On Tuesday January 17, at a well-attended public meeting, the Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC) presented its preferred scenario for the future of the Scajaquada Corridor. For the moment, let us put aside any specific thoughts or feelings we might have about the particulars of the preferred scenario itself. Instead let us give well-deserved congratulations to GBNRTC for what they have accomplished. They have rescued the issue of the Scajaquada Expressway (198) from 20 years of stagnation under NYSDOT’s insular, myopic domain. Furthermore they have approached the undertaking in exemplary fashion that hopefully will become a model for the future handling of similar important projects in the city of Buffalo.
See a PDF of the presentation.
Video of the presentation.
For the first time the public was presented with some “real choices” to be considered through four very different scenarios. A broad range of civic concerns were addressed and studied within a large swath of territory referred to as “Region Central.” Ample, impressive and practicable research was adroitly provided to citizens. Most importantly everyone’s opinions seemed to be valued. Everyone was made to feel welcome at well-publicized meetings; some meetings were even made available online. Feedback was encouraged from everyone. A special interactive map of the Region Central area was made available to facilitate active public participation.
Ideally this exemplary holistic approach will set a new standard for Buffalo in the handling of other similar projects. And in that regard, there can be no greater need for similar intervention than right now with the current situation of the Kensington Expressway (33) and what was once Olmsted’s glorious Humboldt Parkway.
Humboldt Parkway in Winter (Science Museum in Distance) | Image courtesy wnyheritage.org
Incredulously as though we have learned nothing from our decades of frustration with the 198, we press forward with the 33 under the exclusive, tyrannical direction of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). And, once again, NYSDOT offers the public no “real choices.” The only difference between the two scenarios they have offered is in the depth of the tunnel to be built. At a very minimum the public deserves to be presented with an authentic selection of scenarios to consider before it is expected to come up with more than a billion dollars (much more when the cost of yearly maintenance is included) to fund an effort surrounded in controversy.
A great deal of praise is due to the Restore Our Community Coalition (ROCC) for their years of successful dedication. They have kept the Kensington Expressway disaster forefront in the public’s mind and have acquired significant political support for their capping concept. But things have changed considerably since the 1990’s when an expressway cap was first proposed as a possible approach to the restoration of Olmsted’s Humboldt Parkway. Today the dismantling of 1950’s inner-city highway structures has become a growing movement across the globe. In addition, it is now acknowledged that the presence of the Scajaquada Creek directly below the surface of the expressway (Northland Avenue) will be a major stumbling block to any prospects of continuing the cap to Delavan Avenue. The undertaking of such a project would be a major engineering task that would be prohibitively expensive.
After years of being treated with indifference and neglect, it is more than understandable that many residents in the area of the proposed cap should feel defensive about what they might perceive as being in their immediate interest. Nevertheless, at the same time, it is unjustifiable to ignore the valid concerns of those living within the much larger territory that borders the 33. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the ruinous path of the Kensington Expressway has plowed its way through the heart of our city cutting off neighborhoods from Bailey Avenue to North Oak.
On the West Side GBNRTC has given us an exemplary precedent by expanding its study to include a wide variety of civic concerns in an expanded area adjacent to the 198. It has referred to this large area of the city as “Region Central.” On the East Side the “siloed” approach that NYSDOT has taken should be similarly expanded to include the welfare of the much greater part of the city that has suffered the devastating consequences of the 33. Obviously all areas and their concerns cannot be addressed at once. Nevertheless, every precaution must be taken that the current project in no way slows or hinders future work needed elsewhere. That is especially the case when we are talking about more than a billion dollars of taxpayer funds.
Any tunnel entrance will require a gradual decline of surface level. We have an example of that now with the existing tunnel under Kensington Avenue and Main Streets. The decline begins on the east Side at Eastwood Place. On the West side it doesn’t return to ground level until Agassiz Circle. A similar type of descent will be required for an entrance to the tunnel at Best Street. This could prove a major obstruction for residents of the Fruit belt hoping to reunify their own neighborhood. Entrance requirements at the other end will present similar problems for the residents there. In addition it will serve as an obstruction to the reestablishment of Olmsted’s uninterrupted connection between parks.
