts..
290 12
330 10
429 10
$ 407,453 58 $504,363 46 $ 602,718 32
Total Op't'g Revenue$2,056,875 44 $2,471,871 93 $2,875,073 82
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
173
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Actually Incurred .......$ 964,435 86 $1,283,339 39 $1,709,326 02
Provision made for equali-
zation and for accrued
depreciation
166,399 13
150,325 78
141,145 90
$1,130,834 99 $1,433,665 17 $1,850,471 92
TAXES
$ 926,040 45
73,551 87
$1,038,206 76
84,445 65
$1,024,601 90
104,173 86
Operating Income....$ 852,488 58 $ 953,761 II $ 920,428 04
NON-OPERATING INCOME:
Dividend Income
Interest on Notes, Bank
Balances, etc.
$ 118,986 00 $ 126,451 50 $ 132,294 00
17,159 60
18,758 24
12,461 80
$ 136,145 60 $145,209 74 $144,755 80
Gross Income .......$ 988,634 18 $1,098,970 85 $1,065,183 84
DEDUCTIONS FROM
GROSS INCOME:
Rent for Leased Roads...$
Miscellaneous Rents
Interest on Funded Debt..
36,859 96 $ 34,723 94 $ 27,117 93
27,311 62
23,737 47
550,279 34
550,566 17
554,602 14
Interest on Unfunded Debt
2,035 50
999 90
9,347 51
20,441 00
20,466 43
20,578 68
Amortization of Discount
on Funded Debt.....
Legal Expenses-Arbogast
& Bastian vs. Lehigh
Valley Transit Co.......
Net Income
DIVIDENDS ON PRE-
FERRED STOCK
28,319 09
$ 665,246 51 $ 630,493 91 $ 611,646 26
$ 323,387 67 $ 468,476 94 $ 453,537 58
170,466 80
252,572 12
248,982 50
Additions to surplus..$ 152,920 87 $ 215,904 82 $ 204,555 08
174
REPORT ON The Transit Problems of
APPENDIX D.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS COMPILED FROM THE CENSUS OF
EMPLOYEES TAKEN BY THE BETHLEHEM STEEL COM-
PANY, FEBRUARY, 1918, SHOWING NUMBER OF EM-
PLOYEES HOMEWARD BOUND, BOARDING THE TROL-
LEY CARS OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY
AND THE EASTON TRANSIT COMPANY AT THE PRINCI-
PAL LOADING POINTS.
I. At Third and New Streets for-
Allentown (via south side points west of
Highland Park)
Fountain Hill and south side points to and
including Highland Park....
South Bethlehem
Allentown (via north side to points west of
State Hospital)
Rittersville and Rosemont and north side
points from State Hospital to Bethlehem
city line
West Bethlehem (1st to 10th Avenues)...
North Bethlehem (Linden, Elizabeth and
Main Street loop).....
Bethlehem business center (Broad Street,
Main to New, inclusive)...
Men Women Total
I
I
36
36
34
•
34
71
71
52
...
52
Nazareth and intermediate points outside of
Bethlehem city limits...
13
13
Easton and intermediate points (via north
side line)
3
3
Easton and intermediate points (via south
side line)
Hellertown and intermediate points...
Total ..
2 2
2 2
213
I
214
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
175
II. At Main Office for-
Men Women Total
Allentown (via south side points west of
Highland Park)
226
3 229
Fountain Hill and south side points to and
including Highland Park.
257
4
261
South Bethlehem
92
4
96
State Hospital)....
Allentown (via north side to points west of
Rittersville and Rosemont and north side
points from State Hospital to Bethlehem
city line
1026
2 1028
148
5
153
West Bethlehem (1st to 10th Avenues).....
North Bethlehem (Linden, Elizabeth and
319
15
334
Main Street loop)...
274
33
307
Bethlehem business center (Broad Street,
Main to New, inclusive)..
262
6
268
Nazareth and intermediate points outside of
Bethlehem city limits....
55
55
Easton and intermediate points (via north
side line)
Easton and intermediate points (via south
side line)
•
Hellertown and intermediate points...
Total ...
22
22
170
I
171
360
360
· 3211
73
3284
III. At Gas House for-
Allentown (via south side points west of
Highland Park)
Fountain Hill and south side points to and
including Highland Park..
•
Men Women Total
13
13
II
II
South Bethlehem
9
9
Allentown (via north side points west of
State Hospital)
36
36
Rittersville and Rosemont and north side
points from State Hospital to Bethlehem
city line
15
2
17
West Bethlehem (1st to 10th Avenues)...
North Bethlehem (Linden, Elizabeth and
9
9
Main Street loop)..
28
28
Bethlehem business center (Broad Street,
176
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Main to New, inclusive).
Nazareth and intermediate points outside of
Bethlehem city limits....
Easton and intermediate points (via north
side line)
Easton and intermediate points (via south
side line)
Hellertown and intermediate points.
Men Women Total
38
38
Total ...
IV. At Saucon Gate for-
Allentown (via south side points west of
Highland Park)
Fountain Hill and south side points to and
including Highland Park...
South Bethlehem
Allentown (via north side to points west of
State Hospital)
Rittersville and Rosemont and north side
points from State Hospital to Bethlehem
city line
West Bethlehem (1st to 10th Avenues.)....
North Bethlehem (Linden, Elizabeth and
Main Street loop)..
Bethlehem business center (Broad Street,
Main to New, inclusive)....
6
6
165
2 167
Men Women Total
64
I
65
58
58
127
I
128
195
195
18
I
19
127
I
128
182
182
88
88
Nazareth and intermediate points outside of
Bethlehem city limits...
4
4
Easton and intermediate points (via North
Side line)
3
3
Easton and intermediate points (via south
side line)
4I
41
Hellertown and intermediate points..
59
59
Total ..
966
4
970
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
177
V. At Battery A for—
Allentown (via south side points west of
Highland Park)
Fountain Hill and south side points to and
including Highland Park…..
South Bethlehem
Allentown (via north side to points west of
State Hospital)
Rittersville and Rosemont and north side
points from State Hospital to Bethlehem
city line
Men Women Total
26
ΙΟ
36
40
40
78
28
106
35
4
39
3 +
16
19
West Bethlehem (1st to 10th Avenues).....
North Bethlehem (Linden, Elizabeth and
35
4
39
Main Street loop)....
76
16
92
Bethlehem business center (Broad Street,
Main to New, inclusive)...
108
108
Nazareth and intermediate points outside of
Bethlehem city limits....
16
16
Easton and intermediate points (via north
side line)
Easton and intermediate points (via south
side line)
62
7
69
Hellertown and intermediate points...
40
40
Total ....
532
72
604
VI. At Coke Works for-
Allentown (via south side points west of
Highland Park)
9
9
Fountain Hill and south side points to and
including Highland Park.
20
20
•
South Bethlehem
105
105
State Hospital)
Allentown (via north side to points west of
Rittersville and Rosemont and north side
points from State Hospital to Bethlehem
city line
32
32
4
West Bethlehem (1st to 10th Avenues).
North Bethlehem (Linden, Elizabeth and
Main Street loop)...
·
3
43
16
16
12
178
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Bethlehem business center (Broad Street,
Main to New, inclusive).
Nazareth and intermediate points outside of
Bethlehem city limits....
Easton and intermediate points (via north
side line)
Easton and intermediate points (via south
side line)
Hellertown and intermediate points......
Men Women Total
19
19
20
20
Total ...
228
228
GENERAL SUMMARY.
Men Women Total
I. Third and New
213
I
214
II. Main Office
3211
73
3284
III.
Gas House
165
2
167
IV.
Saucon Gate
966
4
970
V. Battery A
532
72
604
VI. Coke Works
•
Total..
228
228
5315
152
5467
Also, from Fourth and New Streets 100 Steel Company employees.
take the South Bethlehem and Saucon Street Railway line for Seidersville,
Colesville, etc., to Centre Valley.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
179
APPENDIX E.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
BRIDGE COUNTS, BETHLEHEM, PA.
Part I: New Street Bridge-Midnight to Midnight, June 3, 1918.
Traffic count by 15-minute periods.
(a) Pedestrians and Vehicles other than Street Cars.
15-minute
Number of pedestrians
Number of vehicles other
than street cars
period
Going Going
Both
Going
Going
Both
beginning
north
south
ways
north
south
ways
12:00
3
II
14
3
4
7
12:15
O
12
12
I
4
12:30
12:45
4
•
14
18
2
I
3
17
20
O
2
53 2
I :00
I
4
5
O
O
O
1:15
I:30
NO
O
3
3
2
O
2
I
I
2
I:45
I
O
I
I
I
2:00
O
I
I
O
2
2:15
I
O
I
I
I
'2
2:30
O
I
I
I
I
2:45
2
2
O
O
3:00
O
O
O
O
3:15
O
O
O
O
I
3:30
I
O
I
O
~ ~ ~ O O H. O
2
2
3:45
O
I
I
2
I
3
4:00
O
O
I
I
2
4:15
3
I
4
O
I
I
4:30
O
O
O
4:45
3
O
3
O
O
O
5:00
2
2
4
O
O
O
5:15
2
12
14
O
5:30
6
39
45
O
O
5:45
8
50
58
O
I
I
Midnight till
6 A.M.
40
167
207
13
24
37
180
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Number of vehicles other
15-minute
period
beginning
Number of pedestrians
than street cars
Going
Going Both
Going
Going
Both
north
south
ways
north
south
ways
6:00
18
145
163
I
6:15
25
273
298
2
6:30
21
151
172
O
2 2 2
3
4
2
6:45
8
75
· 83
I
3
4
7:00
ΙΟ
48
58
O
O
O
7:15
7
59
66
O
3
3
7:30
13
224
237
ΙΟ
IO
7:45
II
14I
152
O
II
II
8:00
18
46
64
I
2
8:15
IO
22
32
I
O
31
I
8:30
3
29
32
2
. I
8:45
6
18
24
I
I
9:00
18
9
27
I
4
3 2 5
9:15
13
II
24
O
9:30
9
16
25
I
I
9:45
7
ΙΟ
17
O
I
I
IO:00
8
6
14
I
3
4
10:15
5
8
13
O
5
10:30
19
15
34
I
I
5 2
10:45
23
7
30
ΙΟ
I
II
II:00
16
16
32
I
4
5
11:15
15
IO
25
3
I
II:30
14
3
17
I
I
II:45
19
3
22
2
3
425
6 A.M. till
noon
316
1345
1661
29
62
91
12:00
30
20
50
6
4
ΙΟ
12:15
14
15
29
2
4
6
12:30
18
33
51
12:45
17
45
62
I :00
22
16
38
1:15
2
16
18
∞∞
23 T
2
4
2
I
2
2
6
53∞
8
1:30
3
IO
13
I
I
2
1:45
I I
16
27
4
2:00
9
8
17
3
2:15
6
6
12
O
2:30
12
13
25
3
32 +O
7
5
4
4
3
2:45
6
13
19
O
2
2
3:00
14
15
29
2
I
3
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
181
Going
Going
north
south
15 minute
period
beginning
Number of pedestrians
Number of vehicles other
than street cars
Going
south
Both
Both
Going
ways
north
3:15
II
12
23
5
3:30
8
4
12
4
3 H
3:45
20
21
41
3
4:00
21
20
4I
2
4:15
27
34
61
4
4:30
26
52
78
4:45
27
64
91
8
5:00
*97
67
164
5:15
*145
54
199
5:30
*360
22
382
5:45
195
46
241
S3ON ~ O
4∞ 757 2
I
5
2
2
I
6
ways
8
5
5
4
6
IO
7
6
∞ ∞
8
13
2
4
Noon till
6 P.M.
ΙΙΟΙ
622
1723
80
58
138
6:00
60
13
73
6
6:15
32
17
49.
