Young and Carless

[Hugh]

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/young-and-carless/

 

It is an interesting article. Like most articles, limited space leads to a focused point which is easy to debate. It generates some conversation around my water cooler. I'm looking for some points/counterpoints because I'm considering a letter to the editor so to speak.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Hugh

[silvrsvt]

Another thing to consider is this...people are waiting longer to start a family...dragging kids around using public transport (to me at least) seems about as much fun as being water boarded.

 

I think there are a couple things at play here....the cost of entry to getting a car has gone up dramatically, kids living longer at home and lack of employment opportunities/college debt all have a huge impact to getting a car.

 

I grew up in an area that has one of the highest population densities in the world and my public transport options where limited for the most part, outside of getting to NYC....I couldn't image not having a car to get around and if I based my "freedom" on being able to post to social media, we are seriously fucked as a society. ugh

[akirby]

My opinion is that this trend has more to do with enhanced electronic entertainment and communications options that didn't exist before. Kids today can stay at home and be entertained and stay in touch with all their friends without leaving the house. And when they do go out they tend to go in groups.

 

When I was 16 we couldn't wait to start driving just so we could get away from the house and see our friends.

[Edstock]

It bears remembering that the "Young and Carless" is not a monolithic clump of young people.

 

If they live in rural areas or very small towns, IMHO, the young are probably quite eager to get a car, but those that live in high-density urban areas where there is some kind of transit may be in a lot less of a hurry: they can talk, text, Twitter and surf while waiting. Also, sexual attitudes change over time, and it may no longer as necessary to own a back-seat mating-mobile. My 2¢.

[Biker16]

The auto industry has based it's growth on that of the contemporary Auto Centric Suburbs, which induce people to Drive more. This model is a dead end because the primary cost of driving isn't financially but one of TIME you can move 20-30 miles away from Where you work if you don't have congestion its a decent commute but (WE ARE CONGESTION) and with congestion that commute could be up to 90 minutes in some regions.

 

over the last after 20 years the interstate highway system was completed, we have been in cycle of capacity expansion to "reduce" congestion which was easy at first but the combination of lack of Available ROW (right of Way) "space" has led to even simple capacity expansions to become hugely expensive. in addition to the politics that proevents money from being spent or taxes to be raised has slowed these projects to crawl over the last decade.

 

then there the Elephant in the room, the interstate Highway system is in need of replacement, with the initial segments already past their design life, and needing to be rebuilt, which means even less money for these congestion reduction programs.

 

This has lead to a decline in driving in fact driving peak in the US in 2007, and isnt expected to recover as the Decline of cities is being reversed.

 

http://docs.trb.org/prp/14-4529.pdf

 

It only make sense that young people drive less if they have other options living in cities like walk, biking, and Transit, all these modes directly compete with driving not only for Money but for mindshare, that says more Cars make cities less walkable, less bikeable and less friendly to transit, cities are moving away from the Autocentric mindsets of the last 50 years where Traffic must flow at all cost, to one of coexistence between all mode of transportaion of which cars are only one of those modes.

 

When Young people have families some will retreat to the traditional Exurban model of a house on a lot of land, but alot will stay in the city or move to an adjacent suburb where those cities are becoming more dense and more urban. those new families will be able to do what I am doing with my 15 year old, not teach them to drive until we have to. Because my child can Safely walk or bike to school and other activities without needing to be driven, we don't need 3 or even 2 vehicles, we can get by with one vehicle or less. (I.E. "Car Lite" or Car Free").

 

I realize I do talk too much, but people without cars chose to go places where having a car isn't mandatory, just like people with cars go places where things are Easily accessible by car. as the cities Recover from the last 50 years of neglect fewer people will be driving.

[akirby]

It's not living in areas where you can walk, bike or ride public transportation. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta with no public transportation at all and no easy access anywhere within 3-4 miles. Kids here still don't get their licenses right away. Some wait until they're 18, 19 or later.

 

They use their cell phones to stay connected and tv, video games and internet to entertain themselves. If they want to go out they all go in a group in one person's car.

[grbeck]

Graduated licensing requirements and restrictions on who can ride in the vehicle are playing a role, too.

 

When I was young, you got your learner's permit soon after your 16th birthday. You took the (free) driver's education course at school, if you wanted to do so (no mandatory requirement). After you passed that course, you took your driver's license test. If you passed, you were basically free to drive as much as you wanted.

