(This is Part II of a Three Part article. Part I began by noting disturbing similarities between the mantras being used to promote the current bloated tunnel scheme and those used in the 1960’s to sell the original Kensington Expressway to the public.. The regrettable role of the Restore Our Community Coalition (ROCC) in promoting this project was also considered. Part I concluded with a look at the unforgivable destruction of the most important link in Olmsted’s landmark design for Buffalo, Humboldt Parkway.)
Control leaves no room for trust.
Glennon Doyle
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), along with unfortunate support from the Restore Our Community Coalition (ROCC), has been engaged in an effort to foist a billion+ dollar tunnel/cap scheme upon a largely oppositional public. The tactics being used have been disingenuous from the start. To begin with, all of the ten possible alternatives for the Kensington Expressway’s future were peremptorily eliminated except for two. NYSDOT justified this radical decision by claiming that other alternatives failed to meet a primary objective of the project; that is to “maintain the vehicular capacity of the existing transportation corridor.” You guessed it! The only remaining possibilities were both for tunnels; tunnels varying only in depth. So much for choice!
In addition, from the very beginning, control of the process has been tightly held by NYSDOT in unity with the Restore Our Community Coalition (ROCC) leadership. Regular meetings have been confined to a carefully selected and approved group of “stakeholders.” The goings-on at these “stakeholder” meetings have generally been a mystery to the public. There seems to be no attempt to make proceedings readily available to all.
An article in the Buffalo News provided a rare insight into this matter. At a meeting which featured the NYSDOT announcement to extend the tunnel’s northern entrance/exit by two blocks, the Buffalo News reported that the eight ROCC members in attendance. were “dwarfed by the number of DOT officials, consultants and government representatives on hand.”1 Such a revelation is troubling when one considers the apparent significance of the announcement being made. Taking into account the lack of transparency with which this project has been handled so far, one can’t help but be concerned as to how decisions are being made in the disbursement of unprecedented taxpayer funds. Is the fate of a billion+ dollars resting in the hands of a few people from a relatively small organization; none of whom were elected by anyone? The lack of transparency makes it almost impossible to know.
As for the general public (i.e., the taxpayers, representatives of other communities divided by the highway, and all the rightful guardians of our Olmsted Heritage), a paltry two meetings are planned. To add insult to injury, these meetings have been scheduled an entire year apart; one in summer of 2022 and one more in the fall of 2023. Even these “public meetings” have been devitalized and sapped of any of the collective strength inherent in the word “public.” Attendees are restricted to comments and questions on a one-to-one basis with NYSDOT representatives. The chance for any public voicing of opinions to be heard and shared by others in attendance has strategically been eliminated.
When we take into consideration the overwhelming unpopularity of this overpriced hustle, none of this should come as a surprise. It is obvious that such tight restrictions are necessary to keep an aggravated public at bay. Incredibly, this billion+ dollar subterfuge has managed to provoke the remarkable outcome of uniting both those for and against the highway in their shared outrage at such an extravagant waste of public funds.
It is time we learn from recent West Side experiences with the Scajaquada Expressway (198) and open up the process to the much less restricted perspective of a regional planning organization like the Greater Buffalo/Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC). According to the Buffalo News, even the director of the Center for Urban Studies at the University at Buffalo, Henry Louis Taylor Jr. had noted the lack of engagement by the community considering the significance of this project. He also remarked on the low level of planning and studies when compared to the participation and studies surrounding the Scajaquada project.2
Region Central Area of Study for 198 (GBNRTC)
After two decades of intransigence on the part of NYSDOT over the matter of the 198, the governor finally brought in GBNRTC to manage the situation. GBNRTC carried out a broad range of well-publicized research within a greatly expanded area which they referred to as “Region Central.” They came up with four very different possibilities for the area which were evaluated according to a set of thirty-nine different metrics suggested through well-provided, well-publicized interaction with the general public. A preferred alternative was finally arrived at. That alternative has, once again, been turned over to the public for evaluation and feedback. This process is markedly different from the heavy-handed manipulation being carried out by NYSDOT and ROCC leadership over the issue of the Kensington Expressway (33).
You say what you think needs to be said. If it needs to be said, there are going to be a lot of people who will disagree with it, or it wouldn’t need to be said.
Herb Lock
The Kensington decision about to be made will undeniably be one of historic consequence for the future of Olmsted’s tragically pillaged master work, Humboldt Parkway. The current tunnel/cap scheme proposed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in alliance with Restore Our Community Coalition (ROCC) leadership will serve as a permanent obstruction to any meaningful recovery of Humboldt Parkway’s lost grandeur. I can’t believe that the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy (BOPC) is not fully aware of this. The public voice of BOPC is critically needed. It is needed to defend the single most important link in the National Historic Landmark that is Olmsted’s Original Plan for Buffalo, Humboldt Parkway. If BOPC is unwilling to stand up for it – then who will? We can, at least, hope that BOPC has been privately participating in “stakeholder” meetings where it could have some persuasive influence. I guess we will never know.
