Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

Cell Phone Use By Drivers -- A Threat To Public Safety?


In 2001, New York State became the first state to ban the use of hand-held cellular telephones by drivers. Several other states and cities have followed suit, including New Jersey and Washington DC. Chicago banned hand-held cell phone use last month, as did the Connecticut Legislature earlier this month.

Despite their growing popularity, the effectiveness of these laws is open to question. Publicity and enforcement of the New York State ban produced a drop in the proportion of drivers using cell phones from 2.3 percent to 1.1 percent. But a study published in Injury Prevention found that the rate of cell phone use rebounded to 2.1 percent in 2003 after the initial publicity subsided.

That study focused on several small to medium size upstate communities. The rate of cell phone use by drivers in New York City appears not to have been measured. Nationally, however, a 2004 survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that eight percent of all motorists were using cell phones at any given time while driving, up from four percent in 2000. Casual observation suggests that New York City drivers at least match the national average. With the continued proliferation of cell phones and increasing functionality of the phones, the number of drivers using phone is likely to continue to grow.

Is cell phone use by drivers a threat to public safety? Published studies have been used to argue both sides of this question. A February 2005 University of Utah study found that young people tested in driving simulators were 18 percent slower in hitting their brakes than drivers who did not use cell phones. Cell phone users suffered from “inattention blindness” – while your eyes may be looking at something, you may fail to see it, or you may fail to see it in time to avoid a collision.

A widely-cited 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the risk of collision when using a cell phone was four times higher than the risk when a cell phone was not being used.

But other studies minimize the actual danger of cell phone use. The University of North Carolina Safety Research office review of State Trooper crash reports (in pdf format) found that cell phones appeared to play a role in only 0.16 percent of crashes. In 2003, Delaware police reviewed 1300 accidents in Delaware and found only four in which motorists were distracted by a cell phone.

Self-reported behavior is notoriously unreliable, however. Accidents are likely to have a number of contributing factors, and what motorist wants to believe that their own actions were key factors?

If government policy is based on the statistical studies of crash risk, then New York State should indeed ban handheld cell phone use by motorists. It should also ban motorists’ hands-free cell phone use, based on University of Utah studies that found that using a hands-free or hand-held phone makes no difference to the level of motorist distraction. About 20 percent of cell phone owners have hands-free devices.

But more than a ban is needed. The history of seat belt laws demonstrates that vigorous public education and enforcement programs are needed to change the public’s behavior. Seat belts have long been proven to be an extremely effective way to reduce injuries from motor vehicle collisions. Yet for years, many people refused to buckle up. But with a extensive educational program and highly publicized enforcement, restraint usage rose dramatically. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) surveys seat belt restraint use increased from 58 percent in 1994 to 80 percent in 2004.

Since the Buckle Up New York Campaign was initiated in May 1999, seat belt use in New York State has risen from 74.2 percent of motorists to 88.3 percent in 2001, though the rate slipped to 85 percent in 2004.

Whether a similar educational and enforcement campaign for the cell phone ban prevents enough injuries to be worth the cost needs further investigation. But there seems to be little question that without such a campaign, laws to ban motorists from using cell phones don’t do much good.

Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. 

42nd Street Trolley?


Should trolleys – now re-christened as “light rail” – return to 42nd Street for the first time since they were replaced by buses 59 years ago? The idea, which has been around for at least two decades, was approved by the City Council in 1994 but died when then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani withdrew his initial support.

A private group of urban and transportation planners and architects, calling itself vision42, resurfaced the idea of a 42nd Street light rail line recently with the release of a set of planning and economic reports. The reports, funded by an anonymous donor, set out an ambitious vision for 42nd Street as a tree-lined, pedestrian-friendly enclave running from river to river. Train tracks would be installed on a landscaped pedestrian boulevard. Unlike the 1990s plan approved by the City Council, the street would be closed to traffic. Futuristic low-floor light rail vehicles would replace taxis, buses, trucks and cars that now dominate the street. This famous east-west artery in Manhattan would join Fulton Street in downtown Brooklyn and Nassau Street in lower Manhattan as car-free streets.