6:30
24
IO
34
2
6:45
18
26
44
2
7:00
II
30
41
8
334
3 ~ ~ ∞
9
6
6
2
4
O
8
7:15
24
28
52
I
I
7:30
8
26
34
O
7:45
29
45
74
I
I
2 2 2
1 2
8:00
I2
25
37
O
I
I
8:15
II
12
23
O
O
8:30
23
17
40
I
I
2
8:45
29
13
42
I
O
I
9:00
27
9
36
2
O
2
9:15.
36
8
44
O
O
O
9:30
20
4
24
O
I
I
9:45
23
12
35
2
O
2
I0:00
81
13
94
O
O
10:15
26
II
37
I
I
10:30
II
7
18
2
I
3
10:45
9
6.
15
O
I
I
II :00
11:15
11:30
4
32
5∞
6
9
O
I
I
7
O
O
O
8
12
I
I
2
II:45
8
4
12
O
O
O
6 P.M. till
midnight
531
355
886
33
23
56
182
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
SUMMARY.
Traffic period
Number of pedestrians
Going Going Both
north south .ways
Number of vehicles other
than street cars
Going
north
Going
south
Both
ways
Midnight till
5:30 A.M.
26
78
104
13
23
36
5:30 A.M. till
8:30 A.M.
155
1273
1428
6
36
42
8:30 A.M. till
11:30 A.M.
142
155
297
20
23
43
11:30 A.M. till
1:30 P.M.
136
151
287
19
24
43
1:30 P.M. till
5:00 P.M.
201
288
489
43
29
72
5:00 P.M. till
6:30 P.M.
889
219
1108
30
15
45
6:30 P.M. till
midnight
439
325
764
24
17
4I
24 Hours
1988
2489
4477
155
167
322
Temporary
Bridge (June 5) 3098
3286
6384 1947 1977
3924
FOOTNOTE.
*On account of some confusion in the afternoon rush-hour count on
June 3, a second count was taken from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on June 4. This
second count checked so closely with the count for the corresponding
period of the previous day that the figures of the June 3 count have been
used throughout, with the exception of the figures for pedestrian traffic
northbound during the three 15-minute periods beginning at 5:00, 5:15
and 5:30 p.m., respectively. This was at the peak of the homeward rush
and by a misunderstanding only one man was on the job on June 3. His
count proves to be correct, however, except with respect to the north-
bound pedestrian traffic for the three periods mentioned, where the Mon-
day figures appear to be excessive. They were 118 for the fifteen minutes
beginning at 5 o'clock; 157 for the fifteen minutes beginning at 5:15; and
467 for the fifteen minutes beginning at 5:30; whereas the Tuesday figures
when two men were on the job were 97, 145 and 360, respectively. Ac-
cordingly the latter have been substituted in the record of the Monday
count.
640
NEW STREET BRIDGE: PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
MONDAY, JUNE 3,1918.
560
Total Northbound in 24 hours
Total Southbound in 24 hours
Total both ways in 24 hours
Total vehicles (including bicycles)
both ways in 24 hours
1,988
2,489
4.477
322
480
Southbound.
Northbound-
400
320
240
160
80
Southbound Peaks
273 in 15 minute:
224 in 15 minutes
0
12
Midnight
/
2 3
4
5
6
?
9
10
AM
12
Noon
Аса
Northbound Peak
360 in 15 minutes
1
2
3
4
5
6
19
7
8
9
10
"/
PM
12
Midnight
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
183
(b) Street Cars and Street Car Passengers.
15 minute
period
beginning
Going south
Both ways
Number of street cars and street car passengers
Going north
Cars Passengers
Cars Passengers
Cars Passengers
12:00
I
22
I
90
2
II2.
12:15
O
O
O
O
O
O
12:30
I
II
O
I
II
12:45
O
O
O
O
O
I :00
O
O
O
O
1:15
O
O
O
O
1:30
O
O
O
O
O
I:45
O
O
O
O
2:00
O
O
O
O
O
O
2:15
O
O
O
O
O
O
2:30
O
O
O
O
O
O
2:45
O
O
O
O
O
O
3:00
O
O
O
O
O
3:15
O
O
O
O
O
3:30
O
O
O
O
O
3:45
O
O
O
O
O
O
4:00
O
O
I
8
I
8
4:15
O
O
O
O
O
4:30
I
O
I
9
2
9
4:45
O
O
I
33
I
33
5:00
O
O
I
48
I
48
5:15
I
8
I
58
5:30
O
5:45
2
71
N N
2
76
2 2
3∞8
66
76
2
150
4
221
Midnight till
6 A.M.
6
112
IO
472
16
584
6:00
6:15
33
77
9
588
12
665
102
3
166
6
268
6:30
8
86
6:45
6
72
7:00
5
39
7:15
3
51
7:30
4
24
7:45
I
40
2 3 5 2 4 5
129
ΙΟ
215
171
9
243
157
IO
196
60
183
Со сл
5
III
8
207
162
6
202
8:00
8:15
8:30
53H
35
4
67
9
102
29.
O
О
3
29
I
9
3
58
4
67
184
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
15-minute
period
beginning
8:45
Number of street cars and street car passengers
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
2 2 2
10:30
I
25
10:45
2
60
31
Going north
Going south
Both ways
Cars
Passengers
Cars Passengers
Cars
Passengers
2 2 2 1
46
I
28
3
74
36
2
40
32
I
13
I
9
54
48
40
I
31
I
76
31
62
30
5
+3 +3 L 3+
4
76
45
4
71
84
O
55
4
124
40
80
I
23
3
83
II:00
3
60
3
43
11:15
2
65
O
6 2
103
65
11:30
I
11:45
2
22 23
3
49
4
71
70
I
30
3
100
6 A.M.
till noon
66
1131
63
2190
129
3321
12:00
3
168
4
53
12:15
3
66
O
O
12:30
12:45
I
I I
4
73
735
221
66
84
I :00
1:15
1:30.
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
2
4:00
4:15
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3
72
2
48
5
120
2
43
4
102
6
145
3
50
I
14
4
64
2
27
3
68
5
95
2
40
I
54
3
94
2
86
4
74
6
160
3
39
I
15
4
54
2
36
3
76
42
75
6
III
35
5
III
60
3
48
5
108
3
77
I
18
4
95
2
55
4
59
6
114
3
72
I
25
4
97
2
106
5
III
7
217
4:30
4:45
4~ 4
149
4
41
8
190
2
107
9
249
II
356
177
8
142
I2
319
5:00
5
307
6
157
II
464
5:15
6
271
3
96
9
367
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
185
Going north
Cars Passengers
15 minute
period
beginning
Number of street cars and street car passengers
Going south
Cars Passengers
Both ways
Cars Passengers
5:30
8
575
4
102
12 677
5:45
IO
600
2
114
12
714
Noon till
6 P.M.
80
3270
80
1773
160
5043
6:00
6:15
6:30
53T
246
3
121
2
I
22
2
6:45
7:00
33
172
98
2
7:15
4
82
7:30
4
52
~ ~ ~ - ~ 26
69
30
42
ev er ∞
8
315
5
151
3
64
I
51
4
223
58
5
156
57
6
139
144
IO
196
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
II:00
11:15
2
~ ~43 ♡ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~
7
80
4
57
II
137
2
68
4
98
6
166
84
3
35
7
119
58
4
44
7
102
3
54
I
18
4
72
2
40
3
36
5
76
4
45
3
34
7
79
48
2
40
4
88
2
50
2
45
4
95
2
105
3
60
2
53
O
5 2
165
53
1 2 2 ~
I
IO
3
83
4
93
35
2
52
4
87
28
5
60
7
2
22
O
2
I
6
I
17
II:30
II:45
6 P.M. till
midnight
65
1596
61 1166
126
2762
2
8
2
43
3
8248
~ 3
22
14
60
186
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Traffic
p riod
-
SUMMARY.
Number of street cars and street car passengers
Going north
Cars Passengers
Going south
Cars Passengers
Both ways
Cars Passengers
Midnight till
-5:30 A.M.
4
4I
6
246
IO
287
5:30 A.M. till
8:30 A. M.
44
626
40
1909
84
2535
8:30 A.M. till
11:30 A.M.
22
484
22
428
44
912
11:30 A.M. till
:30 P.M.
18
502
19
369
37
871
1:30 P.M. till
5:00 P.M.
36
1107
50
1014
86
2121
5:00 P.M. till
6:30 P.M.
37
2120
20
568
57
2688
6:30 P.M. till
Midnight
57
1229
56
1067
113
2296
24 hours
*218
6109
*213
5601
*431
11,710
*Of the total number of cars crossing the bridge 420 were passenger
cars (211 northbound and 209 southbound) and II were freight, mail and
service cars (6 northbound and 5 southbound).
640
560
NEW STREET BRIDGE
480
Southbound
400
320
240
160
80
STREET CAR PASSENGERS - MONDAY JUNE 3,1918
Northbound Peakutes
600 in 15 minute
Southbound Peak.
588 in 15 minutes
Total Northbound in 24 hours
Passenger Cars
212
Passengers 6,90650500
Total Southbound in 24 hours
Passenger Cars 20
Passengers
5,601
Total both ways in 24 hours
Passenger Cars 420
Passengers
16710
Northbound
12
Mianight'
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
૭
10
12
Noon
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A.M.
P.M
a
12
Midnight
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
187
Number of pedestrians
Going Going Both
north
south
Part II: Temporary Bridge-Midnight to Midnight, June 5, 1918.
15-minute
period
beginning
Traffic count by 15-minute periods.
Number vehicles-no street cars
Going
Going
Both
ways
north
south
ways
12:00
13.
