The Public Square After Times Square

As a New Yorker, I’m no stranger to terrorist attacks, but I’ve probably had closer contact than most. I was in historic Fraunces Tavern in the financial district, having lunch, on the winter’s day in 1975 when a bomb ripped through it, killing four people and injuring 44. On 9/11, I was minding my two young children when the Twin Towers ten blocks away turned to rubble. We weren’t harmed, but the fallout — air poisoned, schools shuttered, sleep invaded — wasn’t pretty.

machine_guns.jpg

So I should have extra cause to be thankful that the Times Square car bomb fizzled last Saturday evening, and grateful for the energetic police work that pulled the suspected perpetrator off a plane for Dubai Monday night. And I am. But as a longtime campaigner for public space and livable streets, I worry about the political and social consequences of this latest scare. From the look of things so far, these won’t be pretty, either.

For starters, the botched bombing makes it extremely unlikely that the NYPD will ever be called to account for its shameful Earth Day confiscation of bicycles chained to racks and fences along the presidential motorcade route on Houston Street. While this may seem small in the grand scheme of things, some cycling advocates had been nursing hopes that this gratuitous act might be the lever to finally pry open the department’s sorry record of indifference and hostility toward cyclists.

Indeed, throughout the unending Giuliani-Bloomberg era, it has been nearly impossible to get elected officials and the media to question any exercise of police power, short of overt violence or profiling. Even so, two veteran journalists told me last week that they were looking into the Houston Street incident, and one City Council member, public safety committee chair Peter Vallone, addressed some tough questions about it to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Now, however, with politicians and the press falling over each other to congratulate the cops, the chances of a meaningful probe appear nil.

Since 9/11, each attempted attack, no matter how clumsy, has precipitated some new disturbing intrusion into the public’s sphere of free movement. As the week began, the Supreme Court announced that, due to “security concerns,” visitors would no longer be allowed to enter via the court’s front door, through the imposing marble columns and under the totemic words “Equal Justice Under Law.” While the timing was coincidental, the announcement was another step toward sacrificing the American public square, with its cherished rites and freedoms, on the altar of security.

Inevitably, then, the Times Square incident will influence how officialdom prioritizes the dangers society faces — a process in which the decks have always been stacked against livable streets.

To take one example from the files, a dozen years ago the National Transportation Safety Board mounted a full-scale investigation into a fatal helicopter crash in the East River while federal and city officials alike disregarded entreaties from advocates to investigate cyclist fatalities caused by dooring mere miles away. Around that time, Congress was grilling auto and tire manufacturers for “mismatches” that put joyriding SUV owners at risk by making rollovers more likely; yet the far more common lethal mismatch involving occupants of sedans struck by rigid-frame, high-riding SUVs went ignored.

In the case of the Times Square incident, even the cynics among us have been taken aback by the attention given to what appears to have been an astoundingly amateurish plot. Sifting through the blather about bullets dodged, we find that the various chemicals and hardware stashed in the Nissan Pathfinder were almost certainly incapable of inflicting mayhem on a large scale. According to a former NYPD bomb squad expert interviewed last Sunday, even if the device had functioned, “it would [have been] more of an incendiary event” than an explosion.

Nowadays, however, nuances such as these all but disappear under the weight of a decade of post-9/11 conditioning. Thus, the Times, in a front-page piece on Monday portentously titled, A Dread Revived: Terror in the Trunk, solemnly intoned that the ever-lurking threat of a car bomb was finally “brought home.” Lost in the cheap gravitas is that for more than a century car-borne threats have been striking home on every U.S. highway, street and sidewalk. Those victims usually, though not always, come in ones and twos.

There was the evening in December 2001, just months after 9/11, when a disoriented driver plowed his SUV into shoppers in front of Macy’s, killing seven. Earlier, there was the horrific spring day in 1992 when a driver mistook the accelerator for the brake pedal and killed five people and maimed dozens more inside Washington Square Park. Unlike the Pathfinder, these “car bombs” actually detonated.

It is true, as livable streets advocate Ken Coughlin reminded me the other day, that “there are two different kinds of terror here: the intentional kind where the idea is to scare a populace or government into submission; and the unintentional kind, where the outcome is often death, injury and fear but there is no other guiding hand than the failure of officials to pay adequate attention.”

