driving Archives - Transportation For America

When gas prices rise, choice matters

Chevron gas station with gas prices ranging from $6.39 to $6.69

High gas prices put pressure on many Americans’ finances. Unfortunately, the cost of gas depends on a variety of factors, and there’s no silver bullet. Focusing on ineffective short-term solutions can often distract from the long-term problem: when the places we live are designed only for car travel (and longer trips), Americans are forced to pay the cost.

Gas prices have been rising throughout the year, nearing an all-time inflation-adjusted US high. Millions of Americans who rely on a vehicle for essential trips also may depend on low gas prices to make ends meet. Under pressure, state and federal legislators are trying to find ways to drive down the price, including passing gas tax holidays and proposing a federal price gouging bill. However, a variety of factors influence gas prices, and these legislative efforts have little chance of stemming the tide. Gas tax holidays are a particularly shortsighted choice. They threaten funding for needed infrastructure projects, many of which could ultimately alleviate pain at the pump.

Electric vehicles can’t be the sole answer to this problem either, because the issues that come up when people have to drive everywhere, even for the shortest trips, aren’t limited to the cost of fuel. All that driving takes up valuable time. Cars take up space on the road, which turns into traffic, making travel last even longer. It’s expensive to purchase and maintain a car, and when people have to own cars to travel, those who can’t afford one or are unable to drive one are left stranded. (We wrote about some of these issues in our report Driving Down Emissions.)

Every presidential candidate's climate and transportation plan: replace all cars on the road with EVs, akacleaner congestion

Regardless of the cost of gas, it’s never been cheap or convenient to rely solely on driving for daily travel. Whether electric or gas-powered, cars are expensive, and Americans have to drive them further than ever just to access their daily needs—Americans in the biggest metro areas are driving 20 percent more per day than three decades ago.

While gas tax holidays will fail to provide significant relief (and cut revenues for roads and bridges in the process), there are enough other organizations and economists and elected leaders trying to figure out short-term solutions for these historically high prices. We’re taking the long view.

Last year’s infrastructure law, a historic investment in our nation’s transportation system, could provide longer lasting solutions for struggling travelers who need to save time and money at the pump.

The infrastructure law made new funds available to improve transit speeds and access, reconnect communities separated by dangerous infrastructure, and design safer and more active streets. We’ve written before about how these changes can enhance equity and improve climate outcomes, but there’s another benefit we might not bring up enough: more options mean more ways for travelers to save on transportation.

When people live in walkable, multimodal places (of nearly any size) where destinations are located closer together, they can walk, roll, or take the bus to get to work, school, and the grocery store. As gas prices rose, people in these sorts of places, whether affluent or lower-income, were fortunate enough to be able to take much shorter trips by car or switch to other modes of travel. In doing so, they avoided some of the rising cost of car travel, even if they occasionally drove.

Me when gas prices are low vs Me when gas prices are high pic.twitter.com/bFwCft4e89
— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 7, 2022

After 2008, the last time gas prices rose, we had a similar opportunity to make lasting changes to our infrastructure. Demand rose for alternative modes of travel, especially in areas that already had long-established alternate options. If we had invested in multimodal transportation, we’d be in a very different situation today. But we didn’t—and this is where we ended up.

Because much of the funding in the infrastructure law is flexible, we can use it to give travelers more choices. Or we can further entrench ourselves in a system that requires more driving, more pollution, and more unexpected costs. Those choices will be up to states and metro areas as they decide how to invest these funds.

To really address the climbing cost of car travel, state DOTs and metro areas need to make sound infrastructure investments. If they merely use the infrastructure law to supercharge their existing work to prioritize speedy, long-distance travel at the expense of shorter trips via a range of modes, we’ll be right back in this mess the next time gas prices rise. When that time comes, we’ll know who deserves at least some of the blame.

Senate Democrats recommend less driving—as Senate committee approves billions for new roads

The Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis recently released a report recommending key federal actions in each sector to avert the impacts of climate change, incorporating a number of Transportation for America’s recommendations. In fact, the very first recommendation for the transportation sector is to enable Americans to choose walking, biking, or public transportation over driving.

A MUNI light rail train in San Francisco. Photo by Jim Maurer on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

We will never be able to reduce transportation emissions in time to avert catastrophic climate change without also reducing how much people must drive to accomplish daily activities. Federal transportation policy has a huge role to play in that.

