How many of the “working poor” can afford to fly and don’t have a drivers license?

All 50 states and 5 US territories issue RealID compliant drivers license/ID

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.

No one flies 30 mi commutes.

Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.

> Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.

Is there a study on this? As I would have thought the opposite and would bet that the number driving alone is increasing as more people live alone.

Its intuitive, costs don’t scale to travel per family member when you drive from A to B like it does when you fly.

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?

> Few drive 600+ mi empty or alone.

Because if you are going 600+ mi alone with minimal luggage you fly, because it's cheaper.

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

Citation needed

Asking people to drive 600+ miles for business is not a good use of business time, even if it is more expensive, typically.

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.

> 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.

For a single person going between two major metro areas, for sure.

But a lot of the working poor have families and travel to/from places that aren't major metro areas, and this can change the math really fast.

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.

No one is arguing the working poor exclusively fly, the point is there are plenty of people who do fly for whom the fee is significant.

I know. I was simply disputing the idea that ~600+ mile flights are cheaper than driving. They only are in very specific circumstances.

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.

Yeah, because 98%+ trips in a car are a commute; the average car trip is 6 miles.

I don't know what this has to do with a discussion about airline travel. Almost nobody commutes by airliner. The discussion above was comparing traveling via airplane vs comparable travel by car.

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.

RealID licenses cost extra where I live. Your job can buy you a plane ticket but they can't get you through TSA.

> RealID licenses cost extra where I live.

Where is that? I’m curious.

Around here, RealID is just what you’re issued when you renew various forms of ID. I don’t even recall an option to get a non-RealID version.

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.

for what its worth, my state made it unpleasant enough that it was easier to just got a non-real id and a renew the ol passport

In CA it was cheaper and (far) easier to get a normal license and a passport.

Washington State. $7/yr more for a Real ID license - $42 more the 6 year license and $60 more for the 10.

https://dol.wa.gov/driver-licenses-and-permits/driver-licens...

Are you saying our state offers both RealID and none RealID driver’s licenses?

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.

All states do (for now). Not everyone qualified to drive is capable of proving their identity to the level RealID requires.

As far as I know, Florida does not issue documents that are not REAL ID compliant.

And this is the same state that said they will have drivers license tests in English only

That would be sensible if the traffic signs were in English.

Can you read Chinese? Can you identify what this traffic sign means? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/CN...

How about Japan?

What does a sign that says private road, residents and guests only.

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?

Only if being illiterate also forbade you from driving, which it does not. You don't need to read the law to follow the law.

Well, there's a written exam.

Which can be completed by someone reading it verbally and writing down their answers, pretty much the same thing as financial and legal documents can.

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?

Well countries have been willing to do reciprocal agreements with the US and other countries since 1926.

https://internationaldrivingpermit.org/what-is-an-idp/

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.

I know for a fact Kentucky offers both.

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.

I renewed mine in May and still have a non-Real ID license.

If your job wants you to fly, it should buy you an id that lets you fly. Have you never applied for a visa to travel on a business trip?

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?

How many “working poor” have jobs that require business travel?

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

> How many of the “working poor” can afford to fly and don’t have a drivers license?

What he really means is illegals who have fake ids who now can't get RealIDs.

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.

What exactly makes RealID more secure than the drivers license my state has issued for the last 20 years?

It’s annoying we don’t offer passport cards for free to people as a national government credential. The cost is similar to this fee, and your app and photo could be taken by TSA right at the checkpoint. You head to your flight after identity proofed, and your passport card could then be mailed to you.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...

It is, but I think that's a separate issue. There's no authorization, let alone a mandate, to prove identity to move about. The mission, ostensibly, is to make air travel safe by ensuring that passengers don't bring dangerous items onto the plane. It's not to track who is going where.

> The mission, ostensibly, is to make air travel safe by ensuring that passengers don't bring dangerous items onto the plane.

No, it is to make it safe for any reason, which goes beyond whether or not they brought box cutters.

Ok, I'll concede that. That boils down to someone bringing something on the plane that can be used to cause trouble.

That could be... themselves.

You're right. I vaguely remember a faux hijacking (or a real hijacking but not with the intent to do harm) wherein an unarmed man caused a flight diversion to seek asylum in Italy. He entered the cockpit while the door was open for service. I don't remember the details, but now I'm very curious if identification would have resulted in successful interdiction. It certainly would not have prevented 9/11 since those perps were known to both domestic and foreign intelligence. So what do we do?

To bring it back to the root question: how does REAL ID mitigate these threats?