I have already pointed out that the Scajaquada Creek will make expansion of the cap prohibitively more expensive. After enduring years of disruption and a billion dollar price tag for this project, it will be a hard sell to convince taxpayers to come up with significantly greater funds for the continuation of the deck to Delavan Avenue.
It is my belief that NYSDOT is well aware of that. For them, the project represents an excuse for the long-term refortification of the 33. Even the ROCC website admits:
“Additionally, the existing walls of the Kensington Expressway have deteriorated to the point where they have a very limited lifespan (estimated 2 – 4 years). These new walls will not only support the promenade, they will also contain a new drainage system to protect the tunnel from weathering deterioration. The walls will have a 75-year lifespan.”
As concerns the restoration of Olmsted’s historic Humboldt Parkway, defensive efforts to rebuff the voices of “outsiders” must be discouraged. Closed meetings between NYSDOT and selected “stakeholders” should be balanced with more meetings opened to the general public. The broader audience of interested citizens to whom stewardship of Olmsted’s master work has been given and whose taxes will fund the project should be presented with more opportunity to express themselves collectively.
The Landmark Olmsted Park and Parkway System is befittingly a source of pride and concern for all the citizens of Buffalo. It was never intended to be the exclusive interest of those living on its borders. Olmsted’s intention was strictly a democratic one. All Buffalo citizens were to have the pleasure of uninterrupted walks from one park to another on the connecting parkways which were original to his groundbreaking design for Buffalo.
On the West Side, it took decades for us to finally acknowledge that it was neither the interest nor responsibility of traffic engineers at NYSDOT to restore Olmsted’s Delaware Park or the Scajaquada Creek. It was a concerned public, gratefully invigorated by visibly active support from the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy (BOPC) that resulted in the intervention of a comprehensive planning organization like GBNRTC.
Olmsted and his unified plan for connected parks in Buffalo | Image courtesy Buffalo & Erie County Public Library
In 1982 the Buffalo Olmsted Park System was officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The great innovation that distinguished Olmsted’s work in Buffalo was not the individual parks themselves but his concept of unifying those parks through his system of interconnection. Chief among those interconnections was Humboldt Parkway. This three mile long pathway of glorious shade trees once served as an inspirational connection not only between Delaware Park and MLK Park but between the East Side and the West Side as well.
Aerial view of former Humboldt Parkway as it approaches door of Science Museum | Image courtesy www.ny.gov
Hopefully the Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy has been a voice for our lost Olmsted heritage at some of the closed “stakeholder” meetings with NYSDOT. It would be wonderful if they would come forward with some of the out-front public advocacy for the restoration of Humboldt Parkway that they exhibited in the case of the 198. Minimally a policy statement on Olmsted’s Humboldt Parkway along the lines of the one they issued on Delaware Park would seem to be in line.
Humboldt Parkway destruction | Image courtesy wnyheritage.org
We were entrusted with stewardship of a priceless treasure and we destroyed it. Where do we look to undue such callous desecration? Exclusive dependence on NYSDOT, the institution that destroyed it in the first place, is pure insanity.
Exclusive dependence on NYSDOT, the institution that destroyed it in the first place, is pure insanity.
GBNRTC broke new ground for Buffalo in its timely intervention into NYSDOT’s maladroit handling of the 198. A similar intervention is desperately needed here. At the very least, some options other than tunnel depth must be given to a public before handing over more than a billion dollars for a band aid to what was, from its very inception, the ruinous embodiment of misguided 20th century planning.
GBNRTC…Your resourceful competence is needed again!
The post Thank You GBNRTC…. You Are Needed Again! appeared first on Buffalo Rising.