6
19
5
O
5
12:15
сл
5
I
12:30
I
8
12:45
O
I :00
O
1:15
I
I
I:30
O
O
1 ∞ 5 ∞
L∞ 2 O
6
I
9
I
5
O
8
I
2
2
I
I:45
I
O
I
I
NOON H 2 O
5
6
I
O
3
I
3
3
I
2:00
O
I
I
O
O
O
2:15
O
I
I
O
O
O
2:30
2
O
2:45
O
O
2 O
O
O
O
O
3:00
I
I
O
O
O
3:15
O
2
3:30
3:45
4:00
~ 3 N
7
O
2 ♪
O
I
I
7
O
3
3
I
4
3
3
6
2
4
6
O
O
O
4:15
I
3
4:30
I
3 H
4
I
2
4:45
3
8
II
ON OH
2
I
3
I
I
O
I
5:00
O
ΙΟ
IO
5:15
.8
29
37
NO
2
I
3
5:30
14
56
5:45
18
70
8888
70
O
6
336
4
6
ΙΟ
Midnight till
6 A.M.
80
216
296
24
35
59
6:00
6:15
3555
233
268
16
22
38
66
217
283
ΙΟ
35
45
6:30
107
78
185
8
28
36
6:45
166
100'
266
17
21
38
7:00
59
45
104
12
33
45
7:15
16
45
61
15
31
46
7:30
22
ΙΙΟ
132
19
60
79
7:45
33
98
131
23
50
73
8:00
34
73
107
25
4I
66
188
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
15-minute
Number of pedestrians
Number vehicles-no street cars
period
Going
Going
Both
Going
Going
Both
beginning
north
south
ways
north
south
ways
8:15
25
42
67
20
4I
61
8:30
19
20
39
30
30
8:45
36
27
63
34
9:00
22
22
44
29
लेले
37
37
858
60
71
66
9:15
6
12
18
35
26
6I
9:30
17
19
36
33
38
71
9:45
22
17
39
26
43
69
IO:00
21
2I
42
28
10:15
22
18
40
38
10:30
2-3
19
42
36
10:45
21
24
45
26
w w w w
34
62
32
70
32
68
38
64
II:00
28
12
40
50
31
81
11:15
28
25
53
4I
36
77
II:30
25
21
46
40
30
70
II:45
53
17
70
29
34
63
6:00 A.M.
till noon
906
1315
2221
640
830
1470
12:00
76
30
106
50
40
90
12:15
21
24
45
24
24
12:30
34
48
82
35
25
12:45
24
38
62
I :00
23
4I
64
बैठ
30
30
∞88
48
60
60
17
4I
58
1:15
22
58
80
34
29
63
1:30
22
31
53
25
24
49
I:45
16
13
29
39
42
81
2:00
16
33
49
37
40
77
2:15
23
20
43
47
32
79
2:30
40
17
57
38
33
71
2:45
27
28
55
25
40
65
3:00
17
22
39
48
34
82
3:15
21
21
42
45
37
82
3:30
45
18
63
30
26
56
3:45
52
30
82
32
42
74
4:00
59
33
92
33
36
69
4:15
60
65
125
39
33
72
4:30
60
74
134
53
37
90
4:45
36
63
99
39
46
85
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
189
15-minute
period
beginning
Number of pedestrians
Number vehicles-no street cars
Going
Going
Both
Going
Going
Both
north
south
ways
north
south
ways
5:00
74
81
155
53
45
98
5:15
108
63
171
64
42
106
5:30
227
173
400
66
5:45
274
97
371
899
23
89
59
32
91
Noon till
6:00 P.M.
1377
II2I
2498
962
833
1795
6:00
68
16
84
25
16
41
6:15
21
II
32
24
I I
35
6:30
4
6:45
5
3∞
7
3
8
13
7
3∞
6
8
15
7:00
43
13
56
17
13
30
7:15
34
17
51
16
17
33
7:30
36
39
75
31
19
50
7:45
59
73
132
17
22
39
8:00
44
51
95
13
17
30
8:15
29
61
90
21
18
39
8:30
43
42
85
21
15
36
8:45
30
49
79
20
18
38
9:00
37
73
IIO
14
8
22
9:15
40
31
71
14
ΙΟ
24
9:30
50
23
73
16
8
24
9:45
65
15
80
15
II
26
IO:00
35
21
56
8
17
10:15
22
14
36
IO
2
[2
10:30
28
18
46
6
5
II
10:45
5
I2
17
6
9
15
II:00
I I
17
28
6
13
19
11:15
14
8
22
4
11:30
6
I I
17
2
II:45
6
8
14
сл
757
II
7
12
6 P.M. till
Midnight
735
634
1369 321
271
592
190
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
SUMMARY.
Number of pedestrians
Number vehicles-no street cars
Traffic
period
Going
Going
Both
Going
Going
Both
north
south
ways
north
south
ways
Midnight till
5:30
48
90
138
20
21
4I
5:30 A.M. till
8:30 A.M.
595
1167
1762
169
374
543
8:30 A.M. till
II:30 A.M.
265
236
501
406
414
820
II:30 A.M. till
1:30 P.M.
278
277
555
259
253
512
1:30 P.M. till
5:00 P.M.
494
468
962
530
502
1032
5:00 P.M. till
6:30 P.M.
772
44I
1213
291
169
460
6:30 P.M. till
Midnight
646
607
1253
272
244
516
24 Hours
3098
3286
6384
1947
1977
3924
TEMPORARY BRIDGE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1918.
160-
140
/20
Southbound
100
80
60
40
20
·Tatal Northbound in 24 hours
Total Southbound in 24 hours
Total both ways in 24 hours
1,947
1977
3.9 24
[
North bound-
Southbound Peak
60 in 15 minutes
Northbound Peak
66 in 15 minutes
12
2
3
Midnight
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
/
2
3
4
5
a
Noon
A M
PM
7
8
و
10 "1
12
Midnight
640
560
TEMPORARY BRIDGE
480
Southbound.
400
320
240
160
80
شد
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIĊ
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1918
Total Northbound in 24 hours
Total South bound in 24 hours
Total both ways in 24 hours
3.098'
3,286
6.384
Number of vehicles (including bicycles)
Northbound in 24 hours™ 1.947
Southbound in 24 hours 1,977
Both ways in 24 hours 3.924
Southbound Morning Peak
233 in 15 minutes
Northbound Morning Peak
166 in 15 minutės
A
+
Northbound..
Northbound Evening Peak
274 in 15 minutes
Southbound Evening Peak
173 in 15 minútes
Ax
12
2 7
4
5
7
8
9
10
"1
12
2 3
4
5
6
19
7
8
9 10 "1
Midnight
Noon
A M
PM
12
Midnight
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
191
APPENDIX F.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
LOAD AND HEADWAY RECORDS OF LEHIGH VALLEY
TRANSIT COMPANY'S STREET RAILWAY SERVICE IN
BETHLEHEM, PA., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1918.
I. Bethlehem Loop Line-North Side.
Eastbound-4:20 A.M. to 12:20 A.M. the next day.
Time of
Minutes
since last Load at
preceding Lehigh
Load at
car passed Bridge Rittersville
Load at
Broad and
New Streets,
Bethlehem
passing
Lehigh
Car
Number
Schedule
Bridge.
service
Allentown.
A.M.
605
Tripper
4:20
8
5
5
622
Tripper
4:35
15
12
20
615
Tripper
4:49
14
4
2
2
188
Tripper
4:50
I
19
14
O
612
Tripper
4:55
5
25
44
608
Tripper
5:07
I2
I
I
I
900
20-min.
5:10
3
29
34
32
618
Tripper
5:25
15
3
12
18
905
20-min.
5:30
5
48
65
80
166
Tripper
5:40
IO
43
63
90
130 Tripper
5:41
I
3
24
24
191
Tripper
5:43
2
20
30
30
906
20-min.
5:54
II
33
29
55
203
Tripper
6:11
17
70
70
70
901
20-min.
6:13
176
Tripper
6:15
2 2
125
135
125
51
42
42
201
Tripper
6:21
6
623
Tripper
6:25
4
∞ ∞
88
92
92
8r
72
72
900
20-min.
6:33
8
75
72
69
205
Tripper
6:46
13
62
46
46
905
20-min.
6:47
I
74
75
68
135
Tripper
6:57
ΙΟ
75
42
42
175
Tripper
7:00
301
Tripper
7:05
906
20-min.
7:13
со спо
3
15
14
14
37
17
32
8
16
I2
26
172 Tripper
7:14
I
20
20
20
192
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
I. (Continued.)
Time of
passing
Minutes
Load at
Lehigh
Car
Schedule
Bridge
since last
preceding
Load at
Lehigh
Load at
Broad and
New Streets,
Number service
Allentown
car passed
Bridge
Rittersville
Bethlehem
188
Tripper
7:15
I
56
57
57
200
Tripper
7:22
7
31
20
901
20-min.
7:25
3
72
80
138885
68
900
20-min.
7:47
22
74
65
51
609
Tripper
8:01
14
58
54
?
905
20-min.
8:18
7
44
40
59
906
20-min.
8:30
12
32
24
32
ེ
901
20-min.
8:48
18
47
40
28
900
20-min.
9:12
24
30
26
23
905
20-min.
9:28
16
56
43
42
906
20-min.
9:48
20
31
30
30
901
20-min.
10:12
24
42
32
4I
900
20-min.
10:27
15
23
15
905
20-min.
10:45
18
27
22
222 22
24
906
20-min.
12:12
27
40
24
32
901
20-min.
II:20
8
27
16
33
900
20-min.
II:47
27
26
19
26
P.M.
905
20-min.
12:10
23
32
20
25
906
20-min.
12:30
20
14
8
20
910
"10-min."
12:39
9
16
*
19
901
20-min.
12:48
9
12
9
40
904
"IO-min."
12:54
16
15
12
ΙΟ
900
20-min.
I :09
15
19
15
32
614
"I0-min."
1:18
9
19
15
29
905 20-min.
I:28
ΙΟ
35
.20
27
909
"IO-min."
1:36
8
14
22
23
906
20-min.
I:48
12
15
16
20
910
"IO-min."
2:00
I2
58
59
32
901
20-min.
2:12
12
29
20
28
912
"IO-min."
2:15
3
35
30
36
900
20-min.
2:30
15
33
35
44
904
"10-min."
2:40
ΙΟ
31
20
23
132
Tripper
2:45
905
20-min.
2:47
5 2
2
2
3
33
33
40
190
Tripper
2:47
O
2
2
I
196
Tripper
2:48
I
I
I
2
Bethlehem, PennsYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
193
I. (Continued.)
Time of
passing
Minutes
Lehigh
since last
Load at
Load at
Broad and
Car
Schedule
Bridge,
preceding
Lehigh
Load at
New Streets,
Number Service
Allentown
car passed
Bridge
Rittersville
Bethlehem
62I "IO-min."
2:58
ΙΟ
16
9
7
906 20-min.
3:10
12
27
25
27
909 "IO-min."
