A Brighter Broadway: A Subway Still Dim

I admit it was in Times Square that I first fell in love with New York City. As a resident of this city for four years, this idea is not only embarrassing but hard to imagine—nonetheless, I shamefully know it to be true.

I was fourteen years old. It was my first time in New York. I was on a glamour-induced, star-studded high after having seen the revival of 42nd Street on Broadway. In my excitement, I jumped onto a cement barrier in one of the medians on Broadway, looked up, and felt that camera shooting the movie of my life do slow circles around me as the furor of boisterous yellow taxis rushing toward me added to the dizzy neon chaos. Oh New York! How crazy—how lovable!

Bloomberg’s announcement last Thursday of his plan to close parts of Broadway to traffic brought this menory to mind. But only for a moment.
The reality of living in the city is that I often roll my eyes at that 14-year-old-girl—such a tourist!—and avoid the crowds in Times Square whenever possible. As much as the honking, messy disarray might fit with our image of Times Square, it is not necessary or ideal.

Effective mid-May, Bloomberg’s plan will close Broadway to vehicles from Columbus Circle to 42nd Street and from 33rd to 26th streets. Traffic will continue via cross streets, but Broadway will become a pedestrian mall in these sections. According to the city’s Department of Transportation, the plan does not require any further approval, yet Bloomberg faces political opposition from cab drivers and skeptics.

The plan is innovative. And while it may be hard to picture, it deserves open-minded consideration. First, this $1.5 million investment involves construction and will likely create jobs. Second, although some are concerned that the plan will add to congestion and hurt neighborhood businesses, the newly formed pedestrian areas are more likely to encourage shopping. The side street traffic will enjoy wider lanes and extended green light times while pedestrians, free from traffic, will be able to mosey into stores. Moseying in Times Square ... sounds impossibly appealing—maybe even appealing enough to draw locals, always craving open public space, back to the neighborhood.

While the plan has a number of exciting elements, it cannot be seen as a fix for the city’s larger congestion, or, arguably more important, transportation problems. Let us not forget that the majority of New York City dwellers are not in those cabs stuck in traffic in midtown but instead on the subways that will still be running and crumbling below the new Broadway.

Less than one percent of workers take taxis to work in Manhattan, and of those that drive themselves, the majority are from outside New York City. Over half of New York City workers rely on public transportation to commute to work, and this plan does nothing for them. It is an anti-congestion plan that does not discourage drivers. It is about business development by way of increased shopping and traffic flow and not about increasing services for the average New York City citizen.

In addition to Bloomberg’s plan, the city should be thinking of ways to decrease congestion while supporting the MTA, which, with a projected deficit of $650 million and proposed service cuts impacting every borough (29 bus lines with service reductions!), is in dire need of rescue. Perhaps it is time to rehash the possibility of a congestion tax with revenues earmarked for public transportation, as proposed by Bloomberg but denied in Albany in 2007. As cited in this failed proposal, London has successfully limited the number of cars jamming its city by way of charging cars to enter. Surely such a tax has drawbacks, but there are also creative solutions. Small businesses could apply for waivers for their deliveries, while commuters who drove daily could buy passes in bulk at a reduced rate. In terms of the commuters who now drive (a population with a median income of over $97,000), such a tax ends up as a win-win for the city, as drivers either pay the tax or support the public transit system.

Another option, suggested by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, is the introduction of a gas tax. Gas is much cheaper right now than it has been, a nice break for those who live in parts of the country dependent upon highways, but for the majority of people coming into the city, public transportation is an option. Again, such a plan would discourage driving, aid traffic problems, and raise revenue either by way of a tax or increased public transit ridership.

While rambunctious taxis remain in the backdrop of my first night in Times Square, other young dreamers will certainly still fall in love with the city and Broadway after Bloomberg’s plan. In fact, maybe they’ll linger in Times Square and take home more than a flashing memory. In the meantime, let us remember that catering to the tourists or businesses there is just another example of top-down development economics. Such plans must be balanced by investment in the essential infrastructure of the city. We must think creatively about ways to limit traffic while simultaneously salvaging our public transportation system.

MaryAlice Parks is a Columbia College senior majoring in history and political science. She is a co-coordinator of Artists Reaching Out. The Albright runs alternate Tuesdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com