Making The Dollars And Cents Argument

While all of this might sound much too nice to be New York, the advocates of the proposal, which would cost up to a half billion dollars to construct, make a dollars and cents case for light rail on 42nd Street. They start by computing time savings gained from replacing buses with light rail. A commuter traveling from the Port Authority Bus Terminal to Fifth Avenue, for example, would save up to five minutes on their commute.

In Manhattan, time is money. Office and commercial space that is closer to transit lines is more valuable than space further away. That simple observation is the basis for Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to extend the #7 train to the West Side. Time savings from a 42nd Street trolley would mean that property values for owners of offices, retail stores, residential buildings and vacant lots would increase by a whopping $3.5 billion, according to the economic study prepared by the consulting firm Urbanomics. The largest benefits would occur between First and Third Avenues, with property values also rising along Fifth and Sixth Avenues.

Rising property values are also good for New York City and New York State, which are projected to take in $277 million in additional taxes annually from property, personal income, corporate franchise and commercial rent taxes.

An illustration of the "light rail."

Complications – Traffic, Construction, Expense

The vision42 group presented the light rail studies at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square earlier this month. Questions about the studies came primarily from area residents who were concerned about increased traffic on surrounding streets and access to parking garages.

The traffic study projected that traffic impacts would be greatest west of Sixth Avenue on 40th Street and 44th Street during the morning rush hour. These streets would absorb traffic from the Lincoln Tunnel and West Side Highway that now uses 42nd Street. During the afternoon rush hour, traffic impacts would be heaviest on Eighth and Tenth Avenue with some but lesser impacts on 40th, 43rd and 44th Streets.

Notably, area residents took little note of possible benefits to them, which would be especially pronounced to those who live several blocks from the nearest subway line -- perhaps in part because presentations focused on benefits to commuters.

The primary construction cost is moving the utilities that lie underneath the street. As one might imagine, 42nd Street is not only a main conduit for traffic but also for sewer, water, telephone, electrical and gas lines. There are even abandoned trolley ducts under the pavement. Utilities need to be moved so that future utility cuts do not interrupt light rail service. Also, the vibrations from the trains can cause damage to some utility lines.

Utility relocation is an expensive proposition – estimated by an engineering firm at $319 million of the $510 million cost of construction. It might be possible to relocate only some of the utility lines, reducing the relocation costs to $189 million, but that figure would still be about one-half of total construction costs.

Why Not A Bus?

The costs of utility relocation raise the question of why not use rubber-tired vehicles instead of light rail vehicles that rely on tracks? With huge increases in bus ridership since the MetroCard free transfers between buses and the subway took effect, haven’t New Yorkers proven that they will ride buses? Without tracks to worry about, a car-free bus mall would not require any utility relocations. Another advantage is that 42nd Street could be integrated with bus routes on North/South avenues. New York City Transit could run a bus rapid transit service on First and Second Avenues, for example, that would turn onto 42nd Street – a useful step until the Second Avenue Subway is built.

George Haikalis, a transportation planner and co-chair, with the architect and author Roxanne Warren, of vision42, cites several advantages of light rail over an improved bus service. Haikalis fears that without rail tracks, some vehicles will be allowed onto 42nd Street, and those vehicles would block the bus lanes – a problem that certainly does occur at times on Fulton Street in Brooklyn. Haikalis also cites the smoother ride of light rail vehicles over buses and that low-floor light rail vehicles do not need the large wheel wells of low floor buses. Passengers also like the certainty that rail vehicles will stay on the tracks and not unexpectedly divert to some unpredictable destination, a consideration that affects visitors more than residents or commuters.

What Needs To Be Addressed For It To Happen?

Many other issues would need to be addressed if the light rail plan moved forward. Further work is needed on traffic issues, deliveries to buildings on 42 Street and related implementation issues. More basically, who would fund the project? Who would operate the service – the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the city, or a private company franchised by the city (as was the plan a decade ago)? Could riders use MetroCard to pay the fare – and how would the “proof of payment” system proposed for the line work in a New York environment?