Our partners at Third Way recently joined us to discuss why the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee’s transportation reauthorization bill from last summer fell far short of the broad changes needed to address climate change (particularly in contrast to the House’s more recent INVEST Act). While the Senate included a section on climate, their overall approach would actually make climate change worse by preserving the status quo approach that leads to more roads, more driving, and more emissions.

Fortunately some Senators have recently taken a broader view. In late August, the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis released a climate action report that proposes the kind of paradigm shift that’s needed. The report doesn’t merely go beyond electric vehicles—it leads its transportation section with recommendations on the importance of reducing how much people need to drive by building walkable, transit-served communities where people can live and work in the same area.

Here are three things we were encouraged to see in this plan.

Recognizes the role of land use and sprawl in increasing emissions

It is noteworthy that the transportation section of the Senate’s report begins with a discussion about how land use decisions exacerbate transportation emissions by driving sprawl. That focus is often entirely missing from climate advocates’ and policymakers’ conversations.

As the report notes, through 20th century zoning, most communities have made it illegal to build affordable, multi-family housing near job centers, retail or public transit by restricting those areas only for detached single-family homes. This practice produces spread out car-oriented development and raises the cost to live in desirable areas where walkability and viable alternatives to driving exist. It forces low- and moderate-income commuters to make long drives from suburbs and exurbs, increasing emissions and exacerbating congestion in the process. Simply allowing greater housing density, especially near job and retail centers, can have a profound impact on emissions by reducing how much people need to drive every day.

But this isn’t just a local issue. Federal policy plays an enormous role in local land-use decisions, largely due to the incentives that federal programs—like transportation and housing—often create. The Senate report recommends that the federal government provide significant new funding and financing to promote smart growth, safer streets, and public transportation options. Done right, those strategies can be a potent tool to reduce emissions, while addressing critical issues of equity and housing affordability in the process.

Emphasizes high-quality transit and roadway safety

Providing frequent, reliable transit service will be a crucial step in reducing how much Americans need to drive, yet as the Senate’s report notes, the current approach fails to help make that a reality. The federal government has chronically underfunded transit, particularly transit operations, resulting in a major backlog of repairs and reliability issues caused by decades of neglect that have undercut transit ridership. Federal support for transit is more important than ever, as agencies are spending more to clean transit vehicles, provide personal protective equipment to keep their employees safe, and continue to provide access to work, healthcare, and other necessities for the millions of Americans who rely on transit.

The Senate’s report also explicitly calls out the need to improve safety for pedestrians, especially pedestrians of color. It echoes Transportation for America’s principles, noting that many U.S. roads are designed to move vehicles at the highest speeds possible, with little consideration for walking, biking, or transit. It calls to stop treating pedestrians as an afterthought and explicitly encourage other transportation options for trips under three miles. It recommends adoption of a Complete Streets approach.

Many of the same strategies apply in rural areas

The report also notes that while rural areas have their own challenges, many of the same land-use strategies will still be crucial in those communities. Promoting mixed-use development in existing historic rural downtowns and main streets over office parks and regional malls can have a profound impact on how much people drive, and emit. It can also help leverage rural communities’ unique character, historically significant architecture, and valuable public spaces to promote economic vitality and reduce the risk that these local assets are forsaken in favor of new development on the fringes of the community that is far more expensive to maintain while generating less tax revenue.

The Senate’s report is a good step but more education is needed

It is heartening to see this emphasis in the Senate’s climate report, but it isn’t enough. Reports like this are only meaningful if they actually impact federal transportation policy.

Too many congressional leaders still aren’t seeing the importance of investing in a transportation system that allows people to drive less by making shorter trips, biking, walking, and riding transit possible. While we often hear support in theory, few realize that this means both supporting those types of projects while also opposing projects that add new dangers in the name of letting drivers drive faster. It also means supporting fundamental reform in the federal transportation program that makes walking, biking, and riding transit a priority through funding and policy, at the expense of more money for the status quo road-building approach. Even the Senate’s report arguably downplays the significant role that federal—not just local—policy has played in incentivizing sprawl and increasing how much Americans need to drive, as well as the crucial role federal policy will need to play in making change happen.

We are encouraging advocates to help educate their members of Congress about the real connection between climate and transportation. You can help by:

(1) Sending a letter to your members of Congress explaining why the Senate EPW Committee’s long-term transportation bill is actually bad for the climate. We have a draft letter you can use, which you can find here.

(2) Tweeting at your members of Congress (particularly your Senators) to urge them to pass a climate-friendly transportation bill. You can use our social media toolkit.

