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.

A Brief Review of the MV-1 Taxi, Plus Taxi Links

I had the fortunate opportunity to ride in a new MV-1 taxi on the Upper West Side a few days ago. Short review: it was great. These are vehicles that are fully compliant with the Americans with Disability Act. It is unfortunate that the first new Taxis of Tomorrow will not be fully ADA compliant, but hopefully that will change soon. In the meantime the MV-1s can still be brought into taxi service with conventional New York City medallions. There is a tremendous opportunity to improve accessible transit services by using conventional taxis in lieu of Access-a-Ride services, which cost about $66 per trip(see this IBO report from 2002, the costs have increase substantially over the past 10 years.). Here the Daily News is supportive of such a program.

So the MV-1 is ADA compliant, roomy and comfortable, and easy to get in and out of. If the engines are CNG, it is even relatively clean (the one I rode in was CNG). Hopefully more will hit the streets soon. Here is a Crain's story about the MV-1.

Links:
Meet Ron Sherman, a guy who owns 200 NYC taxi medallions and really hates the outer borough taxi plan.

New York City was counting on the $1 billion from the sale of 2,000 new taxi medallions. The city budget is now in trouble.

DNAinfo covers the commuter van service in the Bronx that is designed to shuttle passengers who previously rode the now discontinued Bx34 bus. Supporters of the van service hope to show that the bus route should be reinstated, but it is plausible that they will show that ridership is low enough that van service is adequate. Time will tell, but this is a nice example of creative thinking for transit service.

Here is an interesting story about a new technology that can more accurately count passengers in taxis.


In this story the LA Times reports on how much a typical taxi ride from an airport to the center of cities around the world. Highlights:

Ever wonder what the typical cost of an airport taxi ride is for major cities around the world?
The Associated Press sent reporters out with a tourist's itinerary on a weekday in June in five cities around the world to compare various costs.
Here's what they found in regard to taxi rides from major airports into cities:
Tokyo, $82.40; 20 minutes from Haneda Airport, which is being used by a growing number of international tourists. Fare from Narita International Airport runs $300.
Paris, $73.50; one hour.
New York: $58; one hour, 15 minutes, including waiting in line to get the cab.
Buenos Aires, $33.40; one hour 15 minutes.
Dubai, $13.60; 10 minutes.

China's Airport Expansion

James Fallows has a post with a number of links regarding China's aviation ambitions. One link to highlight is the story about the remarkable growth of the number of Chinese airports. The Telegraph reports that China will build 70 new airports and expand 100 more in the next few years. In contrast, the US has built two new airports over the past 30 or so years (Denver and Indianapolis) and many airports have expanded, but very few have added new runways. This does not mean that the US should go on an airport expansion binge to keep up with China. (The logic that the US has to keep up with China is the main argument for high speed rail investment in the US, at least according to Andy Kunz, the CEO of US High Speed Rail, and America 2050.)  The rapid expansion of Chinese airports reflects the poor quality of existing facilities (if there are any), rapidly growing demand for services and lots of speculative construction of currently empty airports. The key lesson from Chinese infrastructure investment is that the country is investing widely in many different technologies, and it is doing so because the infrastructure needs are widespread. Transportation planners and officials in the US should keep in mind the US needs for transport investment are very different than China's.

The Future of Air Travel

MIT researchers are developing a new airplane technology that potentially will reduce fuel consumption by 70 percent. From the story:

The MIT-lead tream developed the twin-aisle "double-bubble" D8 configuration during NASA-funded N+3 studies completed in 2010. In NASA paralance, N+3 means an aircraft that could enter service around 2035. In those studies, the team concluded that the D8 could reduce fuel burn 70% relative to today's 737-800.
Of that saving, 49% comes from the configuration, with its wide lifting-body fuselage, almost-unswept wing and reduced cruise Mach number, and rear-mounted engines ingesting the fuselage boundary layer. The rest of the 70% reduction comes from 2035-timeframe airframe and engine technologies.

 Here is what it looks like:

A new plane like this will be a real improvement for long distance air travel. For short haul trips, there is a new entrant into the market called Surf Air. From a NY Times article:

Travelers who want to shave time off a four-hour car drive don’t have many options. Amtrak’s Acela Express has just a single route. And given airport procedures, flying isn’t such a shortcut. Surf Air, an airline starting this summer, has designs on that short-haul sweet spot.Its concept: eight-seater, first-class planes fly daily loops through uncongested regional airports (inaugural route: Van Nuys-Palo Alto-Monterey/Pebble Beach-Santa Barbara). For a $3,000 membership fee during the initial three-month trial — and for up to $1,500 each month thereafter — members can fly as many times as they wish along that route, subject to availability. They can drive to the airport, hand their car keys to a valet, wheel their bags up to the pilot, and board.Members will be vetted to ensure that they are not a flight risk, and to make sure that the airline’s routes match demand. Members will be able to hold up to six bookings at a time.

Turboprops, like what Surf Air will use, are a potential way to improve the environmental costs of air travel relative to jets.  Megan Smirti has written extensively about this. It is possible to make air travel more environmentally sound through technology and policy. Fixing the unpleasantness of airport security is pure politics.