Does a 42nd Street trolley have a future? Currently it lacks any depth of support in the civic community, which is focused on the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access and lower Manhattan redevelopment. Mayor Bloomberg is focused on extending the #7 train, building the Jets Stadium and winning the Olympics. Although Manhattan Borough President Virginia Fields sponsored the recent meeting, she has not endorsed the project, nor have other elected officials or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The 42nd Street light rail may need to wait a while before its day comes, if it ever does. In the meantime it will be yet another example of how many stars need to align before even a relatively modest transit construction project moves toward reality.

Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The State Budget's $38.5 Billion Transportation Program


The on-time New York State budget approved by the legislature on March 31 included a $38.5 billion transportation program covering the next five years, to be split equally between transit and highways.

Legislative approval – assuming the governor does not use his veto pen to make any substantial changes – means that the Second Avenue Subway and the Long Island Rail Road link to Grand Central Terminal will begin construction. The budget also means that the transit system will continue to be maintained and upgraded, although possibly with a stretching out of some projects. It also means that while bridge and pavement conditions on state bridges and highways will not deteriorate, congestion will continue to worsen. Finally, the way the budget was financed means that in 2010, New York will face the same hard financing issues that it confronted this year.

Let’s look at how the $38.5 billion breaks down, starting with funding for the Capital Program of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and then the Highway Program of the New York State Department of Transportation. (NYSDOT).

MTA CAPITAL PROGRAM

System Improvements

Let’s start with the MTA’s “Core Capital Program.” The core program covers what is artfully termed “state of good repair” and “system improvements.” These refer to normal replacement and maintenance of rail cars, buses, tracks, signals, stations and the host of infrastructure items required to keep the subway, bus and commuter rail systems in good running order. The benefits of many “state of good repair” elements are readily seen by transit riders. New subway cars, for example, improve the riding experience and are less likely to break down.

But much of this program is unseen – until disaster strikes. The Chambers Street fire late last year illustrated the importance of modernizing signal systems, for example. Sometimes unnoticed, the system-improvement component of the program goes well beyond keeping the system in good repair. New train control and communications systems, for example, now being tested on the L line and scheduled for installation on parts of the F in the next few years, include signage that will announce when the next train will arrive.

Last September, the MTA requested $16 billion for the core program and $500 million for security, for a total of $16.5 billion. The legislature approved $15.4 billion. In discussions with the legislative leaders, the heads of New York City Transit and the commuter railroads apparently said they could live with the lower amount. How they will do so remains to be seen and thus, whether there are real impacts from this $1.1 billion reduction is unclear. The agencies may stretch out certain program elements, for example, or find ways to cut back on project scopes. Megaprojects

Next up are the widely-heralded expansion projects. These include the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access, which would bring Long Island Rail Road trains into Grand Central. The MTA requested $1.4 billion to begin construction of the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway, which will run from 125th Street to connect into the existing subway line at 63 Street. The MTA also requested $2.3 billion for East Side Access. The legislature approved $2.1 billion for the two projects -- $1.1 billion for East Side Access and $1.0 billion for Second Avenue. The $2.1 billion assumes that the federal government contributes $1 billion.

The approved funding level for these megaprojects means three things.

First, it means that the projects are moving forward. Construction will start during this Capital Program so you can expect that the Second Avenue subway will be built in your working lifetime (unless you are very close to retirement).

Second, don’t buy your tickets quite yet. The funding reductions mean that the projects will open somewhat later than had been planned. East Side Access will open probably in 2015 instead of 2011 or 2012. Second Avenue will also be pushed back, although it’s not clear how far or to when.

Finally, the way the funding is structured will create greater financial pressures down the road. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that funding be identified up front before it approves federal assistance. In this case, state officials will request permission to “pay as you go,” having just enough money identified to meet the cash needs of the project. The federal agency appears likely to accept their request, although positive action is not certain. What this arrangement means, however, is that state officials will have to identify additional funding sources by the time the next Capital Program comes up for approval.

The legislature also approved $2 billion for the #7 extension, but that entire sum is to come from New York City sources. Finally, there is $400 million for the proposed rail connection between JFK Airport and lower Manhattan, a project that is still substantially unfunded.

MTA PROGRAM FUNDING

Transportation Bond Act

The most-publicized aspect of program funding is the $2.9 billion Transportation Bond Act that will go on the ballot for approval this fall. Proceeds from the Bond Act will be split equally between the MTA and the Highway Program.

