4 ms·
> The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead
by chimeracoder 13y ago
> The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead
"Inconvenience" is putting it mildly. Even before my recent experiences with airport security[0], I preferred to drive or take the train for short distances (NYC to Boston, Philly, DC, etc.). As one can imagine, that aversion has only increased.
Nate Silver puts this well:
> According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That’s the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.[1]
Emphasis mine.
[0] Previously submitted to HN, but for the lazy: http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-during-ramadan http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/59021412512/dont-fly-...
[1]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/the-hidden-costs-of-extra-airport-security/?_r=0 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/the-hidd...)
- drpgq 13y agoI guess 9/11 has been a benefit for Amtrak.
- chimeracoder 13y agoCue the "Joe Biden caused 9/11" conspiracy theories!
- betterunix 13y agoOnly in the Northeast. For most of America it is easier to get around by plane than by train.
- stephengillie 13y agoTravelling from Seattle to LA is fastest by plane, then car, then bus. Amtrack is slower than those 3, and more expensive than the last 2.
- GrinningFool 13y agoSince the new "security measures" have gone into place. I've instituted a 12- to 14-hour rule: if I can get somewhere by driving there in less than 12 (to 14) hours, I'll drive. As a tall person, a plane has always been uncomfortable for me. Add to that experience the long security lines and being treated like cattle... nah. It costs me more, but I'll drive.
- rdl 13y agoIf you had a self-driving EV such that a drive cost you duration of sitting in a comfortable chair with high-speed internet, a refrigerator full of drinks, and maybe $50, how far upward would you revise this? I'd probably seriously consider commuting weekly or biweekly from central WA to SFBA, even if it took 20h. 10h would be nothing, as I could just sleep.
- GrinningFool 13y agoIf I were single I'd go longer. But married w/ kid - anything more than ~12 hours ultimately cuts into time with my family at both ends of the trip.
- btilly 13y agoAs a tall person who is prone to motion sickness, not one bit. If I so much as looked at that screen, I'd be ill. I have a feeling that as time goes on, this will be seen as more and more of a handicap instead of a minor inconvenience.
- rdl 13y agoI wonder if gimbal-mounting a seat could address motion sickness.
- Cowen 13y agoProbably not much. Motion sickness is mostly caused by your brain trying to resolve opposing signals between your eyes and your sense of motion. If you're looking at a non-moving scene like a screen in the car, but everything else in your body says you're moving at 60 MPH, you might get motion sickness. A gimbal-mounted seat would change how often you bumped around, but your vestibular system would still sense things like going up/down a hill or making a turn. Basically, a gimbal-mounted seat would be about as effective as a perfectly paved road.