(3) Submitting a short letter to the editor to your local newspaper explaining what it takes to truly reduce transportation emissions: investment in a transportation system that makes shorter trips, biking, walking, and riding transit possible.

Drop in driving growth is likely permanent, FHWA acknowledges, compounding the threat to transportation revenues

The slowing growth in the number of miles we drive each year looks like a permanent trend, according to the Federal Highway Administration, adding still more fuel to the fire in the debate over how to pay for a transportation program with dropping gas-tax revenues.

The most recent projections, released quietly last year but highlighted this week by USPIRG, are a significant departure for the federal agency charged with projecting the need for highway capacity and expected gas-tax receipts in the U.S. For the last several years, projections have substantially over-estimated the growth of “vehicle miles traveled”, which actually declined for several years before rebounding to a tepid pace more recently.

In this short document, FHWA projects that the amount of driving done by each American is unlikely to grow in the years to come. According to PIRG’s research, the agency had issued 61 straight forecasts that overestimated the actual increase in driving. FHWA is to be commended for taking a problem, rethinking it, and coming up with a better projection. The action clears up a discrepancy with the potential to hamper planning and decision-making, as we have noted in the past along with number crunchers at the State Smart Transportation Initiative, the Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG.

In this new FHWA projection, though the actual amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is still projected to increase by 0.75 percent annually from 2012 to 2042 (the red line in the chart below), U.S. population is projected to grow by about 0.7 percent each year in that period, which means that driving per person is likely to remain flat. As FHWA’s report notes: “This represents a significant slowdown from the growth in total VMT experienced over the past 30 years, which averaged 2.08% annually.”

It’s worth noting that this change also has huge implications for toll roads. Building a new road, tolling an existing one, selling the rights to toll a road to a private company — those decisions are often being made using these outdated VMT projections.

This adjustment by the feds underscores the trouble ahead for transportation funding, absent congressional action.

The gas tax has already lost a third of its value due to inflation, improvements in fuel efficiency, and the overall reduction in driving over the last decade. All of this means that the gas tax doesn’t bring in as much money as it used to — leading to the perpetual annual shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund that has required numerous bail-outs from the general fund, using increasingly creative accounting gimmicks.

The excessive projections of expected driving have allowed some to point to an expected rebound that would help overcome some of the losses due to increased fuel efficiency. That will be tough to do in the face of the new estimates.

As Congress returns to face a May deadline for figuring out how to continue funding for transportation, members will have to come to terms with the likelihood that the gas tax will continue to lose value. The pensions have all been fully smoothed and the couch cushions have been emptied out. If Congress plans to make up the funding gap, they’ll have to be willing to raise the gas tax or index it to inflation, or increase some other revenue source.

We live in a different time today. We aren’t flush with gas tax revenues. We have a backlog of maintenance that can’t be ignored. The amount of driving Americans are willing to do has come close to reaching a peak. People are looking for different ways to get around each day. More Americans are moving into walkable neighborhoods where their commutes are shorter and options are greater.

We need a system of funding transportation and making investment decisions that recognizes these realities.

What happens when driving rates continue to drop?

Anyone who follows this blog, or transportation discussions in general, is well aware that the miles driven per American has been dropping in recent years and that the millennial generation (16-34) is leading the charge. Indeed, the typical American drives less today than at the end of Bill Clinton’s first term.

But how likely is that trend to hold in the future? And if it does, what does that say about what we should be building, and how we will pay for it, if not with the gas taxes raised from driving? A report out today from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group seeks to answer the first question, and to fuel a conversation about the second.

None of the likely scenarios sees miles of driving returning to the heights of previous trends.

None of the likely scenarios sees miles of driving returning to the heights of previous trends.

The short answer to Question 1: No plausible scenario sees per capita driving rates continuing their formerly inexorable climb, and all fall well below current government projections. And no, the authors do not assume that we are entering permanent economic recession, because the underlying are likely to trends persist whatever the strength of the economy:

Millennials. Americans under 35 drive nearly one-fourth less now than those who where the same age a decade ago. There are myriad likely reasons: The cost of car ownership, their tendency to live in more urban locales, reduced employment rates during the recession, etc. But the authors site many reasons why their driving rates may remain lower than previous generations, even during child-bearing years.

Baby boomers. The post-war generation drove workforce participation rates to unheard of levels, and now those workers are nearing the end of their commuting years. And while self-driving cars might allow granny to keep motoring, they will not replace those commute trips.

