The Hassle of Airport Security is Not a Reason to Build High Speed Rail

A group of students in California have created a new high speed rail advocacy group called "I Will Ride." One of the members wrote an op-ed in support of the California high speed rail project in the Merced Sun Star. In the piece the typical statements of support are said, including this:

With the completion of high-speed rail, valley residents will be connected to the rest of the state like never before. In under an hour, we will be able to travel to San Francisco or Los Angeles without the hassle of airport security or high-priced gasoline.

Of all of the reasons to support high speed rail, the hassle of airport security and high priced gasoline are the worst. Even with high gas prices fuel to drive will be cheaper than one ticket on the train. In addition, it now takes two hours to drive from Merced to San Francisco, so by the time you account for door-to-door travel times it is unlikely that there will be any time savings. That said, using the excuse of airport security hassles as a reason to invest $100 billion in a fast train is passive aggressive infrastructure spending. I bet for a lot less than $100 billion we can make air travel much better. More importantly, if air travel is a hassle let's make it better. Air security is lousy because it is managed poorly and there are lots of ways to improve security within the airports we already have. I'm also not sure why people think trains will be exempt from similar security measures. Passengers on the Acela are regularly pulled aside for additional screening as it is.

Let's not let the TSA get away with awful security theater by building new and different infrastructure. Let's fix what we have first.

Read more here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2013/05/21/3023379/fast-rail-a-big-step-forward.html#storylink=cpy

Road Deaths Are Up Thanks to the TSA

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a well-meaning but terrible bother for travel. It isn't much more than security theater and is generally an example of lousy governance. See here for a run down of many complaints. There are many more. The TSA is supposed to save lives by making flying safer. But Charles Kenny argues that the TSA is killing more people than it potentially saves since many travelers avoid safe but inconvenient air travel for driving, which is far riskier. He also explains what a waste the program is. About the road deaths:

There is lethal collateral damage associated with all this spending on airline security—namely, the inconvenience of air travel is pushing more people onto the roads. Compare the dangers of air travel to those of driving. To make flying as dangerous as using a car, a four-plane disaster on the scale of 9/11 would have to occur every month, according to analysis published in the American Scientist. Researchers at Cornell University suggest that people switching from air to road transportation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month—which means that a lot more people died on the roads as an indirect result of 9/11 than died from being on the planes that terrible day. They also suggest that enhanced domestic baggage screening alone reduced passenger volume by about 5 percent in the five years after 9/11, and the substitution of driving for flying by those seeking to avoid security hassles over that period resulted in more than 100 road fatalities.

Just more reason to get rid of the TSA and develop smarter air security.