3:15
5
17
17
25
901
20-min.
3:26
II
9
I I
24
910
"10-min."
3:42
16
35
16
22
900 20-min.
3:48
6
31
35
912 "I0-min.”
3:58
IO
53
53
38
905
20-min.
4:06
904
"10-min."
4:14
8
∞∞
8
36
36
30
20
w w w ô
40
37
30
135
Tripper
4:15
I
45
60
906
20-min.
4:18
156
Tripper
4:25
190
Tripper
4:28
623
Tripper
4:30
373 N
II
I I
67
27
36
4I
42
8
2
5
сан
8
5
I
I
302
Tripper
4:31
I
17
21
23
614
Tripper
4:32
I
6
5
3
169
Tripper
4:33
I
15
12
II
603
Tripper
4:35
2
39
34
31
143
Tripper
4:36
I
15
17
27
621
"IO-min."
4:42
6
26
29
33
187
Tripper
4:46
4
3
901
20-min.
4:48
2
9
8 ∞
I
4
8
17
909
"IO-min."
4:54
6
26
32
33
198
Tripper
4:55
I
7
I I
II
201
Tripper
5:05
ΙΟ
18
14
ΙΟ
900
20-min.
5:12
7
21
IO
22
188
Tripper
5:15
3
9
8
7
619 Tripper
5:18
3
52
40
30
910
"10-min."
5:18
O
19
15
19
905
20-min.
5:18
O
75
69
53
912
"I0-min."
5:42
24
32
12
14
906
20-min.
5:51
9
85
56
23
901
20-min.
6:06
15
IO
8
19
904
"IO-min."
6:12
6
74
50
9
621
"I0-min."
6:29
17
3
4
2
900
20-min.
6:30
I
33
25
26
13
149
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
I. (Continued.)
Time of
passing
Minutes
Load at
Lehigh
since last
Load at
Car
Numbe
Schedule
Bridge,
preceding
Lehigh
Service
Allentown
car passed
Bridge
Load at
Rittersville
Broad and
New Streets,
909
"IO-min."
6:31
I
8
ΙΟ
Bethlehem
14
905
20-min.
6:44
13
13
17
47
906
20-min.
7:12
28
27
23
26
912
"I0-min."
7:15
3
31
17
19
901
20-min.
7:29
14
34
24
60
904
"IO-min."
7:35
6
13
13
16
900
20-min.
7:47
I2
22
21
25
910
"10-min."
7:48
I
16
17
18
905
20-min.
8:06
18
29
22
24
909
"IO-min."
8:11
621
"10-min.”
8:17
6
78
56
40
6
9
7
906
20-min.
8:26
9
15
II
15
901
20-min.
8:45
19
19
18
18
900
20-min.
9:12
27
35
17
19
905
20-min.
9:18
6
35
22
32
910
"IO-min."
9:42
24
28
21
17
906
20-min.
10:00
18
4I
19
29
912
"10-min."
10:27
27
93
79
21
900
20-min.
10:30
3
83
69
79
905
20-min.
10:44
14
53
33
13
901
20-min.
10:48
4
ΙΟ
?
8
906
20-min.
II:12
24
38
34
6
900
20-min.
II:45
33
16
I2
7
901
20-min.
II:54
9
65
70
27
A.M.
905
20-min.
12:20
26
98
88
30
*Car turned back west at Broad and New Streets without going to South
Bethlehem.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
195
I. (Continued.)
Westbound-5:30 A.M. to 12:15 A.M. the next day.
Time of
leaving
Third
Car
Schedule
and New
Streets,
Minutes
since last
preceding
No.
service Bethlehem
car passed
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
Load at
Load at
Broad
and New
Streets
Lehigh
Load at
Rittersville
Bridge,
Allentown
A.M.
176 Tripper
16
186
Tripper
902
20-min.
5:30
134
Tripper
:::
II
: ++:
34
51
46
14
19
40
12
58
908
20-min.
5:48
18
18
24
23
59
903 20-min. 6:12
24
80
176
Tripper
166
Tripper 6:25
13
198
Tripper 6:26
31
8:8
100
87
75
3
2
96
78
28
30
I
19
25
8
15
911
20-min.
6:27
130
Tripper
6:35
8∞
I
23
20
9
ΙΟ
35
24
12
9
196
Tripper 6:45
IO
39
40
28
23
204 Tripper 6:51
6
75
74
55
45
609
Tripper
:
14
181
Tripper 6:55
4
9
304.
Tripper
7:00
609 Tripper
7:01
SH
5
45
35
33
30
I
50
43
3333
?
14
902
20-min. 7:12
II
37.
40
29
30
623 Tripper
28
30
20
908 20-min. 7:18
6
17
I2
9
IO
203
Tripper 7:20
2
I
I
5
5
201
Tripper 7:25
сл
17
25
25
30
903
20-min. 7:28
3
18
15
IO
9
190 Tripper 7:46
18
36
30
24
25
175 Tripper 7:47
I
14
12
8
9
911
20-min. 7:48
I
13
17
7
14.
301
Tripper 7:50
2
35
42
50
60
169
Tripper 7:53
3
O
O
172
Tripper 8:00
7
15
21
7
?
טרי
188
Tripper 8:01
I
8
17
IO
15
200
Tripper 8:10
9
20
12
7
ΙΟ
609 Tripper
902
20-min. 8:35
25
908
20-min.
8:40
er er
50
승​:
39
40
17
15
5
7
IO
6
6
196
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Time of
leaving
Third
I. (Continued.)
Minutes
Load at
Load at
and New
since last
Third
Broad
Car
Schedule
Streets
preceding
and New and New
Load at
No.
service
Bethlehem
car passed
Streets
Streets
Rittersville
+
Load at
Lehigh
Bridge,
Allentown
903
20-min.
8:48
8
?
?
911
20-min.
9:13
25
42
52
40
902
20-min.
9:42
29
31
45
66
908
20-min,
9:48
6
8
5
II.
:8080
58
69
16
903
20-min. IO:II
23
30
29
34
37
911 20-min. 10:30
19
23
23
30
37
902
20-min. 10:48
908 20-min. II:12
903
20-min. II:28
2 2
18
23
40
41
54
24
29
35
33
46.
44
29
35
34.
911 20-min. II:48
20
28
31
29
34
P.M.
902
20-min. 12:12
24
42
35
44
48
908
20-min.
12:24
12
32
30
40
59
903 20-min. 12:48
24
37
4I
54
70
910 "10-min."
*31
ΙΟ
17
911 20-min.
I:12
24
65
68
53
60
902 20-min.
I :24
12
47
60.
63
67
904 "10-min.”
1:35
II
20
19
17
18
908 20-min.
I:47
12
34
35.
38
·
614 "10-min."
1:54
7
20
18
22
49
23
903 20-min. 2:12
18
30
28
20
27.
909 "10-min.” 2:15
3
16
21
22
20
911 20-min. 2:29
14
20
19
22
25
910 "10-min." 2:36
7
18
38
27
22
902 20-min.
2:47
II
20
20
18
15.
912 "10-min.”
2:53
6
II
12
12
13.
908 20-min. 3:10
17
29
26
40
50
904 "10-min.” 3:15
5
20
25
24.
33
903 20-min. 3:27
12
24
13
15
20
621 "10-min." 3:36
9
196 Tripper 3:43
132
Tripper 3:45
226
13
32
40
48
7
35
33
26
24
59
54
48
21
911
20-min. 3:46
I
49
45
40
55
909 "10-min.” 3:54
902 20-min. 4:10
910 "10-min.”
8
39.
40
29
29
16..
50
58
60
56
4:15
5
?
22
12
16
BETHLEHEM, Pennsylvania, AND VICINITY.
197
Time of
leaving
Third
I. (Continued.)
Minutes
Load at
Load at
Load at
and New
since last
Third
Broad
Lehigh
Car
Schedule
Streets
preceding
and New
and New Load at
Bridge,
No.
service Bethlehem
car passed
Streets
Streets
Rittersville
Allentown
908
20-min. 4:30
912 "10-min.” 4:36
15
53
57
70
80
6
59
81
79
76
903
20-min. 4:37
II
49
48
48
51
904 "10-min."
5:00
13
8
50
137
120
бог
Tripper
5:13
13
78
85
64
70
205
Tripper
5:15
2
79
81
91
86
623
Tripper
5:16
I
28
911
20-min. 5:17
I
52
621 "10-min.”
5:18
I
42
업업 ​8
60
13
ΙΟ
35
35
47
44
902
20-min. 5:27
9
75
70
72
62
614
Tripper 5:37
IO
72
143
Tripper 5:40
909 "10-min."
5:42
32
28
58
49
44
80
61
32
16
42
47
31
24
908 20-min. 5:46
4
85
68
59
50
197
195
Tripper 5:47
Tripper 5:48
I
65
65
38
30
I
34
20
ΙΟ
8
187 Tripper 5:50
302 Tripper
5:58
2∞
8
100
88
60
40
II
ΙΟ
60
25
17
903
20-min. 6:12
912 "10-min."
14
58
76
44
45
6:15
3
57
69
51
47
911
20-min.
6:36
21
56
52
бо
70
904 "10-min."
6:39
3
2.
?
8
I2
27
188 Tripper 6:45
902 20-min. 6:47
6
32
23
21
34
2
36
48
45
42
910 "10-min."
21
12
16
621 "10-min." 7:06
19
22
33
81
103
908 20-min.
909 "10-min." 7:14
7:12
6
43
33
28
29
2
30
49
66
67
903 20-min. 7:29
623 Tripper
911 20-min. 7:46
912 "10-min."
15
37
25
29
40
7:35
6
12
19
19
20
II
64
76
44
54
7:54
8
26
25
13
17
902
20-min. 8:14
20
56
58
38
904 "10-min." 8:18
4
23
6
7
908 20-min. 8:28
ΙΟ
23
13
9
47 35 98
903 20-min.
8:47
19
32
30
28
34
198
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Time of
leaving
Third
I. (Concluded.)
Minutes
!
add New
since last
Car
Schedule
Streets
preceding
Load at
Third
and New
Load at
Broad
and New'
Load at
No.
service Bethlehem car passed
Streets
Streets
Rittersville
909 "10-min." 8:54
7
6
6
911 20-min. 9:06
12
?
16
5∞
Load at
Lehigh
Bridge,
Allentown
6
8
9
621 "10-min."
9:06
O
26
17
II
II
902
20-min. 9:28
22
23
25
14
14
908
20-min.
9:45
17
47
60
36
30
910 "10-min.”
*
20
25
903 20-min. 10:14
29
31
21
13
II
911
20-min.
10:31
7
25
28
20
13
902
20-min.
10:46
15
38
60
48
45
908
20-min.
II :II
25
21
12
7
5
903
20-min.
II:28
17
6
911
20-min.
