Cafe Hayek

On Skies and Airports

USA Today today published this letter of mine advocating free trade in air-passenger service and privatization of air-traffic-control and, indeed, airports generally:

USA TODAY's editorial "How airlines mistreat fliers and get Congress to go along" correctly notes that America's flying public can be better served, but the editorial's proposed solution of more government regulation is unwise (Our view, Airline passenger rights debate, Monday).

What Congress should do:

* Open domestic routes to foreign carriers. The increased competition will lower prices and improve service.

* Follow the example of Canada and more than a dozen other countries that have either fully or partially privatized their air-traffic-control systems. As a result, these countries have seen impressive technological advances.

State and local governments can do their part by privatizing airports, which will unleash the profit motive and supply more and better ground capacity for planes and passengers.

Safety on the Cape

I wrote recently in the Boston Globe about the removal of the traffic rotary in front of the Sagamore Bridge leading to Cape Cod and argued that the hoped-for reductions in traffic were likely to be minimal. Here's an excerpt from an email I received from Thomas Cahir that reinforces my view on the traffic problem but points out something important I should have mentioned:

I read with interest your op/ed piece relative to the elimination of the Sagamore Rotary. I have lived in the Town of Bourne on Cape Cod for fifty years. I also served in the Massachusetts Legislature representing four upper Cape communities for fourteen years. During my entire tenure in the Massachusetts House, I served on the Joint Transportation Committee -- six years as Vice-Chairman and two as Chairman.

As you may know, Sagamore is a village within my home town of Bourne.  Therefore, the Rotary is an issue very close to my heart.  I have stood on that Rotary during hundreds of different weekends throughout the years in an effort to get a better understanding of related issues and concerns. I sponsored the legislation authorizing the funding for the planning, design and construction of the recently completed project. I wanted to tell you all of this to let you know that over the course of the last fifteen years, I have heard every conceivable suggestion, plan, idea, etc. as to how to fix the most significant traffic hazard in Southeastern Massachusetts.

As a co-sponsor of the legislation creating the Cape Cod Commission (a regional land use planning agency) I strongly consider the Cape's quality of life in every public decision that I make. Cape Cod is indeed a very special place, and we all must do whatever we can to protect and preserve it.  The issues you raise are valid. Traffic congestion, in my opinion, has become the #1 issue of concern to the Barnstable County citizenry. I have long promoted efforts to improve and expand mobility options to the Cape.

However, my main purpose in responding to your thoughts is a particular comment that you made. You mention that "one possibility is that the new bottleneck will be just as bad as the Sagamore Rotary. In that case, the project accomplishes nothing.” For many years, certain folks who are justifiably concerned about the inordinate growth we have recently experienced on the Cape, believed that the sole purpose for eliminating the Rotary was to make it easier for people to get on and off Cape Cod.

Of course with the elimination of an obsolete, seventy year old traffic configuration intended to accommodate 30% of the traffic volumes that it now must handle, lengthy present day queuing will be reduced. However, it is important to remember that there remain only four ten foot lanes of highway (Bourne & Sagamore Bridges) that have to accommodate every vehicle that comes onto or leaves the Cape.

In addition, when I have been asked over the years to identify the benefits that will be realized upon completion of the project, I have been consistent in my opinion that ease of getting on and off Cape Cod is fourth or fifth on the list. Clearly, the main benefit  is public safety. The Sagamore Rotary has been the leading traffic accident intersection in Barnstable County for many years. With its elimination, the area will become much safer, which is not insignificant. Another major benefit is that the new intersection will allow the residents of Sagamore Beach to safely access other parts of our town. For years, the 4000 plus residents have been extraordinarily inconvenienced when trying to get out of their village. Enhanced access to area businesses and air quality improvement are other benefits worthy of note.

Cape Cod Traffic

I wrote earlier here about why the removal of the traffic rotary in front of the Sagamore Bridge will not have the intended effect of eliminating traffic on the way from Boston to Cape Cod.

I have a longer piece in today's Boston Globe on the same topic. Some people misunderstand my argument. The main point is that eliminating the rotary is likely to have a disappointingly small effect on the time it takes to get from Cape Cod to Boston. It might be so small as to be zero. Most people presume that if there's a bottleneck (and the rotary is indeed a bottleneck), then if you eliminate the bottleneck, smooth sailing will ensue. My point is that the rotary is the bottleneck today. Eliminate and another bottleneck or series of bottlenecks will occur. Why? When you underprice something, congestion inevitably rations it. Don't count on smooth sailing.

That doesn't mean it's always a mistake to widen roads or get rid of bottlenecks. It does mean that you shouldn't naively assume that you will "solve" the traffic problem.

A Natural Experiment

A beautiful natural experiment has just been set in motion. The New York Times reports:

For decades, summer weekends on Cape Cod have been filled with sunblock, sand and backups that last for miles.

The source of those tie-ups, the Sagamore Rotary — a complicated traffic circle that drivers had to navigate to pass over the Sagamore Bridge and onto Cape Cod — became history on Friday when the four-lane road that goes right to the bridge opened to traffic from all directions. Gov. Mitt Romney commissioned the new road, called a flyover, in 2003, and said he would “resign in shame” if it was not complete by the end of his term; he is not running for re-election this year.

The Times's headline summarizes the optimism nicely:

New Link Makes Road to Cape Cod Clear Sailing

Well, maybe in October. But economics suggests that the Rotary (which I have navigated many times) is not the source of the traffic problem on Cape Cod. The source of the traffic problem is that the beaches of Cape Cod and the roads to visit those beaches have a monetary price of zero or close to zero. At a price of zero, in July and August, there is excess demand to travel to Cape Cod and enjoy those beaches. The result is congestion that cannot be solved by a traffic engineeer.

