Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Transportation

Transportation

Security and the NYC Subways


The bombing of three subway stations and a bus in London on July 7 brought into stark relief, once again, the ongoing threat to New York City. New Yorkers have long known that their city -- and its often jam-packed transit system -- is a prime target of terrorists. While the city's residents and visitors may sometimes set aside the risks, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who is not aware of the possibility of another terrorist attack.

The London bombings also cast the spotlight on the NYC transit system's snail-like progress in spending nearly $600 million to improve security in the subway system. Two and one-half years after announcing the completion of a thorough security review, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) reportedly has spent only $30 million of that sum, mostly on studies and consultants. Boston and Washington have deployed sensors to detect the presence of biochemical agents in the subway system. Houston has closed-circuit television cameras that can be used for surveillance. Atlanta upgraded two-way radios to allow transit workers to communicate with police and rescue workers. Compared with these efforts, New York lags behind.

Reaction to this news was predictable. Senator Charles Schumer called for a "crash program" because terrorists "have chosen mass transit as their target of choice." Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on the MTA to "ratchet up the pace of increasing security on our subway system." Mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner said, "It's not money that's standing in the way, it's bureaucratic foot-dragging that's stopping the MTA from doing it."

According to press reports, the MTA plans include
• strengthening transit facilities against explosives
• restricting access to sensitive areas
• detecting intrusions
• surveillance
• and communications systems.

These are clearly valuable security improvements that will improve the MTA's ability to monitor and respond to possible security threats.

While spotlighting the transit system's vulnerability, reaction to the London bombings also highlighted New Yorkers' sophistication in understanding and responding to the terrorist threat. A simplistic reaction to physical threats would be to seek absolute safety, no matter the cost or consequences. The power of this reaction is seen in the newly fortified design for the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site, and NASA's struggles to define acceptable level risk and safety after the two shuttle accidents. Discussions between the MTA and the Army, reported by the Times, aiming to develop motion detectors, infrared sensors and sophisticated software to monitor subway tunnels and other infrastructure also evidence the notion that the system can be "hardened" to repel attack. The comment in a television interview by Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security chief, that "there is a technological and a system-based solution for this" is another example of this way of thinking.

New Yorkers do not seem to be buying the idea of absolute protection, however. On-street interviews carried in various press reports show a public partially willing to accept, partly trying to deny and partly attempting to rationalize the risk of terrorist attack. Mainly, the public seems to be trying to get on with life, knowing that they can neither avoid nor prevent what officials in London called a "shock" but not a "surprise." As an example, it was notable that in the two days following the London bombings I sat through a series of day-long meetings with city staff and others without anyone even mentioning what happened in London.

Terrorism and transportation experts cite four basic tasks in dealing with the threat. The four are:
• Deterrence, such as police patrols and chemical-sniffing dogs;
• Prevention, such as intelligence to catch terrorists before they strike, "saying something" when you "see something" in the subway and erecting bollards around key buildings to keep truck bombers some distance away;
• Mitigation, such as hardening stations and tunnels to minimize the damage from an explosion; and
• Prompt response to minimize casualties, such as good communications between emergency response personnel and regular drills to sharpen response procedures.

None of these approaches are foolproof, but each has been shown to be effective in reducing the risk.

Experts such as Brian Jenkins of the RAND Corporation (In PDF Format) also emphasize creating a net benefit rather than simply displacing the threat or the threatened. Jenkins says that security measures "should not merely displace the risk toward other equally vulnerable targets" - for example, from train stations to equally crowded shopping malls. Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (In PDF Format) points out that it would be counterproductive if people stop using mass transit and drive instead, since the risk of a fatal traffic accident far outweighs the risk of dying in a terrorist attack.

In addition to these practical considerations, there are larger dangers to overreacting to the London bombings. As Jenkins has said, "We cannot allow fear to become the framework of American governance." Thus, we will continue, as Susan Jacoby wrote in Newsday, to try and do "a very good job of not thinking about what I know perfectly well - that it is absolutely impossible, in a city the size of New York, to make the subways and buses and public buildings safe from bombings."

Meanwhile, New Yorkers might feel a bit safer, and a bit more in control, if we act on the advice from the ad in the subway, "When you see something, say something."

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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