Technology. We already know the Internet allows work-from-anywhere and online shopping, replacing trips for those purposes. But now mobile tech makes riding transit far more accessible, and enables transit use to be complemented by a burgeoning array of options: Zipcar, Car2Go, bike share, Lyft, Scoot, etc.

Vehicle operating costs. The era of dirt cheap motoring really does seem to have come to a close. It’s not just gas prices, which have helped fuel much of the recent shift; they’ll stay high for a while. But more and more tolls are coming into our lives, parking is astronomical, insurance is usurious. As long as options are available and cheap, a lot of households will own one car rather than two, and leave the one they have parked, until they decide they don’t need it.

[See how these trends are playing out in Charlotte in the NY Times’ excellent piece on 1A of today’s edition.]

Based on these and other factors, authors Phineas Baxandall and Tony Dutzik ran three scenarios for the future. None assumed a wholesale continuation of the depressed driving rates among millennials; all forecast younger folks to drive more in the child-rearing years. Still, none of the scenarios approached a return to the yearly mileage growth of the previous 60 years, and all fall below current government projections.

What does this mean for the future of our transportation programs? A lot less money, for one thing, unless we change our dependence on the gas tax:

Coupled with improvements in fuel efficiency, reduced driving means Americans will use about half as much gasoline and other fuels in 2040 than they use today, making the real value of gas taxes fall as much as 74 percent.

Indeed, we are already seeing the impact of that fall-off. The tightening revenue suggests, first, that we should make sure we are setting aside existing dollars to ensure the good repair of our existing system. Second, we should review projects in the pipeline that assume escalating rates of driving. Third, we should help the metropolitan regions and mid-sized cities – our economic production zones – that are trying to give their citizens more reliable and affordable options. All of this suggests that we need shift to a mix of revenue sources to build a unified transportation fund that can cover all our infrastructure needs. You’ll be seeing a lot more from us on those ideas in the weeks and months to come.

Young people leading the downward trend in driving, report finds

A fascinating new report from U.S. PIRG, “Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy” examines a phenomenon many thought we’d never see: A drop in miles driven by those traditionally most eager to drive, young people recently eligible to drive. From the report:

From World War II until just a few years ago, the number of miles driven annually on America’s roads steadily increased. Then, at the turn of the century, something changed: Americans began driving less. By 2011, the average American was driving 6 percent fewer miles per year than in 2004.

The trend away from driving has been led by young people. From 2001 and 2009, the average annual number of vehicle-miles traveled by young people (16 to 34-year-olds) decreased from 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per capita – a drop of 23 percent. … Young people are driving less for a host of reasons – higher gas prices, new licensing laws, improvements in technology that support alternative transportation, and changes in Generation Y’s values and preferences – all factors that are likely to have an impact for years to come.

The report closes with a discussion of some of the implications for transportation policy — and funding — if the trends toward less driving-intensive lifestyles stays with this young cohort and those that follow.

Such a shift in future transportation trends would shake the foundations of transportation policy-making. For example, to meet the demand for alternative transportation, federal, state and local governments would need to prioritize investment in public transportation, bike lanes, sidewalks and other transportation alternatives. To meet the demand for walkable neighborhoods in close proximity to transit, government officials would need to ensure that land-use and transportation policies were aligned to support the development of these communities. To compensate for the declines in gas-tax revenues, decision-makers would need to find alternative sources of funding for road and bridge maintenance or boost the gasoline tax to levels that may further discourage driving.

Rural Senators focus on heartland transit

--Amtrak How could a new transportation bill revitalize rural and small-town America? That was the focus of a Senate Democratic Steering Committee briefing on “Issues and Innovations for Small Towns and Rural Communities” in the Capitol Visitors Center last Friday.

Transportation for America co-chair and former Meridian, Mississippi Mayor John Robert Smith shared his perspective as chief executive of a mid-sized city in a rural area. During his tenure, Smith initiated a renovation of Meridian’s historic train station, sparking growth and economic vitality in the downtown corridor that is now the “life of Meridian.” The improvements that he championed resulted in $135 million in capital investments around the station, and property values quadrupled in an area previously devoid of residents. More importantly, a vital aspect of mobility was restored for all residents of the area. Knowing firsthand how vital Amtrak service was to Mississippians, especially many traveling on fixed budgets, he helped lead the fight to restore the train route between Atlanta and New Orleans, and has continued his advocacy for passenger rail travel ever since.

