Robert Moses was responsible for building much of the NYC metro area's 20th century infrastructure. Some of this was good, but as Robert Caro argues, much of it came at the detriment of other necessary projects, and choked off the capacity for future innovation.

Among other things, Caro blames Moses for the chronic underfunding of city mass transit. (As a city resident, I can tell you that problem continues unabated!) Moses believed cars would be the engine of middle class mobility, and built the city around that thesis. Confronted with evidence that he was wrong, Caro says, Moses still refused to change.

I know Power Broker is one of the flair community's favorite books. But I also know that there are emerging, contradictory perspectives. Have historians started to take a second look at Moses's career, and the choices he made? If so, what are the competing perspectives?