II:45
17
75
영어
​6
9
5
50
45
33
A.M.
902 20-min.
12:05
20
30
30
12
ΙΟ
903 20-min. 12:15
IO
IO
?
?
?
912 "10-min."
*2
I
I
*These cars were turned back on their eastbound trips at Broad and
New Streets.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
199
II. BETHLEHEM LOOP LINE-SOUTH SIDE.
Eastbound 4:48 A.M. to 12:10 A.M. the next day.
Time of
leaving
Eighth
Street
Car
Number
Schedule
Bridge,
Minutes
since last
preceding
service
Allentown
car passed
Load at
Eighth
Street
Bridge
Load at
Fountain
Hill
Silk Mills
A.M.
902
20-min,
4:48
I2
21
908
20-min.
5:12
24
33
25
130
Tripper
5:25
3
2
903
20-min.
5:29
4
IO
37
304
Tripper
5:29
ΙΟ
62
609
Tripper
5:30
I
40
85
204
Tripper
5:40
IO
O
26
198
Tripper
5:43
3
2
19
187
Tripper
5:47
4
16
28
196
Tripper
5:50
132
Tripper
5:52
32
9
5
34
911
20-min.
5:54
2
I2
21
902
20-min.
6:12
18
76
116
908
20-min.
6:30
18
72
130
191
Tripper
?
4
169
Tripper
6:49
17
73
95
156
Tripper
6:48
I
33
46
903
20-min.
6:48
O
38
40
190
Tripper
6:50
2
15
19
911
20-min.
7:15
25
30
32
134
Tripper
7:15
O
15
27
902
20-min.
7:48
33
45
58
908
20-min.
7:54
6
ΙΟ
15
903
20-min.
8:12
18
?
?
911
20-min.
8:36
24
41
41
902
20-min.
9:06
30
23
23
908
20-min.
9:12
6
3
2
903
20-min.
9:30
18
12
15
911
20-min.
9:56
26
16
22
902
20-min.
10:18
22
22
25
908
20-min.
10:30
12
14
15
200
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
II. (Continued.)
Time of
leaving
Eighth
Minutes
Load at
Street
since last
Eighth
Load at
Fountain
Car
Schedule
Bridge,
preceding
Street
Hill
Number
service
Allentown
car passed
Bridge
Silk Mills
903
20-min.
10:47
17
17
16
911
20-min.
11:15
28
19
14
902
20-min.
II:30
15
II
12
908
20-min.
II:48
18
7
8.
P.M.
903
20-min.
12:12
24
15
20
911
20-min.
12:36
24
15
16
902
20-min.
12:48
12
27
30
908
20-min.
I:12
24
19
18
903
20-min.
1:30
18
20
19
911
20-min.
I :54
24
18
24
902
20-min.
2:12
18
55
43
908
20-min.
2:30
18
54
66
614
Tripper
2:40
IO
I
2
903
20-min.
2:48
8
28
15
911
20-min.
3:15
27
23
18
172
Tripper
3:30
15
I
12
902
20-min.
3:30
O
45
28
623
Tripper
3:42
I2
I
13
908
20-min.
3:48
6
42
36
304
Tripper
3
601
Tripper
4:06
18
5
62
205
Tripper
4:10
4
7
13
903
20-min.
4:12
2
21
46
196
Tripper
4:23
II
I
3
132
Tripper
4:25
2
7
26
911
20-min.
4:30
5
43
56
204
Tripper
197
Tripper
:
134
Tripper
902
20-min.
4:48
18
A:::
3
I
19
65
63
147
Tripper
7
908
20-min.
5:12
24
46
38
903
20-min.
5:30
18
47
17
911
20-min.
5:54
24
56
19
902
20-min.
6:12
18
32
IO
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
201
II. (Continued.)
Time of
leaving
Eighth
Minutes
Load at
Street
since last
Eighth
Load at
Fountain
Car
Number
Schedule
Bridge,
preceding
Street
service
Allentown
car passed
Bridge
Hill
Silk Mills
908
20-min.
6:30
18
18
13
903
20-min.
6:48
18
II
15
911
20-min.
7:24
36
25
26
902
20-min.
7:30
6
20
18
908
20-min.
7:47
17
9
8
903
20-min
8:12
25
22
17
911
20-min.
8:36
24
9
6.
902
20-min.
8:48
12
17
6
908
20-min.
9:12
24
23
14
903
20-min.
9:30
18
23
II
911
20-min.
10:06
36
34
35
902
20-min.
10:12
6
25
16
908
20-min.
10:30
18
II
14
903
20-min.
10:47
17
I
2
911
20-min.
II:12
25
49
31
902
20-min.
II:30
18
50
40
A.M.
903
20-min.
12:10
40
48
36
*For trippers, the record was taken at Ninth and St. John Streets.
Westbound-5:39 A.M. to 12:07 A.M. the next day.
Time of
leaving
Third
and New
Minutes
since last
Car
Number
Schedule
service
Streets,
Bethlehem
preceding
car passed
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
Load at
Fountain
Hill
Silk Mills
St. John
Streets
Allentown
Load at
Ninth and
A.M.
901
20-min.
19
900
20-min.
5:39
9
19
50
905
20-min.
5:54
15
35
18
47
906
20-min.
6:21
27
44
32
24
901
20-min.
6:36
15
95
65
24
132
Tripper
6:51
15
24
30
187
Tripper
6:52
I
54
44
900
20-min.
6:52
O
71
40
20
202
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
II. (Continued.)
Time of
leaving
Third
and New
Minutes
since last
Car
Number
Schedule
service
Streets
Bethlehem
preceding
Load at
Third
and New
Load at
Fountain
Hill
car passed
Streets
Silk Mills
Load at
Ninth and
St. John
Streets,
Allentown
905
20-min.
7:21
29
50
38
30
191
Tripper
7:23
2
2
906
20-min.
7:33
ΙΟ
48
48
78
205
Tripper
5
901
20-min.
7:51
18
24
14
135
Tripper
7:55
4
50
45
134
Tripper
8:15
20
ΙΟ
7
900
20-min.
8:20
5
21
12
:: 0 :: 0
50
26
IO
905
20-min.
8:42
22
42
26
25
.906
20-min.
8:54
12
22
12
26
901
20-min.
9:21
27
27
29
24
900
20-min.
9:53
32
26
19
18
905
20-min.
9:58
5
35
19
16
906
20-min.
10:24
26
24
15
23
901
20-min.
10:36
12
33
13
12
900
20-min.
10:54
18
27
32
21
905
20-min.
II:IO
16
22
9
ΙΟ
906
20-min.
11:33
23
32
18
II
901
20-min.
II :54
21
32
19
21
900
20-min.
12:20
26
37
25
34
905
20-min.
12:34
14
35
20
38
906
20-min.
12:50
16
27
24
40
901
20-min.
I:23
33
53
36
42
900
20-min.
1:36
13
42
23
25
905
20-min.
1:54
18
40
24
32
906
20-min.
2:22
28
28
34
27
901
20-min.
2:36
14
34
32
29
900
20-min.
2:54
18
15
7
7
905
20-min.
3:15
21
15
14
16
906
20-min.
3:35
20
28
29
28
190
Tripper
3:40
5
48
44
36
614
Tripper
3:47
7
57
57
57
901
20-min.
4:01
14
30
48
4I
900
20-min.
4:15
•
14
46
64
44
950
20-min.
4:34
19
51
47.
38
172
Tripper
4:50
16
42
32
21
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
203
Minutes
since last
Car
Schedule
Streets
preceding
Number service
Bethlehem
car passed
II. (Concluded.)
Time of
leaving
Third
and New
Fountain
Hill
Silk Mills
Load at
Ninth and
St. John
Streets,
Allentown
Load at
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
906 20-min.
5:06
16
39
57
55
304
Tripper
5:15
9
15
:
135
Tripper
5:18
3
89
94
73
901
20-min.
5:22
4
40
30
21
900
20-min.
5:36
14
46
55
20
196
Tripper
5:38
2
84
70
34
132
Tripper
5:40
2
73
62
4I
204
Tripper
5:47
7
91
71
32
156
Tripper
5:50
3
83
15
14
603
Tripper
5:52
2
90
60
30
905
20-min.
5:54
2
49
52
25
169
Tripper
5:55
I
85
40
40
304
Tripper
5:56
I
17
14
IO
134
Tripper
5:57
I
64
38
17
147
Tripper
6:10
13
198
Tripper
6:15
3 5
18
14
6
62
26
13
201
Tripper
6:15
O
I I
7
5
906
20-min.
6:23
8
19
7
7
901
20-min.
6:39
16
29
40
35
900
20-min.
6:53
14
28
26
43
905
20-min.
7:07
14
4I
29
29
906
20-min.
7:34
27
27
26
25
901
20-min.
8:00
26
40
28
28
900
20-min.
8:20
20
23
19
19
905
20-min.
8:36
16
39
28
13
906
20-min.
8:54
18
19
21
17
901
20-min.
9:21
27
25
15
9
900
20-min.
9:38
17
20
26
13
905
20-min.
9:50
12
31
20
13
906
20-min.
10:24
34
30
25
18
900
20-min.
10:49
25
43
25
12
901
20-min.
II:03
14
6
2
I
905
20-min.
11:15
I2
21
16
14
A.M.
901
20-min.
12:07
52
20
I
I
204
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
III. HELLERTOWN-NORTH BETHLEHEM LOOP LINE.
Outbound to Hellertown-5:23 A.M. to 11:34 P.M.
Load at
Broad
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
passing
Fair
Grounds,
Bethlehem
Load at
Broad
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
and New
and Main
Load at
Third
Load at
Streets
Streets
and
Fair
Grounds
(every
(every
New
Load at
Poplar
other car)
other car)
Streets*
Street
Load at
Northampton
Heights
Load at
Coke
Works
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
A.M.
198
Tripper
605
15-min.
622
15-min.
::
34
612
15-min.
46
615
15-min.
5:23
28
61
:::
:
608
15-min.
5:36
13
25
72
166
Tripper
181
Tripper
609
Tripper
618
15-min.
204
Tripper
•
·
130
Tripper
304
Tripper
191
Tripper
605
15-min.
6:05
29
132
Tripper
196
Tripper
लै : :
34
72
187
Tripper
622
15-min.
6:21
16
41
203
Tripper
8:
:: 8:
201
Tripper
615
15-min.
6:51
191
Tripper
::::
169
Tripper
205
Tripper
56
59
3
5
28
33
36
56
70
43
60
90
42
120
129
80
128
135
107
113
ΙΟΙ
95
90
100
96
70
28
28
85
75
:+6728:::::
4
Nawan:
24.
90
97
50
35
•
78
81
42
38
12
13
5
::
30
28
90
105
90
72
56
60
45
46
20
30
33
38
37
20
12
?
?
