Robert Caro in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Robert Moses, The Power Broker, details how Mr. Moses, in Depression-era New York City, was able to create and lead a powerful matrix of public authorities tasked with infrastructure construction. Through these quasi-public agencies, Mr. Moses was able to circumvent the “power of the purse” assigned to public officials, as well as the process of public comment, and tap a complicated array of funding sources, from bonds to tolls, in order to construct roads, “parkways,” bridges, and public facilities. His great political skills resulted in the construction of many of New York’s significant bridges, parks, housing, and roads, often funded by shifting resources away from public transit. His public works, parks, and housing were durable marvels of engineering, landscape, and architecture. Many continue to serve hundreds of thousands in the New York region. Had his vision been more broadly based, mass transit would have also seen a significant investment rather than suffer through many years of maintenance issues and neglect.
Mr. Moses shared his strategies and methodologies across the country. Many other cities and states followed his lead, using these concepts in a manner that would generally establish the pattern of sprawling suburban development, the demise of a public transportation network, and the groundwork for the rise of the now-dominant car culture. His power was unrivaled until his mindset of development led to the demolition of Pennsylvania Station. The resulting public outcry emboldened advocates, like Greenwich Village resident Jane Jacob, to stop the era of grand projects such as the Lower Manhattan Expressway that would have leveled that historic neighborhood.
Today’s scarcity of resources for public works – some might say attributable to a certain lack of political will – once again requires the Mayor to have a vision to meet needs associated with aging infrastructure and rampant population growth. A kneecap-breaking version, like that of Robert Moses, is no longer viable; but, an ability to negotiate and cajole the funding minefield will certainly be necessary.
This vision will need to balance Charleston’s provincial appeal with some real urban challenges. Existing transportation corridors will need to serve many more modes of getting around, including train, mass transit (bus, ferry, light rail, trolley, etc.), car, pedestrian and bicycle. Storm water management and other utility service infrastructure will need to be integrated with considerations of climate change, population growth, and the potential of events such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Plans for resiliency, such as this one for Brooklyn, NY, and Gabe Klein’s recent transportation plan for Charleston represent good frameworks that can provide the region with the means to address critical needs well into the future.