Flying domestically is usually cheaper than driving once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two. Also, RealID isn't fully permeated yet - my state won't fully phase out non-RealIDs until 2029.
"once you get past the range of a tank of gas or two."
This is like the folks who say flying is more carbon friendly than driving. It's wrong, you're comparing a vehicle running cost with one passenger vs a full vehicle normalized by its capacity.
That does not mean that they have someone to travel with though. It would make sense that more trips in groups are by road. But is that much group travel happening in the first place?
The point is that it's nonsensical to say flying is cheaper than driving. Its oranges vs apple. Apples and oranges are fruit, flying and driving are transportation. But they're totally different.
1. You're normalizing one cost by the occupancy but assuming the other is single occupancy.
2. The assumption that folks are alone in a car is only true only for short trips, trips that are unpractical and expensive by plane. Folks don't fly 600+ mi because it's cheaper (the fuel isn't cheaper until about 1600 mi), but because it's faster.
No one is saying flying is cheaper than driving full stop. The claim from the beginning was flying is cheaper than driving beyond a certain distance. The point of comparison is what it costs an individual to move from point A to point B. The fact that planes have significantly more occupants is an important part of the comparison. Likewise bus travel is cheaper than either flying or driving.
> Folks don't fly 600+ mi because it's cheaper (the fuel isn't cheaper until about 1600 mi)
There are costs besides fuel. Tolls, wear and tear on the vehicle, food and lodging expenses from the longer duration trip, etc. A 1000 mile drive will cost roughly double a 1000 mile plane ticket.
> The assumption that folks are alone in a car is only true only for short trips
> Asking people to drive 600+ miles for business is not a good use of business time, even if it is more expensive, typically.
It isn't more expensive typically, but yes when the value of a person's time is considered it's not even close.
> And when people travel 600+ miles on their own dime, the most common reason is leisure/vacation
Perhaps it is the most common single reason, but that doesn't mean it's even a majority, nonetheless an overwhelming one for that subset.
> which people typically do with friends or family.
Which does not actually require the friends or family to drive with you if you are meeting them at a destination, such as if you live far from a person you are going to visit.
So some fraction of all trips are leisure, some fraction of leisure is with other people, some fraction of leisure with other people involves travelling. Again, no one is arguing that driving never makes sense, only that the cases where flying makes sense aren't a small niche.
I would not describe travelling alone as "very specific circumstances." It is extremely common. 70% of all car trips are solo, and the average number of occupants for all car trips is 1.5. That you can get more bang for your buck driving if you have enough passengers and luggage doesn't change the fact plenty of people don't.
You are entirely right, because 98%+ trips in a car are commutes or errands that average 6 miles in distance.
But, that is not the topic of conversation above -- we were talking about trips 600+ miles in distance. These are almost exclusively not commutes.
Averages don't necessarily describe your whole data set. Just like how the average person has around 1 testicle, this data is also multimodal :) ... People commute alone, but they go on vacation with friends/family.
> You are entirely right, because 98%+ trips in a car are commutes or errands that average 6 miles in distance.
My figure was based on miles travelled, not trips. Further, your assumption that local travel would severely skew the data seems at best unsupported. Think about all those trips taking the kids to school/soccer practice/etc. Having a lot of people in the car is going to radically skew the average number of occupants up.
> Just like how the average person has around 1 testicle, this data is also multimodal
Then why are you essentially arguing that people with two testicles are a niche case?
The overwhelming majority of car trips that happen are going to be car trips that make sense to be car trips. That's not evidence of driving's economic sensibility, it is selection bias. The question is of all trips where a person needs to go a certain distance, how often is flying the cheaper option, and for long trips it is a lot.
Yeah, the cost of a flight alone is often cheaper than driving. The issue that I am getting at is that flights do not provide door-to-door service.
The transportation to/from the airport at either end can often be significant, as many parts of the US are not accessible via public transit. And rural destinations often have no final-destination options other than an expensive rental car. It is common to incur these costs.
And even if there is an airport, it costs a lot more to fly into a small captive airport. For instance my parents live in South GA where the local airport has three commercial flights a day all on Delta and all fly to and from ATL
Yeah, that's part of what I'm getting at. Smaller airports can be much more expensive and lack options for transportation to the final destination. For exurb or rural destinations a rental car may be required.