Ken’s construct is valuable, yet under the grinding weight of tragedy after tragedy — toddlers run over by an unattended van in Chinatown; a beloved Bronx community activist knocked off her bike and under a bus by a car door; moms, churchgoers, students struck down — the distinction gets blurry. Consider Frances Cioffi, who on 9/11 ducked out of the 36th floor of the World Trade Center’s North Tower for a coffee just minutes before the first plane struck, only to be killed a few blocks away in 2008 by an SUV that a police officer said was traveling at 60 miles an hour. Grappling with the irony, I wrote, in a provocatively titled post, The Terrorists Have Won:

The driver who succeeded where al-Qaeda failed… has no known ties to Osama bin Laden. He does not come from Afghanistan, but Long Island. He is not a mullah or an imam, but the founder and CEO of a financial software company.

My bluntly stated point isn’t so different from Ken’s: Terror comes in many guises. Terrorist wannabes aside, in New York City, year in and year out, it comes 200 times a year to pedestrians and bicyclists, most of whom would still be alive [PDF] if the driver who struck them had adhered to traffic laws.

And so it goes. Dangerous driving deemed devoid of murderous intent is okay; bicycles hitched to “security-sensitive” fences are not. Putting law-enforcement personnel on bloated “anti-terror” details is an appropriate use of police; assigning them to enforce traffic laws protecting pedestrians and bicyclists is not. “Narrow escapes” such as Saturday evening in Times Square merit blanket coverage; the everyday bullying of millions of walkers and hundreds of thousands of bike riders is, well, everyday.

There is this ray of hope, however: in just three years, NYCDOT has made remarkable progress in re-purposing our streets in ways that may reduce the threat of car and truck bombs. While the creation of pedestrian spaces in Midtown, including Times Square, has been the agency’s most visible project, its emergent legacy also includes a cultural shift in the kinds of activities and vehicles considered appropriate in our city, particularly in the dense, transit-rich urban core.

We need not eliminate motor vehicles outright — “don’t ban cars, bill them,” might be a rallying cry for congestion pricing. But changing the terms on which they are permitted into the city — and by which they conduct themselves while there — could be a path for improving security in the broadest sense.

  • JK

    Charlie, the Herald Square horror you mentioned helped build additional support in the community board and among local businesses for the extensive public space reclamations that transformed Herald Square. Those changes long predate DOT’s recent reclamation of Broadway, and were a political and planning building block for current efforts. The point is that bad things can be harnessed for change. The Times Square incident provides an obvious argument for more pedestrian space near iconic buildings and centers of government.

  • @JK: I didn’t know that something good came out of the Herald Square horror, and am happy to learn it. If I recall correctly, NYU’s earlier effort to close the block of Washington Place just east of Washington Square Park to most vehicular traffic failed after the 1992 carnage there. The evolution in the responses to the two tragedies is a very hopeful sign.

  • bb

    Maybe this will rid the streets and traffic from on street parking?

    Seems perfect sense to park the potential car bomb in a bullet proof structure.

  • Larry Littlefield

    After 9/11, some people in other states asserted that the right response was to withdraw public funding from mass transit and other urban areas, which should be abandoned to avoid having concentrations of people that could be attacked. Needless to say, their advice was not followed.

    Is there any evidence at all that people are shying away from Times Square in the wake of this incident? If not, that is a measure of how much people value a collective space.

  • Joby

    No matter what your feelings on livable streets, from a security standpoint NY has no choice in the long term but to expand sidewalks (to add an extra buffer) and restrict on-street parking (to reduce the risk of bombs) near high value target areas.
    NY has proven time and again to be a high value target in and of itself to terrorists. To really create an equivalent security apparatus to London’s “Ring of Steel”, every single vehicle entering the island will need to slow down and be photographed. Thus the infrastructure for congestion pricing may be built before the the political consensus to charge drivers for entering the CBD does.

  • “[C]ar-borne threats have been striking home on every U.S. highway, street and sidewalk. Those victims usually, though not always, come in ones and twos.”

    Great point.

  • Larry — I was in Times Square yesterday. Still insanely crowded.

  • Does this mean bollards to protect pedestrians instead of electrical boxes?

    Perhaps there is a silver lining. That is, as long as they use metal poles, and not the giant coffins.

