Response Memo From Dr. Robert Aller Regarding Main Entrance Reconstruction, May 20th 2005

Memo from Dr. Robert Aller in response to Lindquist memo sent to faculty and staff via e-mail.  The response was not allowed access to the mailing list that Lindquist used.

Memorandum:
Date: May 20, 2005
(Please forward as necessary for general information or interest. This was
not permitted to be an equally broadcast message)

To: Stony Brook Faculty, Staff, and Students

From: Robert Aller, Distinguished Professor of Marine Sciences, At-Large
Senator, and
University Senate Campus Environment Committee

RE: Response to Statement on Campus Entrance by Brent Lindquist,
University Senate President


In an unprecedented broadcast statement to the campus faculty and staff,
Brent Lindquist, President of the University Senate, misrepresented a
number of very significant facts regarding the planned modification of the
main entrance, the administration's behavior in formulating and presenting
its plans, and the actions of the Campus Environment Committee in trying to
address the issues involved. I am one of the Senators who strongly object
to both the process by which the administration formulated its plan and the
product of that process. Prof. Lindquist’s depiction of what has occurred
casts doubt on the basic integrity both of my personal actions in objecting
to the administration's behavior and those of your Campus Environment
Committee. His memo was not discussed or approved by the full Senate, nor
of course, is mine.

The Process of Determining the Main Entrance Design:

The single overriding issue is simply that no one outside the inner
administration, its sole-sourced architectural firm Beyer, Blinder, &
Belle, and the traffic consultant firm Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. had any
meaningful input into the redesign of the main entrance. To our knowledge,
no faculty, staff, students, alumni, or community representatives had any
opportunity for consultation on the design at any point before all but the
choice of flowers was finalized. I believe that a broad spectrum of the
campus community should have been represented in this important decision
that will affect the character of our campus, and that it is disrespectful
to that community to have been essentially ignored by President Kenny and
Vice President Mann.

It is important that the campus community recognize that the present main
entrance plans were substantially complete by at least September 2002
(Figure 76, Draft Campus Planning Framework; Beyer, Blinder & Belle) and,
in terms of incorporating an entrance and exit to the planned Marriott
Hotel, completed by July 2004. Yet, the Campus Environment Committee was
shown the model plans for the entrance for the very first time on 25
January 2005, less than 4 months ago. We were told the plan was final and
that no changes other than the types of plants (flowers) to line the drive
could be made (the formal lines of trees were already determined to be
metasequoias and were not subject to change).

The Campus Environment Committee met with representatives of the
administration, including President Kenny, to discuss the types of flowers
and other possible plantings for the main entrance on 22 February 2005.

The University Senate was first presented the plans for the entrance on 7
March 2005 (not February as stated by Brent Lindquist). The Senate minutes
record that Dr. Malcolm Bowman presented an alternative plan on behalf of
himself and me. This plan was a very preliminary sketch, which
incorporated a roundabout rather than a signalized intersection. It was
very crude and was meant to only show the Senate that perhaps there were
other designs possible that should be considered that were less destructive
of the naturally diverse, wooded buffer. The minutes record no negative
comments by any Senator. (See posted official University Senate minutes of
7 March meeting)

It is true, as Brent Lindquist states that all 3 of these meetings occurred
within the last 12 months, but only in the last 4 out of 12. It is
absolutely not true that any changes, other than to types of small plants,
were allowed. I do not consider these meetings bonafide consultations
regarding the entrance plan.

The Final Design or Product:

A number of us on the Campus Environment Committee were shocked by the
destructive nature of the planned design, its lack of consideration for
minimizing damage to naturally diverse wooded areas, and also by the loss
of forest buffer, which will result in vistas from the center of campus
toward heavy traffic racing along Nicolls Rd (and vice versa). We began to
consider alternatives. Designs incorporating roundabouts seemed
particularly promising because they are far safer than standard
intersections (90% fewer accidents) and move cars continuously to their
destinations (see posted publications on NYS DOT website:
www.dot.state.ny.us/roundabouts/round.html). They also are designed to
accommodate pedestrian crossings, one of Lindquist’s concerns.