Humboldt Pkwy Trees, Winter (wnyheritage.org)
BOPC Executive Director, Stephanie Crockatt3, did, however, provide the public some acknowledgment of her concerns in a Buffalo News article dated July 26, 2022.
As for the issue of the signature canopy of picturesque shade trees that epitomize Olmsted’s grand parkways, Executive Director Crockatt addressed the difficulty in growing such large trees in the shallow soil necessitated by the tunnel structure.4
Crockatt also attacked the proposed ventilation equipment as visual blight saying: “We would never put stacks down the center of Chapin Parkway. If they are not really bringing back Humboldt, then let’s not talk about it that way.” “If you are really going to bring back the Humboldt Parkway, then you have to fill the highway in and take it back to the way it was originally. This community has suffered so much because of this horrible road that I would hate for their expectations to be doused.”5
Humboldt Pkwy Approaching Door of Science Museum (ny.gov)
Obviously, a very strong tension exists between the BOPC stated mission “to guarantee Olmsted park experiences for current and future generations” and sympathies it justifiably has for the intolerable state of affairs suffered by those communities situated along the expressway’s destructive route through our city. Crockatt touches upon this tension in her remark to the News: “Our historic mission is to see the historic assets of Olmsted return, but we also believe this community has suffered terribly because of this great divide, and so to see it come back in some way is definitely fulfilling part of that mission.”6
The problem is what exactly is meant by the phrase “to see it come back in some way?” Similarly what do tunnel promoters have in mind when they talk of “resembling” Olmsted’s Humboldt Parkway? Does the mere presence of a lawn and greenery now make something “Olmstedian?” Is Boston’s “Big Dig” project to be regarded as “Olmstedian” because it contains park space on top?
The problem with brief remarks to the press is that they can often leave as many questions unanswered as they attempt to answer. I believe the public has a right to expect more from the organization formed to “promote, preserve, and restore” Buffalo’s Olmsted System of Parks and Parkways.
Tunnel ventilation with exhaust and controls in one large building – See Scajaquada Corridor Coalition for details on project concepts and options
Should this tunnel follow through to construction, its promoters will be responsible for depriving future generations from ever having the opportunity to know the full brilliance of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Landmark Plan for the City of Buffalo. This will be a tragic and shameful outcome particularly when the justifiable relief sought by an organization such as ROCC can be obtained through, other – better and more equitable – means.
The ambiguity of her last comment aside, Executive Director Stephanie Crockatt does deserve credit for her remarks to the News. Those remarks were, for the most part, spot on. Her appraisal of the tragic limitations of the current proposal was much appreciated by those starved for an Olmsted defense. Unfortunately, however, other than those few remarks, I am unaware of any official public pronouncements by BOPC in defense of Olmsted’s grand design. Sadly, in such absence, I am afraid that the public position of BOPC is in danger of being perceived as one of silent acquiescence to NYSDOT’s ultimatum. At a very minimum, the public is deserving of a position paper from BOPC detailing its long-range vision for the rightful recovery of an unjustly stolen civic treasure.
1881 Olmsted Interconnected Parks (public domain)
On the other hand, generous congratulations must be given to Citizens for Regional Transit (CRT) for their willingness to step boldly forward into the present dearth of civic leadership on this matter. With only the highest respect for ROCC’s past accomplishments, CRT has, nevertheless, not shied away from taking the position it feels as being in the ultimate best interest of all of Buffalo. The organization has effectively detailed its well-considered position in an excellent series of three video presentations (available on YouTube). I can’t recommend these videos highly enough for those seeking a detailed overview of the Humboldt Parkway situation. The first of these is an excellent place to start.
Video by Citizens for Regional Transit (CRT)
This is the end of Part II of this article. The final installment, Part III, will focus on where we go from here. Consideration will be given to some alternate approaches and actions that, hopefully, could result in a more just, and less wasteful, solution for all.
For further reference – previous articles by Edward Marriott
Great Streets make for Great Cities
Great Streets Make For Great Cities II – Humboldt Parkway
Lead image: Bidwell Pkwy with Concert (photo courtesy of Christopher Hyzy)
Footnotes
1. Mark Sommer, “Kensington Expressway project could expand farther north – but just a little,” Buffalo News, December 7, 2022.
2. Mark Sommer, “Kensington Expressway project comes into focus, but some say ‘generational’ plan falls short,” Buffalo News, July 26, 2022.
3. Stephanie Crockatt stepped down as Executive Director on May 18, 2023. Chief Financial Officer, Beth Downing, will be stepping into the role as Interim Executive Director while a search for a new Executive Director is being conducted. All quotes appearing in this article attributed to Stephanie Crockatt appeared in the Buffalo News prior to her departure.
4. Mark Sommer, “Kensington Expressway project comes into focus, but some say ‘generational’ plan falls short,” Buffalo News, July 26, 2022.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
The post Our Way – AND – The Highway | Part II appeared first on Buffalo Rising.