Rural and small-town residents throughout the country are seeking more transportation options and want to ensure that they’re not left behind. Briefing panelists emphasized that transportation reform, far from leaving the heartland in the dust, can actually encourage growth and improve quality of life.

For one thing, improving rural transportation helps seniors. In 2000, 23 percent of older adults in America lived in rural areas, and as they age, they risk being isolated in their homes in the absence of adequate transportation infrastructure. Broader accessibility is a challenge as well due to long distances some rural Americans must travel to reach employment, groceries and health services. And, intercity mobility remains limited in many parts of the country, cutting people off from friends, family and economic opportunity. During the briefing, Mayor Smith spoke not only about the economic benefits of revitalizing the area around the train station, but also about the transit service that connected low-income residents in Meridian’s HOPE VI housing development, ensuring their access to essential destinations.

Enhancing transportation safety, relieving highway congestion by shifting goods movement to freight rail, investing in public buses and paratransit services and increasing intercity and multi-modal connectivity are some potential solutions for small cities and rural regions. T4 America staff have partnered with National Association of Counties and the National Association of Development Organizations, both of which were represented at the briefing, to help promote these solutions as vital parts of the upcoming transportation bill.

Far from leaving rural America out, a much-needed overhaul to our nation’s transportation policy can in fact provide a needed lifeline and help rural areas and smaller towns succeed as vital, livable places for all.

Rochelle Carpenter of Transportation for America contributed to this report.

Bay Area bridge shutdown puts transportation network in the spotlight

San_Francisco-Bay_Bridge01 Even in the San Francisco Bay Area, a renowned transit hub with higher than average rates of walking, biking and transit ridership, more than 280,000 vehicles cross the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge every day. It’s a critical artery connecting downtown San Francisco with the thousands of residents who live in Oakland and the surrounding suburbs.

It is thus understandable that panic ensued after a part snapped off in high winds and fell onto the roadway, resulting in a complete shutdown of the Bay Bridge early Tuesday. Thankfully, though at least two vehicles either ran into or hit the fallen part, no injuries resulted. As of this morning, the bridge remains closed without a date certain for re-opening.

The Bay Bridge was last closed down over Labor Day weekend, during which engineers discovered an unexpected crack. This structural flaw nearly delayed the bridge from reopening on-time, but crews received the needed materials in just enough time for the post-weekend morning commute.

It was one of those last minute repair pieces that broke off Tuesday, although engineers could not say whether the Labor Day rush had anything to do with it. Heavy winds are another potential culprit — hardly an uncommon occurrence in the Bay Area, however.

Once the bridge was closed, the immediate focus shifted to the Wednesday morning commute. Prognosticators were predicting mass chaos and never-ending gridlock as far as the eye could see on Wednesday morning.

Officials with the BART subway system arranged for extra train cars and personnel to accommodate the expected surge in passengers, leading to a record day of ridership that crushed the previous high water mark. Ferry agencies across the Bay ramped up service and Amtrak is providing a shuttle. MUNI, AC Transit, and other local agencies also stepped up rates of service and frequency to meet the demand.

“When the Bay Bridge closed we saw a 49 percent spike in transit use. Thank goodness we had that transit option there.”

– Federal Transit Adminstration Administrator Peter Rogoff today at the Rail~Volution Conference

Despite similar predictions of chaos and gridlock, commuters, transit agencies and officials effectively coped with the collapse of a major overpass near the Bay Bridge in April 2007. Many drivers quickly developed alternate routes or shifted their schedule, BART was effective at expanding capacity and major thoroughfares were crowded, but not gridlocked.

Media accounts accounts for this week indicate Bay Area officials have handled the shutdown relatively smoothly, especially considering how many vehicles use this bridge every day. BART trains were filled to capacity and the Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges — both adjacent to the Bay Bridge — were jammed with cars but still moving, albeit at a sluggish pace.

As far as we can tell, California Department of Transportation officials have been responsive and responsible about safety and structural integrity. It is important they be given the time to get this right.

But even if the time crunch during Labor Day weekend did not contribute to the problem, it should be cause for concern. In too many transportation projects, safety is shelved in favor of speed and grandeur. Part of the Bay Area’s ability to cope is the investment they’ve made in a variety of transportation options and modes. Which begs the question, how would metropolitan areas that lack these alternatives fare if a similar incident occurred?