Unlike in 2000, when advocacy and civic organizations were lukewarm toward a $3.8 billion Bond Act that failed to win voter approval, these groups are now solidly behind this proposal. They are likely to mount a strong publicity campaign to gain voter approval. The electoral calendar is also in their favor. The mayoral contest is likely to draw voters to the polls in New York City, where voters are likely to back the Bond Act by a large margin.

Tax and Fee Increases

The legislature also approved about $300 million in tax and fee increases to help finance the MTA program. These increases include a 1/8 percent increase in the sales tax, which will end up being 8.375 percent in the MTA service region after a temporary increase expires. The increases also include hikes in vehicle title fees and the mortgage recording tax.

Proceeds from these increases will leverage $4.2 billion in new bonds to be used in the MTA Capital Program.

Financing – A Fare Increase? Jets Stadium Sale?

The legislature also approved just over $3 billion in MTA bonds, a sum that is apparently in the MTA’s financial plan from last fall. Thus, as expected, the MTA’s debt burden will continue to grow, placing continued pressure on the fare. Warnings of a fare increase every two years could easily come to pass.

Other elements of MTA funding are $1.4 billion in asset sales (West Side rail yards/Jets stadium, Brooklyn rail yards/Nets stadium, and some other asset sales and revenues), the $1 billion from the federal government for system expansion, and several hundred million dollars in assistance from the city.

Looking Over A Cliff After 2010

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the financing is that only about $5 billion of the $17.9 billion program is continuing funding. In 2010, the MTA will once again be looking out over a cliff, wondering how in the world it can come up with roughly $12 billion for the next Capital Program. Once again, options will be to further increase the debt load, increase taxes, sell assets, etc. So, while the legislature has squeezed out enough funding to get the MTA through the 2005 to 2010 period, funding issues are by no means going away. Each time, of course, the issues become more difficult because some of the options were used up in the previous round.

HIGHWAY PROGRAM

In March, New York University released a report that I wrote assessing highway and bridge conditions and congestion levels in the New York area and capital funding needs for 2005-2010. The report showed that at current funding levels, bridge and highway conditions are likely to deteriorate and congestion will continue to worsen. The assessments of funding needs were striking – an additional $1.3 billion in the New York area alone just to prevent worsening of bridge and pavement conditions and a doubling of the program to meet a reasonable definition of “state of good repair.”

The governor proposed a $17.4 billion statewide program, although funding sources were identified for only $15.4 billion. The legislature approved $17.9 billion, matching the MTA program. (As the notion of matching took hold in Albany, highway advocates suddenly became advocates of transit funding as well.) With few details available, it is not clear how much of the $17.9 billion will be allocated to the New York area. Assuming allocations similar to historic patterns, however, it appears that the funding is barely sufficient to keep road and bridge conditions the same as they are currently.

That would leave only a few dollars for the “mobility” program, which includes added highway capacity, elimination of bottlenecks, bus lanes and similar steps to reduce congestion. While many New York City residents can avoid highway congestion by taking the subway, congestion is unavoidable for the movement of goods in the city and for most suburban residents. By not dealing with the problem, state officials are allowing congestion to be an increasingly significant drag on the region’s economy.

ASSESSING THE BUDGET

There are good reasons to be pleased with the Legislature’s transportation budget. The legislature provided sufficient funds to keep the transit system in good condition and prevent highway and bridge conditions from worsening. Two megaprojects, the Second Avenue Subway and LIRR link to Grand Central Terminal, are going to proceed. In a state where an on-time budget makes front page headlines, these achievements are worthy of praise.

But as Elliot Spitzer recently noted, the budget does not solve New York’s long-term financial challenges.

While coming up with the cash to start the megaprojects, for example, it leaves until the next round in 2010 how to pay for them fully. It loads increased debt on the MTA, ultimately to come out of fares paid by transit riders. And it fails to address long-ignored problems with congestion on the region’s highway network.

So while this budget can be seen as a step forward, the journey won’t be any easier from here.

Bruce Schaller is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation, and is also a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years