Planners have tried to demonize the freedom people gain from auto ownership by calling them “auto dependent.” Now they are demonizing air travelers by calling them “binge flyers.”
As energy efficient as trains? So what? We’re still going to demonize it.
We know binge drinking consists of drinking so much for so long that the drinker gets sick. But just who supposedly flies so much that they make themselves sick?
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, people enviously called frequent flyers the Jet Set, referring to people who were so rich that they could fly to Acapulco, Cannes, or Capri on a moment’s notice. Today, thanks to airline deregulation, almost every American and European has flown at least once, and most fly regularly.
Second only to the automobile, the airplane has become the most important form of mobility in history. The average American flies close to 2,000 miles per year. By comparison, in the heyday of intercity passenger trains, when the United States had the best passenger rail service in the world, the average amount Americans rode intercity trains never came close to 500 miles a year. Similarly, the average European flies about 1,000 miles per year, which is several times as much as they ride high-speed trains. These numbers are important: such mobility gives people access to more sources of income, more social and recreational opportunities, more freedom.
Some patients don’t go to see a doctor, pick up a prescription and go to the pharmacy. pfizer viagra discount This kind of treatment is not immediate and patients may have to viagra buy in usa take medicine for sometime before sex or simple for few minute every day. Perhaps you have even used it a few times yourself! However, cialis line order check address these can be garlic, pomegranate juice, oysters, onion, cherries, salmon, porridge and pork. This is will give you the chance to have an erection, gingko biloba extract may help. order generic viagra As George Clooney says in Up in the Air, “Moving is living.” Admittedly, Ryan Bingham is not the deepest character to appear on the big screen, but his plea, “Don’t tell me there are no miracles; don’t tell me we can’t be everywhere at once,” would be echoed by many American (and world) travelers.
In Britain, where the term “binge flying” apparently originated about three years ago, the government has been unable to overcome the objections of BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) who don’t want to see Heathrow and other airports expanded. The government should be honest and say, “Our minority, coalition government is too chicken to take on a few NIMBYs, so if you want relief for airport congestion, you better build a coalition to take them on.” Instead, it demonizes frequent flyers by calling them binge flyers.
Ironically for the NIMBYs, air travel is far less expensive (less than 15 cents per passenger mile in the U.S.) than intercity rail (close to 60 cents per passenger mile) because airline land and infrastructure requirements are so much less. While railroads require thousands of miles of track and tens of thousands of acres of land to get you across the country, air travel requires only relatively small airports at the end points.
Of course, anti-flyers who call flying “the new tobacco” point to the environmental costs of airplanes: they use energy and emit greenhouse gases. But Boeing’s 787, whenever it gets into commercial service, will be 20 percent more energy-efficient than the planes it replaces, making it about equal to Amtrak today. Jet engine manufacturers expect to double the efficiency of airplanes by 2020. As these new planes replace the existing fleet, air travel will become far more energy efficient than high-speed trains — more energy efficient, in fact, than anything except automobiles, which (unlike transit and intercity rail) are also rapidly improving their energy efficiency. Yes, trains may get more energy-efficient in the future, but historically (see tables 2.13 and 2.14) planes and cars have improved their energy efficiency much faster than intercity trains and urban transit, and such trends are likely to continue.
Obviously, this whole flying debate parallels the anti-auto debate. The Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Alan Pisarski, once testified about commuting in American to a Congressional committee, only to be asked, “Mr. Pisarski, just how much driving is frivolous?” Of course, if he had said 10 percent, planners would have felt justified in trying to suppress that much driving. Instead, he replied that every car on the road has people init who are going to places that are important to them.
This really is class warfare. Back in 1835, the Duke of Wellington lamented that the then-new railroads “will only encourage the lower classes to move about needlessly.” In other words, binge flying and frivolous driving are both easily defined: when I travel, it is necessary; when you travel, it is binging and frivolous. Since the upper classes have the most influence on policy, in the brave new world they will remain Jet Setters and everyone else will be stuck.
There are no binge flyers; only people going to destinations important to them, whether for business, family, or pleasure. Yet somehow politicians and ideologues think that getting people out of fast, inexpensive airplanes and onto slower, expensive trains (or, perhaps better yet, reducing their ability to travel at all) is somehow a good thing.
Now they are demonizing air travelers by calling them “binge flyers.â€
Evidence plz that planners say this.
It is interesting that there is no mention of why there is a directive that there will be no more runways around London: there are emissions targets.