Following the 7 March Senate meeting, Mr. John Fogarty (Director of Capital
Planning, sent as a representative by the administration at our request),
Malcolm Bowman, and I attended a NYS DOT presentation concerning
roundabouts presented at the William Floyd High School on March 21. At that
meeting, modern roundabout design was discussed. Roundabouts (not to be
confused with traffic circles) are, as mentioned below, far safer than
signalized intersections such as we are soon to have at the campus
entrance. Roundabouts are slated to become the preferred design of new
small-to-intermediate intersections in New York State.

I subsequently sent two possible preliminary designs incorporating
roundabouts for the front entrance to the NYS DOT, who stated that they
were "definitely feasible alternatives" suitable for the traffic load and
dispersion. These designs were shown to the Environment Committee but
never to the Senate as a whole. I made a request to Brent Lindquist to do
so, but time did not allow it at the final Senate meeting of the academic
year on 2 May.

The only written indication that the administration ever considered a
roundabout alternative is on page 5 of the report "Traffic Memorandum for
Marriott Hotel Driveway Locations, State University of New York at Stony
Brook" submitted July 2004 to the SUNY Construction Fund by consultants
GPI. The sum of their considerations is: "Based on our study a 5-leg
roundabout, which includes access points to Main Entry Road (EB & WB),
Circle Road, and a dedicated hotel driveway is not feasible." No sketches
or analysis were included, however, it is clear that consideration of the
hotel access not entrance to the University was a primary determinant of
the final design. I have requested a copy of the entire report several
times but have yet to receive it (I was given only the cover page and page
5).

In summary, the primary reasons for the proposed design of the main
entrance remain poorly justified in any quantitative way from the
standpoint of traffic engineering and formal comparative analysis in any
public document. The reasons may exist in an internal document or computer
model form but these analyses have not been made generally available to any
of us in any but a 'take my word for it I'm an expert' form. According to
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the chosen design is clearly
not the safest design possible for a roadway and will promote side impact
collisions. There are apparently other viable, safe design options
possible, in particular, a roundabout based design, which would minimize
environmental damage and efficiently distribute cars with little delay.
The relative merits of these various alternatives have never been openly
discussed with representatives of the campus community.


I prepared a detailed, 7 page memo to the Campus Environment Committee
outlining the results of my research on both the history of the
administration's actions and possible alternative plans. This memo was
distributed on 19 April to the entire committee, including ex officio
administrators, and was available for discussion. The motions derived from
the memo were passed by the CEC by e-mail vote on 9 May. These motions,
now referred to formally as 'sense of the committee' by Brent Lindquist,
followed a period in which discussion and exchange of information could
take place between everyone present at the meeting.

These 'sense' of the committee motions, with no abstentions, were:

Proposal 1-
The Campus Environment Committee (CEC) of the University Senate requests
that the administration delay the planned modification of the main entrance
to the west campus.
Votes: Yes - 14
No - 2

Proposal 2-
The CEC requests that the administration consider alternative possible
designs that would achieve acceptable safety and traffic flow goals while
minimizing destruction of naturally forested areas.
Votes: Yes - 15
No - 1

Proposal 3-
It further requests that the administration consult in a meaningful way
with the CEC, as representatives of the larger campus community, and other
appropriate representatives from the surrounding residential community
regarding choice of the final design before beginning new construction.
Votes: Yes - 15
No - 1

(10 members of the committee are elected, 6 are appointed by the Chair and
include residents of the surrounding residential communities)

A comparable set of moderate requests was also signed in petition form by
22 Distinguished Professors, Distinguished Service Professors, and
Distinguished Teaching Professors, and sent to President Kenny yesterday
(18 May 2005; signatories are now 23). She has not replied to this
petition from a subset of our most dedicated and honored faculty.
Additional petitions from at least 600 concerned students, staff, and
faculty have also been submitted to the President, again without response.
Many staff and faculty on their own have informed us of e-mailing the
President directly on their position, also without response.

I firmly believe both the process of decision making by the administration
and the product are flawed in this instance. Unfortunately, Brent Lindquist
and the Senate Executive have decided to imply suspect behavior on the part
of two concerned Senators, to impugn the Campus Environment Committee's
desperate last minute actions, and to reward the administration for putting
us in a position where we had no choice. Because the administration chose
to formulate its plan in secret and to release information at the last
possible moment, members of the Campus Environment Committee were placed in
a very difficult position. I think we did the best we could against
overwhelmingly powerful and well organized forces, and that we carried out
the spirit of our duties to the Senate and the campus community we serve
even if the detailed procedure may not have been perfect.

Sincerely,

Robert Aller