Diversity of options isn’t just about cutting emissions or reducing fuel consumption. A complete network is one that can continue functioning when a few parts go down. A city dependent completely on cars and interstates (or 1 or 2 transit lines) is a vulnerable city.

Across America, children, seniors, the disabled and people who do not or cannot drive are at risk due to unsafe streets and crumbling sidewalks. We cannot afford to spend untold billions on new projects if we cannot keep old ones from crumbling. Including strong “fix-it first” language in the transportation bill re-authorization would ensure that existing roads and bridges get the upgrades they need to keep commuters and all users safe.

In addition, the Critical Asset Investment Program proposed in Chairman Oberstar’s transportation bill would create a substantial, dedicated funding stream for maintaining roads and bridges, preventing states from diverting those funds to more political popular highway expansion projects. This program would also require transit agencies to show how they are maintaining their systems and keeping them in “a state of good repair.”

The Bay Area will get through this. But the incident is a reminder that transportation policy cannot be a piecemeal, crisis-to-crisis endeavor.

It’s time to make the link between health and transportation

Most of the news coverage about what is happening in Washington compartmentalizes health and transportation, missing key connections between the two.

This week, Americans from around the country will speak to their representatives, seeking to emphasize those links. The “health fly-in” will commence Thursday and is sponsored by Transportation for America, the American Public Health Association, the Complete Streets campaign and PolicyLink, a research institute specializing in social equity.

The U.S. transportation system – our roads, bridges and highways, as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths – propels our social and economic lives. Unfortunately, the system we have takes a significant toll on our health and safety.

By building neighborhoods, towns and cities that require a car trip for nearly every move we make, we have literally engineered physical activity out of our daily lives. In many sprawling communities, driving is the only option for getting to school, work and recreation, and new road projects tend to favor speeding cars over the people who cross the street.

Poor air quality resulting from pollution contributes between $40 billion and $60 billion to U.S. health care costs annually. Each hour spent in the car increases the risk of obesity. And further, the lack of emphasis on transit, walking and biking lowers mobility for disadvantaged Americans and makes our streets less safe for people both behind the wheel and on foot.

Transportation policy can no longer be viewed in isolation. That is why groups like the American Public Health Association are educating people about the links between the built environment and our personal well-being and organizations from different policy arenas that never saw the need to work with each other before are joining hands.

This week has been all about making the health and transportation link more concrete, and there is more to come.

Cellphones and texting pose great risks behind the wheel

Last week, the New York Times covered the news that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration decided in 2003 not to release preliminary data showing that talking on cellphones while driving — whether using a hands-free device or not — posed a safety risk nearly equivalent to drunk driving. Researchers at the NHTSA were pushing for a more extensive research program to follow their preliminary research, but due to what the Times cited as “political considerations,” not only was the extra study and research not ordered, but the existing findings were essentially buried.

The memos, research and draft letter to Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta were released to The Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen via a Freedom of Information request, who sent them to the Times.

The NHTSA officials were encouraged to stick to their mission of information-gathering and to avoid lobbying states to pass laws restricting cellphones in any way. But what good is information gathering when the results don’t leave the agency, much less find their way into the hands of lawmakers or state legislators?

The news in the Times‘ Driven to Distraction series only got worse yesterday.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute is releasing a peer-reviewed report showing that truckers who text message while driving were 23 times more likely to crash. The study outfitted tractor-trailer drivers with cameras to study their behavior and found that “in the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.”

Tom Dingus, director of the Virginia Tech institute, one of the world’s largest vehicle safety research organizations, said the study’s message was clear.

“You should never do this,” he said of texting while driving. “It should be illegal.”

Most shocking perhaps was the closing story. If you happen to live near Windham, Maine, you might want to keep an eye out, though this sort of behavior is more common than one might think. According to a survey of 2,501 drivers in the story, “21 percent of drivers said they had recently texted or e-mailed while driving,”

“It’s convenient,” said Robert Smith, 22, a recent college graduate in Windham, Me., who says he regularly texts and drives even though he recognizes that it is a serious risk. He would rather text, he said, than take time on a phone call.

“I put the phone on top of the steering wheel and text with both thumbs,” he said, adding that he often has exchanges of 10 messages or more. Sometimes, “I’ll look up and realize there’s a car sitting there and swerve around it.”

Mr. Smith, who was not part of the AAA survey, said he was surprised by the findings in the new research about texting.

“I’m pretty sure that someday it’s going to come back to bite me,” he said of his behavior.