40
30
•
·
93
29
81
3
H 3
I
O
2
22
15
•
15
•
200
26
ΙΟ
34
: : : :
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
205
Car
number
Schedule
service
Grounds,
Bethlehem
Time of
passing
Fair
Miuutes
since last
Load at
III. (Continued.)
品
​preceding
car passed
Fair
Grounds
Load at
Broad
Streets
(every
other car)
(every
Load at
Broad
Load at
and New
and Main
Third
Streets
and
New
Load at
Poplar
other car)
Streets*
Street
Load at
Northampton
Heights
Load at
Coke
Works
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
135
Tripper
50
40
156
Tripper
40
13
:
175
Tripper
17
IO
301
15-min.
•
42
28
18
14
·∞
8
190 Tripper
15
8
612
15-min.
6:54
3
60
75
90
188
Tripper
62
608
15-min.
7:25
31 -
25
49
134
Tripper
·
•
605
15-min.
7:34
9
12*
41
200
Tripper
•
622
15-min.
7:51
17
13
II
:
How to 08
80
42
30
5:
19
60
20
12.
5
62
43
45
21
14
9
4
35
6
18
II
12
8
615
15-min.
8:20
29
20
18
26
28*
18
27
612
15-min.
8:54
34
4
9
II
9
4
301
15-min.
8:57
3
20
18
28-
14
19'
ΙΟ
605
15-min.
9:05
8
2
26
28
9
3
622
15-min.
0:22
17
IO
12
16
14
ΙΟ
4
608
15-min.
9
15
IO
612
15-min.
9:36
14
7
7
12
IO
615
15-min.
9:52
16
4
6
ΙΟ
28
926
3
5
301
15-min.
10:22
30
12
5
23
13
20
5
2
wwwwwww.
605
15-min.
10:36
14
13
ΙΟ
II
22
8
7
?
622
15-min.
10:48
12
12
ΙΟ
21
II
14
9
6
612
15-min.
II:05
43
6
608
15-min.
II:09
6
8
∞∞:
8
18
5
8
I
?
9
II
8
9
3
206
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
passing
Fair
Grounds,
Bethlehem
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Broad
and New
III. (Continued.)
Load at
Broad
Load at
and Main
Third
Load at
Streets
Streets
and
Load at
Load at
Load at
Fair
Grounds
(every
(every
New
Poplar Northampton
other car)
other car)
Streets*
Street
Heights
615
15-min.
II :21
12
?
?
2.
3
?
4
Coke
Works
8
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
8
2
608
15-min.
3
2
301
15-min.
11:51
30
II
P.M.
20
21
25
12
605
15-min.
12:03
I2
9
4
ΙΟ
13
622
15-min.
12:18
15
9
17
25
29
17
612
15-min.
12:34
16
4
6
12
IO
615
15-min.
12:51
17
4
8
12
34
18
608'
15-min.
I :04
13
6
24
15
14
301
15-min.
I :21
17
14
16
21
27
17
605
15-min.
I:34
13
ΙΟ
19
14
18
622
15-min.
1:51
17
6
9
18
21
22
NNAMOO OAN
13
7
5
9
2
II
8
II
9
4
9
612
15-min.
2:03
12
ΙΟ
16
28
28
14
615
15-min.
2:20
17
6
7
14
17
12
15
608
15-min.
2:36
16
7
II
301
15-min.
2:51
15
4
8
132
Tripper
•
614
Tripper
::
243
18
4
23
21
a 3∞ ~ LO Z M∞ ~ ~ ~ ∞
300
9
3
2
2
6
2
3
•
•
196
Tripper
4
I
•
•
190
Tripper
2
I
•
•
605
15-min.
3:04
13
9
622
15-min.
3:21
17
II
O
IO
IO
5
6
2
2
HH
13
35
53
18
172
Tripper
:
24
612
15-min.
3:34
13
ΙΟ
II
15
32
615
15-min.
:
15
46
24
31
ww coco
46
24
8
36
24
ΙΟ
25
19
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
207
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
passing
Fair
Grounds,
Bethlehem
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Fair
Grounds
III. (Continued.)
Load at
Broad
Load at
Broad
Load at
and New
and Main
Third
Streets
Streets
and
(every
other car)
(every
New
Load at
Poplar
other car)
Streets*
Street
Load at
Northampton
Heights
Load at
Coke
Works
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
623
Tripper
30
26
4
304
Tripper
::
26
24
:
608
15-min.
4:03
29
15
18
301
15-min.
4:21
18
14
48
92
98
80
601
Tripper
50
51
205
Tripper
•
•
:
31
23
135
Tripper
69
57
605
15-min.
4:36
15
20
39
•
47
51
43
156
Tripper
37
27
132
Tripper
•
34
31
196
Tripper
7
6
8::::::
60
40
29
14
302
Tripper
18
II
:
614
Tripper
2
2
•
169
Tripper
8
2
:
•
603 Tripper
:
29
12
622
15-min.
4:54
18
19
23
143
Tripper
53
20
70
II
::: 5:
65
52
N.
22
204
Tripper
:
187
Tripper
197
Tripper
134
Tripper
::
:
3
6
7
8
•
612
15-min.
5:03
9
14
14
2
18
20
20
16
147
Tripper
304
Tripper
201
Tripper
:::
:
:
:
40
47
8
9
12
9
4
6
:: 58:
35.
:
208
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
passing
Fair
Grounds,
Bethlehem
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
and New
Load at
Fair
Grounds
III. (Continued.)
Load at
Broad
Streets
Load at
Broad
Load at
Third
and Main
Streets
and
(every
(every
New
other car)
other car)
Streets*,
Load at
Poplar
Street
Load at
Northampton
Heights
Load at
Coke
Works
Load at
Hellertown
Switch.
623
Tripper
24 -
60
85
198
Tripper
15
15
615
15-min.
5:16
13
16
17
12
55
55
89
45
188
Tripper
3-
3.
I.
619
Tripper
•
:
19
24
190
15-min.
5:35
19
20
24
50
605
15-min.
6:15
40
II
7
23
301
15-min.
6:21
6
35
8
•
622 -
15-min.
6:26
5
I2
•
4
612
15-min.
6:36
IO
5
13
615
15-min.
IO
omabao
45 ·
52
40.
25-
43
37
36.
17
30
13.
12..
4· ·
་
13
9..
3··
2.
7
6
5.
2.
30
19
IO.
8
301.
15-min.
•
6
15
13
7
7.
190 .
15-min.
7:36
60
35
34
20
21
•
605
15-min.
7:45
9
622.
15-min.
7:53
86
17
13
18
32
13
•
12
612
15-min.
8:07
14
12
2
8
50
10:0
15
18
9
615.
15-min.
8:26
19
8.
7
IO
16
500 300
II
IO
7
5
6
I
190
15-min.
8:34
8.
6
7
15
18
7
301
15-min.
8:50
16
12
7
9
20
14
8.
73∞
4
4
605
15-min.
9:07
17
4
4
31
37
17
15
622
15-min.
9:20
13
3
12
14
23
25
15
8
612
615
15-min.
I0:00
40
8
190
15-min.
10:06
6
12
:00 ?
4
8
18
7
4
I
3+Ń∞ =
8
25
20
II
12
22
14
12
IO
6
605
15-min.
10:47
41
20
21
96
35
9
8
4
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
209
III. (Continued.)
Load at
Broad
Load at
Broad
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
passing
Fair
Grounds,
Bethlehem
Minutes
since last
preceding
çar passed
Load at
and New
and Main
Third
Load at
Fair
Grounds
Streets
Streets
and
(every
(every
New
Load at
Poplar
Load at
Load at
Northampton
Coke
other car)
other car)
Streets*
Street
Heights
Works
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
301
15-min.
10:53
6
II
20
27
ΙΟ
31
2
2
622
15-min.
II:00
7
2
I
5
II
7
3
4
612
15-min.
II:06
6
4
12
IO
O
21
615
15-min.
II:20
14
2
3
4
29
25
20
190 15-min.
II:34
14
4
20
12
IO
4
*Morning trippers eastbound do not pass Third and New Streets; the load figures given are for Fourth
and New Streets. Only four morning and four evening trippers go east of Northampton Heights and these
go only to the Coke Works. The trippers do not run on the North Bethlehem loop, but go back to Allentown
by the Allentown-Bethlehem loop line, north side or south side.
14
210
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT Problems of
•
III. (Continued.)
Inbound from Hellertown-5.22 A.M. to 12 midnight.
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
leaving
Hellertown
Switch
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
Load at
Coke
Load at
Northampton
Load at
Poplar
Load at
Third
Works
Heights
Street
and New
Streets
A.M.
618
15-min.
205
Tripper
605
15-min.
5:22
622
15-min.
5:41
19
166
Tripper
198
Tripper
:: 3 ::
34
612
15-min.
6:08
27
33
615
15-min.
6:18
IO
7
GANYA :
Load at
Broad
and New
Streets
(every
other car)
O
Load at
Broad
and Main
Streets
(every
other car)
42
64
56
42
70
85
60
75
89
73
38
65
70
67
130
Tripper
:
27
204
Tripper
191
Tripper
196
Tripper
•
132
Tripper
8
187
Tripper
IO
•
181
Tripper
:
609
Tripper
304
Tripper
•
15
608
15-min.
6:48
30
43
four sour
6
61
13
8
31
IO
33
12
18
IO
98
ww acco8.
.2.
6
7
35
16
::
50
45
40
46
42
.2.
:::
•
•
·
•
•
•
•
:
74
78
•
•
49
22
618
15-min.
6:51
3
2
I
5
6
13.
6
•
605
15-min.
6:55
4
28
203
Tripper
: 88
36
32
27
18
14
14
6
6
•
201
Tripper
IO
14
:
•
191
Tripper
2
6
622
15-min.
7:12
17
22
42
51
31
24
II
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
211
III. (Continued.)
Car
number
Schedule
service
Switch
Time of
leaving
Hellertown
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
Load at
Coke
Works
190
175
Tripper
Tripper
•
135
Tripper
:
169
Tripper
•
•
200
Tripper
Heights
15
50
3
2
25
2
Load at
Northampton
Load at
Poplar
Street
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
Load at
Broad
and New
Streets
(every
other car)
Load at
Broad
and Main
Streets
(every
other car)
::
•
•
•
•
134
Tripper
3
O
13
•
•
2
•
188
Tripper
15
15
615
15-min.
I
8
IO
:::
•
612
15-min.
8:08
56
15
301
15-min.
8:14
6
605
15-min.
8:24
IO
622
15-min.
8:42
18
608
15-min.
9:00
18
1000 10∞ N
38
45
28
13
9
18
38
28
16
14
ΙΟ
18
12
18
I
7
16
12
12
6
II
33
32
18
3
615
15-min.
9:12
I2
6
II
20
25
6
I
301
15-min.
