Letters to the Editor | April 22, 2025

The Open Streets concept was a good idea when the city implemented it a decade ago, and it still succeeds. But holding these events only in the most vibrant shopping sections is not fair to other neighborhoods. Share the wealth! The Center City District did not invent the concept and should not hold exclusive ownership rights to it. I live in Center City, but Germantown Avenue, Passyunk Avenue, and Cottman Avenue, for starters, could surely also use such a civic boost.

Susie Perloff, Philadelphia

The Inquirer Editorial Board provides the city with well-deserved praise for its Open Streets program, by which vehicle access to several streets adjacent to Rittenhouse Square is closed on weekends. Open Streets is recognized as having promoted more pedestrian traffic on weekends, increased business sales, and reduced noise. All good. However, the principal environmental benefits of this policy are noted only in passing. These are reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. So far, the city has made little progress toward its ambitious climate goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Open Streets is a great early step. It needs to be followed soon by decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and, importantly, to redirect Philadelphia Gas Works toward a new business model in which it contributes to, rather than thwarts, the city’s climate efforts.

Elaine Fultz, Philadelphia, mef1972@gmail.com

With respect to the editorial, “Too important to fail,” I offer another plan to reduce SEPTA expenses. Many times in the evening, and sometimes during the day, I see a bus with its connected trailer unit, both virtually empty. Why does SEPTA continue to operate them? I think they should purchase smaller vehicles that are electric and run them more frequently on routes. I’m sure this would save money and could certainly increase ridership if riders had shorter waits for transport. An example of this model system is not that far away: Atlantic City.

Frederick J. Goldstein, Meadowbrook

The Trump administration is attempting to bully higher education into submission by using intimidation and threats to dictate what can be taught (and who deserves a seat at the table). Harvard has decided to take a forceful stand for academic freedom, and several other colleges are now following suit. The University of Pennsylvania must do the same. As a scientist, I’ve learned firsthand how fundamentally valuable it is to listen and learn from diverse perspectives in the pursuit of knowledge. If the administration truly had the country’s best interests in mind, it would be actively fostering an environment where conflicting viewpoints can be boldly shared and constructively grappled with.

Instead, it is threatening universities to close their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and demanding an “audit” of student perspectives. This will only stifle free speech and force out some of our brightest talents, not make campuses safer. But, of course, trampling on free speech is its end goal. So now is not the time to bend a knee in the hopes things will blow over. Now is the time for universities (including Penn) to take collective action in defense of higher education.

Anne Park, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.