  • Very thoughtful post, as usual, Charlie. To help protect your radical flank, I am going to stake out a position that the powers-that-be surely will find even more appalling than yours. I believe that the two problems here — bad attitudes and policies towards cycling and walking and bad policies regarding what we call “terrorism” — are linked by xenophobia, jingoism, stupidity, and greed permeating all levels of government and spreading across a wide array of intertwined political and social issues. At every level of government we subsidize oil use and auto use. In this respect, national policy is especially egregious, because it has joined with xenophobia (post-WWII, Arabs and Muslims jumped ahead of Jews on Christian-America’s most-despised list) to engender our spectacularly destructive foreign policy and military postures towards the Middle East.

    One comprehensive set of thematically unified policies could solve the problems we are concerned with here. Stop subsidizing oil. Reduce defense spending by 50%; the bulk if not the entirety of this reduction could come from zeroing out expenditures related to the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Curtail aid to Israel, and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 242 (Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories). Domestically, put a large tax on gasoline, oil, cars, and parking. Add “pay at the pump” liability-insurance charges to gasoline, and institute congestion tolling where appropriate. Apply 60% of tax revenues and saved military dollars to programs designed to alleviate human suffering generally, and 40% to transportation and energy programs, such as improving end-use efficiency, developing technologies with near-zero external costs (including things like accidents; i.e., not limited just to environmental impacts), and improving urban design and planning.

  • Michael

    Perhaps the New York Post will now see the wisdom of not allowing cars in Times Square, or other locales which belong to all citizens, regardless of transportation choices.

    Probably not.

  • Beth

    How many more people killed or injured from ordinary cars than from car bombs? That Times Square car bomb would have been tame by comparison. But then, death by driver doesn’t serve the needs of the governing elite to keep us scared, tame and dependent.

  • Marina

    Thank you for a very thoughtful and well researched post, Charlie!

    I agree 100% that congestion pricing is of utmost importance in the fight against many kinds of terror.

    I would also like to suggest that perhaps each of us who rides a bike can take a very small step of fighting the terror of the automobile by continuing to ride and by riding in a manner that doesn’t terrorize pedestrians or other road users who are slower than us.

  • Shouldn’t we be taking another look at how London handled the car bomb threat? They have been our model on congestion pricing. I have heard that the restrictions put on car travel after IRA bombings were the first step toward congestion pricing, i.e., people got use to the idea of restricting car travel to the core.

  • Mad Park

    Like many here, I agree that the automobilist terrorism toward cyclists and pedestrians ought to be a much higher priority for urban police departments. But, then, I’m always amazed that in the US we almost totally ignore the tobacconist terrorists who kill nearly 160,000 Americans each year.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Bratton Won’t Stop Talking About Removing Times Square Plazas

|
It wasn’t just an offhand remark. Police Commissioner Bill Bratton has reiterated his desire to eliminate the public plazas at Times Square and go back to the days when people were spilling off the sidewalk into the path of traffic. This time, he’s insisting that taking away space for people won’t just cure Times Square of topless women and costumed […]

Times Square BID Leader on the Art of Street Reclamation

|
This used to be the scene of gridlocked traffic. Photo: berk2804 Seven years ago, when Tim Tompkins took over as president of the Times Square Alliance, one of New York’s largest BIDs, security and cleanliness were the top concerns. Despite incessant traffic and "pedlock," few decision-makers were focused, at first, on the vision of Times […]

Streetfilms: Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square

|
According to the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Portland, Oregon’s Pioneer Courthouse Square is one of the Top 10 greatest public spaces in the U.S. & Canada. I couldn’t agree more. Affectionately referred to as the city’s "living room" the charming and versatile block was once slated to be a parking garage in the 1960s. […]

Memo to Chris Quinn: New York Voters Like Livable Streets

|
Christine Quinn is not known as a politician who shies away from shying away, but it might be time to ditch her public indifference toward NYC DOT’s street safety and public space program. Monday evening, the Times reported on a Times Square Alliance study that, Great Recession notwithstanding, shows booming growth since 2007. Currently, the […]

Bratton: Times Square Plazas Will Stay

|
The de Blasio administration has finally put to rest the idea of yanking out the Times Square pedestrian plazas. Was that so hard? Erik Engquist at Crain’s reports that Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said City Hall will see through the $55 million capital construction project to cast the plazas in concrete, which has been in […]

Times Square: Too Many People, or Just Too Many Cars?

|
Why is Times Square so crowded? An article in yesterday’s New York Times considered that question, asking real estate brokers if businesses might be shying away from the area due to packed streets and sidewalks. According to a survey cited in the article, 68 percent of Times Square office workers say congestion is the top […]