9:39
27
18
22
30
24
33
29
605
15-min.
9:57
18
9
17
12
8
622
15-min.
10:12
15
14
18
17
16
608
15-min.
10:25
13
3
5
II
II
9
::
7
8
612
15-min.
10:34
II
15
26
28
25
ΙΟ
615
15-min.
10:45
II
O
?
12
15
301
15-min.
II:II
26
5
27
29
30
24
22
• 2 2
605
15-min.
II:24
13
8
22
29
16
II
622
15-min.
11:36
12
4
8
IO
52
55
37
608
15-min.
11:52
16
4
6
6
4
4
612
2
:
:
14
IO
II
6
212
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
III. (Continued.)
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
leaving
Hellertown
Switch
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
Load at
Coke
Works
Load at
Northampton
Heights
P.M.
615
15-min.
12:16
24
5
608
I
18
21
24
Load at
Poplar
Street
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
23
Load at
Broad
and New
Streets
(every
other car)
5
Load at
Broad
and Main
Streets
(every
other car)
ΙΟ
5
6
7
301
23
45
605
15-min.
12:42
26
ΙΟ
16
28
1000
49
22
9
25
622
15-min.
I :08
26
ΙΟ
17
16
28
5∞
IO
O
12
IO
612
15-min.
I :26
18
8
I2
34
38
15
II
615
15-min.
1 :42
16
4
9
39
37
12
4
608
15-min.
I:54
12
18
29
4I
34
6
4
301
15-min.
2:11
17
9
15
15
16
14
7
605
15-min.
2:27
16
14
7
2I
20
II
12
622
15-min.
2:30
3
20
20
38
26
19
12
612
15-min.
3:00
ΙΟ
9
18
26
25
22
4
615
15-min.
3:11
II
2
5
20
190
Tripper
132
Tripper
4
196
Tripper
Wer er n
20
7
13
50
14
18
56
32
614
Tripper
2
58
::
:
•
•
•
608
15-min.
3:25
14
7
17
30
24
301
15-min.
3:42
17
7
15
45
50
33
24
605
15-min.
3:37
15
ΙΟ
25
47
40
21
622
15-min.
4:15
18
17
36
66
71
40
172
33
48
52
::
27
7
205
Tripper
IO
89
612
15-min.
4:15
O
17
46
48
25
бол
Tripper
16
:
:
74
:::
•
30
•
22:3
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
213
III. (Continued.)
Car
number
Schedule
service
615
15-min.
Time of
leaving
Hellertown
Switch
4:41
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
26
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
Load at
Coke
Works
45
64
135
Tripper
304
Tripper
623
Tripper
•
190
15-min.
196
Tripper
132
Tripper
•
•
•
143
Tripper
614
Tripper
156
Tripper
•
•
•
•
187
Tripper
Load at
Northampton
Heights
Street
46
54
55
: :
46
76
32
39
•
4
32
40
60
65
35
23
87
II
71
54
96
6
63
78
70
42
Load at
Poplar
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
Load at
Broad
and New
Streets
(every
other car)
49
Load at
Broad
and Main
Streets
(every
other car)
26
603
Tripper
•
•
:
·
•
134
Tripper
•
•
•
58
204
Tripper
197
Tripper
•
•
•
сол.
Over ∞ .
76
53
46
60
86
78
•
•
•
•
195
Tripper
•
•
•
25
34
304
Tripper
24
23
301
15-min.
5:20
39
13
102
118
124
78
90
302
Tripper
99
169
Tripper
90
605
15-min.
5:25
5
27
88
65
198
Tripper
58
2288
65.
44
•
:#
147
Tripper
16
25
22
•
622
15-min.
5:46
21
27
21
35
41
17
201
Tripper
IO
14
612
15-min.
5:57
II
25
26
30
18
7
214
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
III. (Continued.)
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
leaving
Hellertown
Switch
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Hellertown
Switch
Works
Heights
Load at
Coke
Load at
Northampton
Load at
Poplar
Street
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
Load at
Broad
and New
Streets
(every
other car)
Load at
Broad
and Main
Streets
(every
other car)
619
Tripper
13
188
Tripper
23
49
42
190
15-min.
6:18
21
7
9
30
36
44
615
15-min.
6:30
12
15
52
42
53
605
15-min.
7:05
35
27
45
49
43
301
15-min.
7:12
7
622
15-min.
7:19
17
612
15-min.
7:31
14
615
15-min.
7:43
12
4223
2
8
7
: : ≈ :
32
:
•
::
2
•
2
8
II
8
20
4
14
13
9
9
22
23
25
25
190
15-min.
9
301
15-min.
8:12
29
14
21
1 2
ΙΟ
20
25
605
15-min.
8:27
15
O
O
13
8
622
15-min.
8:42
15
I
612
15-min.
8:54
I2
615
15-min.
9:10
16
190
15-min.
9:22
12
36
532
5
о сосл
10
9
16
27
24
32
28
25
8
IO
7
23
· 5
•
IO
•
ΙΟ
II
22
12
· 4
16
18
20
14
605
15-min.
9:57
35
O
o?
4
5
7
301
15-min.
10:12
15
3
12
ΙΟ
17
14
612
15-min.
10:24
12
7
622
15-min.
10:32
8
I
I
615
15-min.
10:45
13
O
3TO
8
190
15-min.
10:54
9
8
8
605
15-min.
II:27
33
301
15-min.
11:36
622
15-min.
II:54
615
15-min.
12:00
số cũ
O
O
74∞∞ |
7
II
6
3
6
4
сле
5
II
ΙΟ
•
12
ΙΟ
5
I
19
22
•
9
2
3.
22
•
18
NOI
I
2
4
4
HS
I
16
5
8
4
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
215
IV. SOUTH BETHLEHEM LOCAL LINE.
Eastbound-6:24 A.M. to 10:24 P.M.
Car
number
Schedule
service
Time of
leaving
Third
and New
Minutes
since last
preceding
car passed
Load at
Third
and New
Streets
Streets
A.M.
405
· 30-min.
6:24
49
405
30-min.
7:00
36
4I
405
30-min.
7:30
30
31
405
30-min.
8:00
405
30-min.
8:30
405
30-min.
9:00
www
30
13
31
30
7
405
30-min.
9:30
30
3
405
30-min.
IO:00
30
I
405
30-min.
10:30
30
ΙΟ
405
30-min.
II:00
405
30-min.
II:30
ww
30
15
30
5
P.M.
405
30-min.
*1:05
95
I2
407
30-min.
I :24
19
14
407
30-min.
1:54
30
8
407
30-min.
2:24
30
II
407
30-min.
2:54
30
19
407
30-min.
3:24
30
14
407
30-min.
3:54
30
16
407
30-min.
4:24
30
31
407
30-min.
4:54
30
4
407
30-min.
5:24
30
16
407
30-min.
5:54
30
4
407
30-min.
6:18
24
24
407
30-min.
6:54
36
20
407
30-min.
7:24
30
7
407
30-min.
7:54
30
20
407
30-min.
8:24
30
7
407
30-min.
8:54
30
8
407
30-min.
9:18
24
20
407
30-min.
9:54
36
407
30-min.
10:24
30
6
*Went to West Bethlehem on special service during noon hour.
216
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
Car
number
leaving
Northampton
Minutes
since last
Heights
preceding
car passed
IV. (Continued.)
Westbound-6:36 A.M. to 10:42 P.M.
Time of
Northampton Load at
Heights
Gas House
Load at
A.M.
405
6:36
IO
IO
405
7:10
34
5
6
405
7:42
32
19
21
405
8:12
30
22
22
405
8:42
30
405
9:12
30
78
8
5
405
9:42
405
10:12
405
10:42
405
II:IO
405
11:48
∞ Now ww
30
ΙΟ
19
30
6
6
30
14
13
28
38
29
12
16
49
80
60
P.M.
405
*1:12
84
7
IO
407
1:41
29
II
16
407
2:12
31
ΙΟ
IO
407
2:42
407
3:12
407
3:42
www
30
4
5
30
15
15
5
5
407
4:12
30
4
5
407
4:42
30
9
9
407
5:12
30
II
II
407
5:42
30
4
4
407
6:12
30
407
6:42
30
+3
4
4
4
407
7:12
30
2
2
407
7:42
30
6
6
407
8:12
30
5
5
407
8:42
30
407
9:12
30
2
2
407
9:42
30
O
407
10:12
30
14
14
407
10:42
30
O
*Went to West Bethlehem on special service during the noon hour.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
217
V. EASTON LIMITED LINE (ALLENTOWN TO BETHLEHEM
FAIR GROUNDS AT ELIZABETH AVENUE).
.
Eastbound 6:21 A.M. to 10:04 P.M.
Time of
Minutes
since
passing
Lehigh
Type
of car
last pre-
ceding
Load
at
Load at
Tenth
Avenue
Load at
Broad
and
Load at
Bethlehem
Schedule
service
Bridge
car
Lehigh
West
Main
Allentown passed
Bridge Bethlehem
Streets
Fair
Grounds
A.M.
221
I hour
6:21
221
I hour
7:09
*221
I hour
8:09
go:
47
:
:
48
55
52
52
13
60
51
44
46
221
I hour
9:08
59
44
44
46
28
221
I hour
10:25
77
36
35
25
27
221
I hour
II:
11:15
50
23
23
21
19
P.M.
221
I hour
12:09
54
30
34
34
30
221
I hour
I :06
57
34
31
35
31
221
I hour
2:06
60
22
24
24
28
*221
I hour
3:06
60
28
28
34
220
I hour
4:05
59
32
32
29
44
220
I hour
5:05
60
56
56
54
96
220
1 hour
6:06
61
35
35
31
36
220
I hour
7:06
60
36
37
45
44
220
I hour
8:06
60
38
39
44
36
220
I hour
9:05
59
30
30
32
28
220
1 hour
10:04
59
17
17
13
16
218
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT. PROBLEMS OF
V. (Continued.)
Westbound-7:30 A.M. to 10:30 P.M.
Time of
Load at
passing
Minutes
Load at
Broad
Load at
Bethlehem since last Bethlehem and
Load at
Type
of car
Schedule
service
Fair
Grounds
preceding
car passed
Fair
Grounds Streets
Main
Tenth
Avenue
Lehigh
Bridge
Allentown
A.M.
221
I hour
:
II
:
221
I hour
7:30
55
4I
37
4I
*221
I hour
27
25
26
221
I hour
9:30
221
I hour
10:48
78
221
I hour
11:36
48
www
39
26
23
22
30
27
31
30
33
34
30
31
P.M.