I'm in Oregon, and that's the case - about $30 extra. More people than you think don't have access to supplemental documentation required to meet extra requirements – people who don't have current travel documents, people who've just moved into town, people who don't have current documentation of address (e.g. the homeless, people in the foster care system, etc.)
It's pragmatic to have: plenty of people don't or can't fly, and the cost of supporting this option is marginal.
> More people than you think don't have access to supplemental documentation required to meet extra requirements
I have access but deliberately choose not to provide it. Growing up I was told something about voting with my feet. Not so sure it works very well in practice though.
Traffic signs have symbols and shapes. You are allowed to drive in the US with an international drivers license if you don’t speak English. Are they going to arrest someone who doesn’t speak English and got a license in another state?
Traffic signs are readable by almost anybody regardless of English language skills. A vision test is much more safety-valid than an English language test.
I disagree that traffic signs are readable regardless of language skills. Yes, it's just a matter of developing recognition for simple pictorial signs. You just have to learn it. If I put a French "No Vehicles" sign in Florida, nobody is going to have a clue what it means, even though there are no words on it, and that's dangerous.
Not recognizing or incorrectly interpreting "Crash I-9 N/B Exp Right 2 Lanes Closed Merge Left 2000 ft" is also dangerous, right?
That level of English would be considered below A1. Just being in the US for a few months would give you that level of English even without any other education. So you're conflating "can you read about 2 dozen English words" with passing an English exam - let's say B1.
California offers both. I renewed my license last year. I opted for a non Real ID version because I could renew online rather than spend hours at the DMV.
Some states, including mine, don't offer RealID at all, but instead an "enhanced driver license" that is accepted alongside RealID. I don't even have that, because I already have a passport card, so there's no reason to spend the extra money.
yes, if there's one thing the working poor are known for, it's successfully extracting money from their employers. if uber wants you to rideshare, they should buy you a car, right?
If the answer is more than "zero" then the fee is harmful. Since I've been in similar positions (specifically as a contractor, where I had to front-load expenses and submit for reimbursement), it seems pretty likely to me.
Yes so we are going to optimize an entire system for this mythical “working poor” business traveler?
Every contractor has to do that. That’s the price you pay for going into that business (reason #999 thet while I work in cloud consulting I work full time for consulting companies).
Even as a business traveler, I have to pay my own expenses and wait for reimbursement.
I wasn't aware anyone had made the argument that this was an attempt to optimize anything. It's pretty obvious nobody's optimized anything in the TSA, ever.
It’s pretty optimal if you have TSA PreCheck + digital ID.
I fly in and out of ATL - the busiest airport in the US and one of the busiest in the world - I walk up to the TSA line, look at the camera , scan my ticket.
Then I take my wallet and my phone out of my pocket and put in my book bag, let it go through the scanner I walk through the scanner and grab my bookbag
This is the same process we did flying back from Costa Rica and London last year with the addition of showing our passport.
Everyone acts like this process is so much different than any other country.
Except for not having my book bag on me, it’s the same process to get on the “Chunnel” from London to Paris
Undocumented immigrants can have authentic, non-"RealID" ids, as things such as drivers licenses are the purview of the states, and infringement there upon is an attack on their constitutional sovereignty. California, for example, is perfectly happy to give out drivers licenses to anybody who can establish residency and pass the test, since there's no sense in creating a double jeopardy situation wherein because someone has committed one crime (illegally immigrating to California), they are forced to commit an additional crime (driving without a license). It's the same reason the IRS gives you a spot to declare your bribes and other illegal income.
> It's the same reason the IRS gives you a spot to declare your bribes and other illegal income.
The California example makes sense. They aren't asking a question that would lead to the admission of a crime. The IRS example doesn't make sense, since they are asking a question that would lead to the admission of a crime. Even if the answer was legally protected, a government who does not respect the law (or one that changes the law) could have nasty repercussions.
The IRS doesn’t ask for specifics so I don’t think it’s legally an admission of a crime. Saying “I took a bribe” doesn’t make you legally guilty of taking a bribe. You’d have to say when, from who, and for what.
The accepted legal method of declaring illicit gains on your tax documents is pleading the 5th amendment for specific questions related to the source of the funds. Fun fact, you can also take deduct business expenses for many expensees related to illegal activities if you otherwise qualify for them, for example legal fees. There are specific restrictions but they are surprisingly narrow.
All 50 states and 5 US territories issue RealID compliant drivers license/ID