Reducing the congestion caused by the Rotary will simply enocourage more people to visit the beaches. Congestion will rise and that congestion will again ration the limited supply of beach access and space on the road. Congestion will soon return to the level that existed when there was a Rotary.

My prediction is that some time in July or August you will see articles in the Times and the Boston Globe expressing surprise that the removal of the Rotary did not seem to have the anticipated effect.

You can read more about the economics of congestion and Cape Cod here.

For Whom the Governor Tolls

Virginia's new governor, Tim Kaine (D), gave a speech earlier this week proposing to help solve Virginia's (terrible) traffic-congestion problem by restricting economic growth.  The idea, of course, is to keep population growth down so that less traffic than otherwise clogs Virginia's roads.

Kaine is also opposed to placing tolls on existing roads.  In his own words: "as a general rule, I don't believe in tolling existing roads."

While I can find no reason expressed by Kaine to justify his opposition to tolling existing roads, a good bet is that -- like many other people opposed to tolls -- he believes that tolls are an unfair burden upon the poor.

Does Gov. Kaine not see that any plan, such as his, to restrict the building of new homes causes housing prices to rise to heights higher than they would otherwise reach and, hence, creates a larger burden for the poor to bear?  Or perhaps the Governor believes that higher prices caused by government-imposed restrictions on housing supply are inherently more fair than are the burdens that arise from pricing inherently scarce road space.

All aboard

I've often wondered why Southwest boards people randomly in groups—first come, first serve—rather than boarding people in the rear first, which would seem to cause less congestion.  Now comes two (!) articles in today's WSJ (sr), here and here, looking at the issue of the quickest way to herd people onto a plane.

The first article confirms the importance of boarding speed in airline profitability:

Boarding time is one of several variables affecting how quickly airlines can turn their planes around and get them back in the sky. Others include luggage loading and refueling. Every extra minute the plane sits on the ground means lost revenue. "It can add up to tens of millions of dollars," says Andrew Miller, chief executive of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an aviation consultancy based in Sydney.

I've always assumed that Southwest gave up this savings and in return, saved money on keeping track of which people are in which seat.  And they get to reuse those plastic boarding passes, saving on printing costs.  But this explanation always made me uneasy--could keeping track of the seat assignment be that expensive?  And people dislike getting in the lines--that's foregone revenue they could recoup with a better strategy.  Now comes evidence that boarding randomly isn't necessarily quicker than boarding the passengers at the back of the plane first:

Boarding from the rear to the front, still standard practice at many American airlines, is almost certainly not the fastest way, these scientists say. Among the faster methods may be letting everyone board randomly or calling out each individual seat number.

The other problem, discussed in the second article, is that the airline people don't always enforce the rules, a maddening result for those of us in "Group 5" who patiently wait while other Group Fivers cut in front of us.  The same problem occurs with the assigned seat strategy:

One of our biggest problems in general was enforcement of the rules, rather than the rules themselves. On many airlines, the gate agents didn't turn back passengers trying to board out of turn. Some carriers didn't enforce the limits on the number of carry-on bags, which led to traffic jams. On a full Southwest flight, we counted several people with more than two bags, and the line of people waiting to sit stopped at least 21 times.

It's an interesting cultural challenge.  How do you get people to follow the rules, and probably more importantly, move into the seats and out of the aisle quickly without dawdling.  Maybe a cattle prod with a long handle would do the trick.  Announcing the importance of moving quickly seems to have little or no impact.

I still think the airline industry should talk to Temple Grandin.

The underlying issue is really the invention of the rolling suitcase that reduced the hassle of carrying on your baggage, eliminating the suddenly larger hassle of checking bags and the uncertainty of when you would see them next.  I've always been surprised that planes have not been redesigned to allow more space for carry-ons.  Some new planes do have deeper overhead bins that allow rollers to go end-in rather than along their side, which makes room for more bags.

The time it takes for passengers to board has more than doubled since 1970, according to studies by Boeing Co. One study in the mid-1960s found that 20 passengers boarded the plane per minute. Today that figure is down to nine per minute, as passengers bring along heftier carry-on luggage. Both Boeing and Airbus, the two top commercial-aircraft makers, are working on improving boarding time as a selling point to airlines.

If you fly Southwest and hate arriving early to get in an early group, both articles discuss a $5 way to rest easier.

Here's an alternative explanation of the benefits of Southwest's strategy.  I'm not convinced but it's creative and could be right.

Private Space

Private space takes another step forward.

Parking Technology

On a trip last week, I parked at BWI, Baltimore's airport. New technology tells you how many parking spaces are available on each floor. Very cool. So I head for the floor with lots of spaces, figuring I'll save time that way. But that's only the beginning. At each lane is an indicator that tells you whether there are empty spots in that lane and how many. Wonderful. Glorious. So instead of wandering aimlessly through the packed garage in hopes of finding the one empty space, you know exactly where to go.

How does the garage know? Over each space is a sensor. When a car leaves a space, the light over the space turns from red to green and the lane indicator changes its count of how many spaces are available. So how does the sensor know whether the car is there? I don't know but my guess is it's the same technology that automatically flushes the toilets in public restrooms.

I wonder why the parking garage goes to the expense of making parking more convenient? Is it part of BWi's strategy given competition from other Washington airports? Was the contractor forced to include it in the bid? Sure is lovely.