Readit NewsBut, 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.
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.
And when people travel 600+ miles on their own dime, the most common reason is leisure/vacation, which people typically do with friends or family.
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.
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.
> 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
Citation needed
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.
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.
No one flies 30 mi commutes.
Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.
Because if you are going 600+ mi alone with minimal luggage you fly, because it's cheaper.
With a fast-moving object, we can usually tell its trajectory across the map much more accurately than we can tell where along that trajectory it impacted the ground. See: MH370.