221
1 hour
12:30
221
I hour
I :30
221
I hour
2:30
*221
I hour
220
I hour
4:30
220
I hour
5:30
60
220
I hour
6:30
60
220 I hour
7:27
220
I hour
8:30
63
220
1 hour
9:30
60
$88::88♪❤ 8
54
35
4I
40
42
60
27
58
57
56
60
24
19
17
17
:
35
31
33
55
78
68
71
41
48
31
31
44
52
38
36
57
31
89
84
88
41
32
23
18
35
31
23
20
220 I hour
10:30
60
24
41
32
32
*In these cases Lehigh Valley Transit crews did not stay on the cars
to Bethlehem Fair Grounds, but gave way to Easton Transit crews before
reaching that point.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
219
VI.
NAZARETH LINE (ALLENTOWN TO NAZARETH,
VIA BETHLEHEM).
Northbound-4:24 A.M. to 8:20 P.M.
Time of
passing
Load at
Load at
Broad
Minutes
Broad
and Main since last
and
Load at
Car
number
Schedule
service
Streets preceding
Bethlehem car passed
Main
Streets
No. I
Switch
Load at
Hecktown
Fair
Grounds
(up
the line)
A.M.
181
I hour
4:24
6
2
2
2
166 I hour
5:24
*166 I hour
*166
I hour
181 I hour
8:21
166 I hour
9:22
:8 : : :5
60
I
6
6
12
29
31
62
28
24
30
9
24
22
21
2
34
31
29
181
I hour
IO:21
59
12
21
21
23
181
I hour
II:21
60
2
26
23
24
P.M.
*166
I hour
12:22
61
3
16
16
21
181
I hour
I :21
59
4
21
19
17
166 I hour
2:22
61
4
II
6
7
181
I hour
3:21
59
IO
29
21
19
166
I hour
4:21
60
37
66
47
44
181
1 hour
5:24
63
45
70
50
40
172
Tripper
6:00
36
75
64
54
41
166
I hour
6:21
21
I I
32
21
21
181
I hour
7:22
61
7
27
20
23
172
Tripper
8:21
59
15
*181
I hour
*181
1 hour
*181
I hour
:::
23
22
17
22
::
27
16
9
5
4
220
}
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
VI. (Continued.)
Southbound 5:24 A.M. to 11:05 P.M.
Time of
passing
Load at
Fair
Minutes
Broad
Grounds
since last Load at
Load at
and
Car
number
Schedule
(up
preceding
Fair
Load at
No. I
Main
service
the line)
car passed Grounds Hecktown Switch
Streets
A.M.
181
I hour
5:24
38
52
61
113
*166
I hour
6:06
42
38
*166
I hour
7:08
62
64
181
I hour
78:
42
78
66
51
4
166 1 hour
8:06
58
28
30
44
3
181
I hour
9:06
60
18
15
26
3
166
I hour
10:06
60
32
35
39
2
*181
I hour
II:06
60
8
9
IO
181
I hour
12:06
166
I hour
I :06
181
I hour
2:06
888
60
24
23
28
ΙΟ
60
18
14
21
I
60
26
24
30
7
166
I hour
3:06
60
26
23
30
9
181
I hour
4:09
63
4I
45
58
6
166
I hour
5:06
57
33
28
26
181
I hour
6:06
60
44
23
21
2 5
5
172
Tripper
6:51
45
II
6
8
6
166
I hour
7:06
*181
I hour
8:06
172
Tripper
*181
I hour
9:06
60
8:85
17
16
20
ΙΟ
60
8
6
4
8
:
II
ΙΟ
II
*181
I hour
10:04
58
24
23
20
*181
I hour
II:05
61
5
7
8
*These cars seem not to have made the trip to Allentown, but to have
turned back north either from Broad and New Streets or from Broad and
Main Streets, Bethlehem. Car No. 181 in the morning after making one
trip to Nazareth, on its return was diverted to the Coke Works for one
trip.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
221
APPENDIX G.
•
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
STATISTICS OF COMMUTATION RATES AND TRAFFIC ON
THE LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD AND THE PHILADEL-
PHIA & READING RAILWAY, BETWEEN THE PLANTS OF
THE BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY IN OR NEAR BETH-
LEHEM, PA., AND NEIGHBORING TOWNS.
I. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company-Compiled from Statement fur-
nished by C. T. O'Neal, General Superintendent, Bethlehem, Pa.,
dated February 6, 1918.
(a) Number of Commuters, December, 1917.
and Bethlehem
and Steel Works
72
93
O
93
O
O
O
From points east:
Between
Phillipsburg
Easton
South Easton
*Redington
Freemansburg
I
Total between points east of
Bethlehem and Steel Works..
259
*Shown below as between Bethlehem and Redington.
From points west:
Allentown
Fullerton
Catasauqua
Hokendauqua
Coplay
•
Cementon
Laury's
Treichler
Rockdale
Slatington
Lehigh Gap
Bowmans
Lehighton
Packerton
Mauch Chunk
Total between points west of
Bethlehem and Steel Works..
78
57
O
1949
113
153
O
6
O
36
124
91
12
8
2
I
O
6
115
O
O
O
O
3
O
O
О
I22
2595
222
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PROBLEMS OF
The preceding statistics cover travel on account of Bethlehem Steel
Works, Lehigh Coke Company, and Bethlehem Foundry & Machine Com-
pany.
The following covers travel account Bethlehem Steel Company's
plants at Redington and Proving Grounds.
From points east:
Between.
Phillipsburg
and Redington and Proving Grounds
9
Easton
South Easton
Lucy Crossing
Island Park
•
•
Total from points east....
From points west:
126
48
186
153
244
45
71
17
O
272
627
Between
Freemansburg
and Redington and Proving Grounds
Bethlehem
Allentown
Catasauqua
Cementon
Slatington
116
O
553
O
97
I
I
O
O
I
O
2
Total from points west..
767
4
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
223
(b) Commutation Fares.
To Bethlehem and Bethlehem Steel Works:
BETHLEHEM
54-trip
60-trip
54-trip
STEEL WORBS
60-trip
Phillipsburg
$6.70
$ 7.40
$6.70
$ 7.40
Easton
6.70
7.40
6.70
7.40
South Easton
6.25
6.95
6.25
6.95
Island Park
4.70
5.20
4.70
5.20
Redington
Freemansburg
Allentown
Fullerton
3.50
4.10
3.50
4.10
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
*
*
3.50
3.00
Catasauqua
4.00
Hokendauqua
Coplay
Cementon
Laury's
Treichler
Rockdale
*** *
*** *
Slatington
*54-trip fare not in effect.
To Redington and Proving Grounds:
4.50
5.00
5.60
7.85
7.85
9.20
II.45
* * * *
*
***
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.60
7.85
7.85
9.20
II.45
REDINGTON
PROVING GROUNDS
54-trip
Phillipsburg
$3.70
60-trip
$ 4.10
54-trip
$4.50
60 trip
$ 4.55
Easton
3.70
4.10
4.50
4.55
South Easton
3.25
3.60
4.00
4.10
Lucy Crossing
•
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
Island Park
Freemansburg
Bethlehem
Allentown
Fullerton
Catasauqua
Hokendauqua
Coplay
Cementon
Laury's
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
2.70
3.00
3.50
4.10
3.50
4.10
5.95
6.60
5.95
6.50
*
7.60
*
7.60
•
*** *
8.10
*
8.10
8.60
9.10
9.70
*
*** *
II.00
8.60
9.10
9.65
10.55
Treichler
Rockdale
Slatington
* * *
II.45
*
II.45
12.35
*
11.90
14.15
*
13.70
*54-trip fare not in effect.
224
REPORT ON THE TRANSIT PRoblems of·
APPENDIX G.
II. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company-Statement furnished by
Edson J. Weeks, General Passenger Agent, Reading Terminal, Phila-
delphia, Pa., dated February 7, 1918.
STATÈMENT OF DISTANCES, FARES AND VOLUME OF COM-
MUTATION TARIFF BETWEEN SOUTH BETHLEHEM AND
STATIONS TO AND INCLUDING LANSDALE.
South Bethlehem
Hellertown
Between
and
60-trip
Sales
August
Miles
Trip
60-trip
46-trip
1917
4.0
.10
4.15
3.20
I
Bingen
6.1
.16
4.90
3.80
46
Saucon
8.0
.20
5.35
4.15
Center Valley
9.0
.23
5.65
4.35
41
Coopersburg
10.8
.27
6.25
4.80
58
Hilltop
11.8
.30
6.55
5.05
:
Shelly
12.9
.33
6.85
5.30
54
Quakertown
Peckhill
Perkasie
16.4
.4I
7.90
6.10
256
19.3
.49
8.80
6.75
I
21.6
•
.54
9.55
7.35
74
Sellersille
23.0
.58
9.85
7.60
22
Derstines
24.1
.61
10.30
7.90
:
Telford
25.7
.65
10.75
8.25
12
Reliance
26.2
.66
10.90
8.40
Souderton
27.0
.68
11.05
8.50
12
Hatfield
29.4
.74
11.80
9.05
2
Orvilla
30.5
.77
12.10
9.30
Lansdale
32.2
.81
12.70
9.75
2
The Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company in February, at the
time the above statement was furnished, was operating 17 northbound
trains to Bethlehem and 16 southbound trains from Bethlehem every week
day, and 10 northbound trains to Bethlehem and 8 southbound trains from
Bethlehem every Sunday. Some of these trains were specials between
Bethlehem and Quakertown. The total number of passenger cars and the
total rated seating capacity of these trains were as follows:
Northbound, weekdays, 61 cars, 3,813 seats.
Southbound, weekdays, 56 cars, 3,405 seats.
Northbound, Sundays, 33 cars, 1,941 seats.
Southbound, Sundays, 28 cars, 1,647 seats.
Bethlehem, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VICINITY.
225
APPENDIX H.
(To accompany Report on Transit Facilities.)
PASSENGERS CARRIED OVER NEW STREET BRIDGE, BETH-
LEHEM, PA., BY THE CARS OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY
TRANSIT COMPANY, FROM DECEMBER 1, 1912, TO JANU-
ARY 31, 1918, INCLUSIVE.
December, 1912, 136,072.
January
February
March
April
1913
1914
1915
140.406 146,035 156,043
129,371 132,589 144,641
141,716 142,642 154,861
135,419
1916
213,975 294,394
1917
227,432
278,103
243,753 309,655
150,236
150,762
239,794
290,135
May
159,132 172,144
173,629
269,649
327,912
June
186,220 182,078 195,492
297,225
371,448
July
189,258 185,469 212,262
325,302
377,365
August
195,834
186,927 213,443
321,614
367,449
September
October
157,325
162,527
204,421
305,304
331,577
154,803 154,464
227,607
288,159
322,326
November
December
150,294 147,954 188,804 276,098 311,272
151,610 154,405 198,243 286,148
294,953
1,891,388 1,917,470 2,220,208 3,294,453 3,876,589
January, 1918, 272,095.
BOUND
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1
WAN O 1326
UNIV. OF MICH
LIBRARY
3 9015 07504 3268
f
-