Because it helps the TSA definitively identify whether someone is one of those people who are known threats. Prior to this standard, there were hundreds of different standards for IDs all with different levels of validation and there was no requirement for any cooperation in sharing information useful to validate them.

I didn't personally experience it (I was too young), but I think that was part of "the mission" since pre-9/11. The point of the ID check is to make sure the boarding ticket and ID match.

In effect that tracks who is going where.

You could even double them up as government issued voter-ID and save all that hassle every 4 years. Or the current round of random stop-and-search going on...

The people eligible for passports are not the same group of people eligible for voter id since there are a few jurisdictions where non-citizens can vote in certain elections. Voting is also a responsibility of the states (even at the federal level), so there isn't really such thing as a federal voter id since each state has different eligibility requirements for voters that don't necessarily align with passport eligibility. Additionally, passport cards aren't interchangeable with passports in most countries.

Also, every four years? Elections happen more or less constantly in this country at some level or another. Federal elections are every two years, BTW, and that's if we ignore special elections for federal candidates. You should learn more about the system you live in.

The current round of stop-and-search would be enabled by making passport cards or some form of universal id. The current legal reality is that you do not need to prove your citizenship on demand if you are already in the US as a citizen. The burden of proof - rightly in my opinion - lies with the government to prove that you are not a citizen. Frankly, I'm quite uncomfortable with "paper's please" entering the US law enforcement repertoire. The fourth amendment was pretty clear about this.

With the CBP using mere presence validated by facial id only at legally protected protests as reason to withdraw Global Entry enrollment, it seems more and more clear that we do not need to be giving more power to the people who do not understand the 4th and first amendments. Removing people from Global Entry for protected first speech is, afaict, directly in violation of the first amendment even if Global Entry is a "privilege"

FWIW, REAL-ID is not about U.S. citizenship: A passport issued by any country is considered "compliant" with the REAL-ID Act for air travel or any other purpose, regardless of the person's U.S. immigration status. Some politicians seem to have deluded themselves to think that requiring REAL-ID will stop "illegal aliens" from flying. But it won't. Many foreigners in the U.S. (regardless of U.S. immigration status) have an easier time getting REAL-ID (a passport from their country of citizenship) than some U.S. citizens.

My comment was addressing passport cards as a national ID and voter ID.

And also provide an API for online services to use so we are not beholden to Alphabet and Apple.

And while they’re at it, provide an electronic money account that allows for free and instant transfers.

But then how would we waste so many societal resources letting investors profit from basic infrastructure?

> But then how would we waste so many societal resources letting investors profit from basic infrastructure?

That, and Millenarian Christians would object to its being a required "mark of the beast." That bit from Revelations has held us back for quite a while.

I'm sure some young guns from a techbro company would love to dive into the data lake and make a proposal. They might need to take a few reels of tape away for offsite analysis, but don't worry..

The reels of tape already exist at Apple/Alphabet/Tmobile/ATT/Verizon/Meta/Microsoft/Chase/BoA/etc, subject to secret FISA warrants. What difference does it make?

"government issued voter-ID"

Gasp! Checking for IDs while voting is fascist! It's like Germany 1937.

~~~While it's not a passport, I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.~~~

Edit: I'm wrong.

> I believe most states have free id cards that are "realid" compliant.

None in the mid-Atlantic or SE that I've seen. Some states offer free gov docs under limited programs, eg:unaccompanied homeless youth.

I stand corrected, at least in Pennsylvania (1). I misremembering the issues surrounding requiring Id to vote. The law that was struck down did provide a free id that would have been suitable for voting; however, that isn't required and no longer exists, and there was no mention I could find of if it would have been realid compliant.(2)

(1) https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dmv/resources/payments-and-fees

(2) Applewhite v. Commonwealth https://pubintlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Voter-ID-Fi...

Scanning https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/real-id/ I'm not sure there is a single state that provides ID without a fee of some sort, across the board.

Exactly zero states give you real IDs for free.

The poor trying to fly is exactly why economy and even "premium economy" seating sucks and is getting worse for everyone else not is business class.

Would be nice if we could get rid of them, eh?

I sure do want to get rid of the entire concept of "economy" class.

If all seats were business class, than economics of scale would kick in and average ticket prices would be more like 2X per seat rather than the 5-10X that you pay for business class vs economy.

Flying is a war-crime in the sky for anyone not in business class.

You must have a very different idea than I do of “economics of scale” if your idea is to make every ticket cost more so fewer people can afford it.