For the past few weeks, I've had a running joke with my mother about getting a Michael Jackson statue put up in front of Kansas's state capitol building in Topeka. My mother was briefly considering running for the state legislature, though she has now decided against it. One day when she was starved for something to write about on a political blog, I recommended that she write about what she as a state legislator would do about the death of Michael Jackson. She shot back that she would have a gold-plated statue of him erected in front of the statehouse.
All summer long, it seemed there was no escaping Michael Jackson. He was on the cover of endless magazines and took over what passes for programming on the TV Guide channel. But now it seems he may be about to take over a subway station in Brooklyn I remember well from my days as a straphanger.
The New York Times reported today that an offhand remark by one city official to a reporter "on a slow newsday" has spawned petitions to rename Hoyt-Schermerhorn Station in Brooklyn Michael Jackson Station and to put up some kind of plaque or memorial therein. Apparently, the now-deceased King of Pop filmed one of his music videos there, and some locals think that honoring Jackson in some way there might boost tourism to the area.
Now, I've been at this particular station countless times switching from the A/C to the G train. I know the surroundings well, and I honestly don't see how an ugly statue of Michael Jackson would do anything to improve either the station's looks or the prospect of tourists flocking into the immediate vicinity. The area around Hoyt-Schermerhorn is Fulton Street in Downtown Brooklyn--a decidedly run-down shopping area that seems to sell nothing except pirate DVDs and polyester hair extensions. Already the third-largest shopping district in metro New York (after Midtown and Lower Manhattan), Fulton Street is already heavily crowded and the Hoyt-Schermerhorn stop even more so, as it houses a vital link between the F and A/C lines. The last thing it needs are people coming to gawk at an ugly statue.
Why do I assume the statue would be ugly? Because I've seen other examples of what the MTA considers subway "art." While I was at Columbia, my subway stop was 116th Street, on the 1/9 line. Frequently, when I went downtown from there, I sat on a hideous monstrosity called the "subway rider's throne". This was, literally, a giant throne someone had put next to the downtown benches, with a plaque on the wall. I knew of nobody who respected the throne's pretentions of being "art".
Moreover, I'm not really keen on the idea of New York doing anything to honor an artist who did nothing to further the life of the city except to film a music video there. In my view, art should honor people who've made a substantial contribution to the life of the city, in some way. Michael Jackson doesn't remotely fall into this category. And of course, there were all those creepy incidents involving small children.
On the other hand, the article raises the possibility of some group or other donating large amounts of money to refurbish the station as well as place Jackson-themed art in the Hoyt-Schermerhorn station. Hoyt-Schermerhorn could definitely use the makeover--so much so that I'd even be happy to have Ty Pennington come in and supervise it (and there are certainly New Yorkers for whom this would constitute an "Extreme Makeover" of their home).
So what am I to do when two deeply held desires--not to see New York honor someone who was likely a child molester, and to see Hoyt-Schermerhorn turn into someplace halfway pleasant to be--collide?
What position would you take?
21 October 2009
20 October 2009
Bus Lanes
Despite my relocation to Philadelphia, I still occasionally take a few moments to glance at the New York Times web page. New York doesn't seem so far or so long ago, and I continue to have an interest in the affairs of the city where so many of my friends live, and where I may return some day.
This morning, the Times features a piece about efforts by the MTA's new chief to make the city's bus lanes into...well, real bus lanes, as opposed to the traffic-clogged strips on the right-hand side of the street they usually are now. Every driver in the city seems to think the words "bus lanes" don't mean anything. As the Times notes, Londoners similarly regarded their own bus lanes this way until cameras started to be installed at intersections and fines for violations were raised substantially. The new MTA chief wants to try a similar approach but is hampered from doing so by the need to get Albany to allow intersection cameras.
All New Yorkers know that the City That Never Sleeps often doubles as the City That Never Moves, and buses are decidedly the worst part of New York's transit system. The Times article notes that the proportion of bus riders to subway riders in New York is the exact flip of what it is in London. In London, it seems, the buses have higher total ridership than the Underground; in New York, the subway has the upper hand.
Some of this, I suspect, may have to do with the layouts and age of the respective systems. Never having been to London, I can't speak for the layout of its system, but in New York there are so many subway stops (at least, everywhere except the far parts of the Outer Boroughs) that you don't have to go very far to get to the subway. London's system may not be quite so convenient.
But the problems the new head of the MTA is facing are very real. Bus service in New York doesn't just border on atrocious; it crossed the line a long time ago. Most lines stop every couple of blocks (much more frequently than transit experts say is ideal for the smooth operating of a bus system) and are snarled in traffic when they are in motion. For distances under 20 blocks, you are often better off walking; for greater distances, you're usually better off taking the subway. I tended only to take the bus when there was a lack of good alternatives (something that occurred frequently when I depended on the G train) or on lazy Sunday afternoons, when I didn't really care how long I took to get somewhere.