That’s right: Britain is attempting to reduce its emissions. Wowie! No wonder Randal linked to a blog that excerpted the full story, rather than the source!!!!!
DS
“The average American flies close to 2,000 miles per year. By comparison, in the heyday of intercity passenger trains, when the United States had the best passenger rail service in the world, the average amount Americans rode intercity trains never came close to 500 miles a year.”
At that time (1920?), most Americans lived in the east and were obviously not as well off since the US had yet to grow economically to its present status. Its hard to travel 2000 miles a year per capita when your typical trip is no more than a few hundred miles, and most people could not afford much travel. Fewer people lived in California then lived in Brooklyn and Queens, so obviously there weren’t nearly as many cross-country trips as today.
Air travel is a symptom of our present prosperity, not a cause.
Dan,
You must know by now that Mr. Otoole has to call every politician, liberal journalist, liberal blogger, etc. a “planner” in order for his “antiplanner” premise to work. Fact is, many professional planners share his concerns over the cost of rail transit, political wheeling and dealing, etc. Another fact he has proven again and again on this blog is that he actually loves top down government planning that results in the things he favors (see: gas tax, SF subdivisions).
On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
Air travel is a symptom of our present prosperity, not a cause.
********
If thats the case, then High Speed rail is just a symptom of California’s ever growing debt problem.
You must know by now that Mr. Otoole has to call every politician, liberal journalist, liberal blogger, etc. a “planner†in order for his “antiplanner†premise to work.
Yes. Asking for evidence and receiving silence for the umpteenth time is like icing on the cupcake.
And pointing out that selective linking is akin to cherry-picking pre-reinforces your statement in another way, IMHO.
DS
The Antiplanner wrote:
> This really is class warfare. Back in 1835, the Duke of
> Wellington lamented that the then-new railroads “will
> only encourage the lower classes to move about needlessly.â€
> In other words, binge flying and frivolous driving are both
> easily defined: when I travel, it is necessary; when you
> travel, it is binging and frivolous. Since the upper classes
> have the most influence on policy, in the brave new world
> they will remain Jet Setters and everyone else will be stuck.
The old, czarist Russia had just the solution for this problem. It was called serfdom.
Post-Soviet Russia, the former Soviet Union, czarist Russia, Red China, North Korea and formerly South Africa all use(d) a system of internal passports to, among other things, limit travel.
Dan, you may be aware that the Soviet Union was a strictly planned society.
Dan, you may be aware that the Soviet Union was a strictly planned society.
Oooooh. Wooow. Thank you sooo much, CPZ, for that. Very much applicable to…to…um…well, nothing. But thanks!! Sure sounds scary!!!
DS
CP,
Are you arguing America and Western Europe are somehow void of serfdom and internal passports in their recent history? Are you arguing that America is somehow a non-strictly planned society?
There are many smart people that would argue otherwise.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
Are you arguing
AIUI Glenn Beck just ululated that ever’buddeh should read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom for some reason or another to reflect upon some aggrievement or conspiraceh unique to that entertainer.
DS
Then I’m a binge railer, haha. I overuse the rail system, but there’s plenty of capacity left to go around, haha.
Dan wrote:
> AIUI Glenn Beck just ululated that ever’buddeh should
> read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom for some reason or
> another to reflect upon some aggrievement or conspiraceh
> unique to that entertainer.
Dan, you might be interested to know that I have had a pretty strong dislike of Beck (but not Dr. Hayek) for years, and can remember when he was just an overnight disc jockey on D.C.-area “blowtorch” FM radio station WPGC (Top-40 then, “urban” now) in the 1980’s.
You can see images of Beck at WPGC back then here.
Thank you CPZ. It is always fascinating how talking points make their way around, isn’t it?
DS
Planners are too careful to use that phrase on record. It’s a phrase the lunatic fringe uses when talking to planners.
“Planners are too careful to use that phrase on record. It’s a phrase the lunatic fringe uses when talking to planners.”
At least planners are smart enough to have tact. Many Antiplanners are the lunatic fringe that will say just about anything, no matter how hyperbolic, to make a point.
Yes, there is no evidence planners say this. As I implied. It is BS.
It is a false assertion used to promulgate the ideological position, such tactics are used frequently here (including hasty generalization, as seen just above).
DS
bennett said: Many Antiplanners are the lunatic fringe that will say just about anything, no matter how hyperbolic, to make a point.
THWM: Bennett, the bullshit that O’Toole writes is planned well in advance & we already know what the outcome is going to be.
It’s going to bash railroads, bash transit & bash cities.