The failure of drivers to observe bus lane rules contributes to the problem. And it's been hard not to notice that the vehicles that violate these rules seem to fall into the categories I call the Two Ys:
1) Yellow cabs--though to be fair, yellow cab drivers seem to think most of New York's traffic regulations don't apply to them; maybe the city should make fare increases conditional on increased observance of the regulations.
2) Yuppies. I can't tell you the number of times I've watched a Lincoln Navigator weave into a bus lane, directly in front of a bus I was riding on, to make its turn that fraction of a second faster. I sometimes think New York would benefit tremendously from simply banning Lincoln Navigators from its streets.
But even here in Philadelphia, I notice a substantial number of drivers acting as if the words "Bus Lane" don't mean anything. There aren't as many of these lanes here as there are in New York, but they do exist. I think all of this bus-lane violation is indicative of a wider problem in our society--that substantial numbers of people think "the rules," whatever they are, somehow don't apply to them, and that the rest of us do nothing to disabuse them of this notion.
So I am all in favor of New York cracking down on bus-lane violation. The majority of New Yorkers who rely on the buses and subways shouldn't be inconvenienced this way by the wealthy few who can take cabs to work or drive their Lincoln Navigators in from Long Island.
I would also favor adopting, on a permanent basis, the regulations instituted during the transit strike prohibiting private vehicles with fewer than 4 occupants south of 96th Street in Manhattan, but one has to stick within the realm of the achievable.
This morning, the Times features a piece about efforts by the MTA's new chief to make the city's bus lanes into...well, real bus lanes, as opposed to the traffic-clogged strips on the right-hand side of the street they usually are now. Every driver in the city seems to think the words "bus lanes" don't mean anything. As the Times notes, Londoners similarly regarded their own bus lanes this way until cameras started to be installed at intersections and fines for violations were raised substantially. The new MTA chief wants to try a similar approach but is hampered from doing so by the need to get Albany to allow intersection cameras.
All New Yorkers know that the City That Never Sleeps often doubles as the City That Never Moves, and buses are decidedly the worst part of New York's transit system. The Times article notes that the proportion of bus riders to subway riders in New York is the exact flip of what it is in London. In London, it seems, the buses have higher total ridership than the Underground; in New York, the subway has the upper hand.
Some of this, I suspect, may have to do with the layouts and age of the respective systems. Never having been to London, I can't speak for the layout of its system, but in New York there are so many subway stops (at least, everywhere except the far parts of the Outer Boroughs) that you don't have to go very far to get to the subway. London's system may not be quite so convenient.
But the problems the new head of the MTA is facing are very real. Bus service in New York doesn't just border on atrocious; it crossed the line a long time ago. Most lines stop every couple of blocks (much more frequently than transit experts say is ideal for the smooth operating of a bus system) and are snarled in traffic when they are in motion. For distances under 20 blocks, you are often better off walking; for greater distances, you're usually better off taking the subway. I tended only to take the bus when there was a lack of good alternatives (something that occurred frequently when I depended on the G train) or on lazy Sunday afternoons, when I didn't really care how long I took to get somewhere.
The failure of drivers to observe bus lane rules contributes to the problem. And it's been hard not to notice that the vehicles that violate these rules seem to fall into the categories I call the Two Ys:
1) Yellow cabs--though to be fair, yellow cab drivers seem to think most of New York's traffic regulations don't apply to them; maybe the city should make fare increases conditional on increased observance of the regulations.
2) Yuppies. I can't tell you the number of times I've watched a Lincoln Navigator weave into a bus lane, directly in front of a bus I was riding on, to make its turn that fraction of a second faster. I sometimes think New York would benefit tremendously from simply banning Lincoln Navigators from its streets.
But even here in Philadelphia, I notice a substantial number of drivers acting as if the words "Bus Lane" don't mean anything. There aren't as many of these lanes here as there are in New York, but they do exist. I think all of this bus-lane violation is indicative of a wider problem in our society--that substantial numbers of people think "the rules," whatever they are, somehow don't apply to them, and that the rest of us do nothing to disabuse them of this notion.
So I am all in favor of New York cracking down on bus-lane violation. The majority of New Yorkers who rely on the buses and subways shouldn't be inconvenienced this way by the wealthy few who can take cabs to work or drive their Lincoln Navigators in from Long Island.
I would also favor adopting, on a permanent basis, the regulations instituted during the transit strike prohibiting private vehicles with fewer than 4 occupants south of 96th Street in Manhattan, but one has to stick within the realm of the achievable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