 

Today, most schools charge for a driver's education course ($300 at my alma mater). A new driver must undergo a specified amount of training, and have a parent or someone sign off on that. Then, after passing the test, the new driver is restricted in the hours he or she can drive, as well as the number of non-related passengers that can be in the car.

 

These restrictions have pretty much killed the idea of piling your friends in the car and simply going for a ride, or driving to dance or party in another town without a parent also being in the car.

 

Even with these restrictions, my nephew, who turns 16 in October, is chomping at the bit to get his license. But he lives in rural Pennsylvania, where there isn't even taxi service, let alone public transportation. There isn't that level of urgency among the children of our friends who live in suburban or urban areas.

Edited January 26, 2015 by grbeck

[akirby]

I forgot about the license restrictions. That does play a small part I'm sure. But it's also one of the best safety ideas to come out in a long time.

 

In GA you can get your learner's permit at 15, license at 16. You can't drive between midnight and 5 am until you're 18. NOTHING good comes from teens driving in these hours. Ever.

 

You can't have any non family member under 21 in the car for the first 6 months. Only 1 is allowed for the second 6 months. After 1 year no more than 3 are allowed until you're 18.

 

If you've ever seen a group of girls in a car you'd understand how that could be a distraction, and limiting distractions with teens is a priority.

[ANTAUS]

Its a good thing I'm a speed reader...long article urggg. As areas become more urbanized and public transportation is embraced, this isn't shocking to see our next generation isn't too thrilled to want to drive. In our times, it ment "freedom" to go out there and go to places, discover, get out of the house, visit with friends. As kids have social media, they can do all that without the need to leave. Interaction skills will drop as well from lack of that in-person communication.

 

BUT there will be places that will continue to embrace the vehicle. Being from Miami, it doesnt matter how much transportation options there are (weak ones actually), people like to justify the reason they have a $800 Lease on their BMW or Audi. They like to be stuck in 2 hours worth of traffic to drive down just 8-10 little miles, but they be fronting the Starbucks latte, the Coach purse and their driving skills on apply make-up or shopping online on Amazon as they drive. So doesn't matter HOW much transportation options ARE available, I would say Miami's, or even most of FL has a love-affair with their vehicles. Sometimes some decision are re-enforced with those around us, or what we see in the media, or expectations society or family members have placed on them.

 

I know from my friends that have kids, I can't WAIT Till they get their car so they GET OUT and just leave the parents alone. Unfortunately that leaves us with another topic...parents who 'feel' they NEED to GIVE their children a vehicle, instead of working for an old-beater like the good old days. (sigh).

[Hugh]

I understand the points made and it seems they're hitting their target audience: Young hipster urbanites living in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) or Vancouver who thinks the sun rises and sets on their needs and wants. Here in Victoria, the first of soon to be many apartment and condominium complexes downtown will go the no garage feature. Good luck with that.....BTW

[jasonj80]

I understand the points made and it seems they're hitting their target audience: Young hipster urbanites living in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) or Vancouver who thinks the sun rises and sets on their needs and wants. Here in Victoria, the first of soon to be many apartment and condominium complexes downtown will go the no garage feature. Good luck with that.....BTW

I think its that the Young Hipster types in GTA and Vancouver don't have enough income to buy a car with the property values the way they are.

[Biker16]

Driving isn't freedom anymore, when you no longer have the freedom to not drive, and when so much of the driving we do involves waiting in traffic to do the most mundane things.

 

Freedom is not having a never ending, always increasing expense for driving which can equal ~$9000 per year.

 

the environment for driving has changed, and people young and old are moving away from it, no matter how hard the industry and the road lobby, push for more subsidies for driving the Trends away from it continues.

 

Perfect Example is I 94 through bankrupt Detroit.

 

$1.3 BILLION TO WIDEN JUST SEVEN MILES OF I-94 IN DETROIT

The most expensive of MDOT’s plans is the widening of just seven miles of Interstate-94 in Detroit for $1.3 billion. We’re asking you to pay special attention to this project because it epitomizes what is wrong with MDOT’s priorities.

 

If expanded, the I-94 freeway and its parallel service drives would cover an unprecedented 24 lanes, between I-96 and Connor Avenue. After completing this project, MDOT plans to continue widening I-94 along a 20-mile stretch between Wyoming Avenue and I-696, for untold billions of dollars more. The massive $1.3 billion price tag for phase one of the I-94 widening is roughly equal to the state’s entire annual budget for road repair.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Driving isn't freedom anymore, when you no longer have the freedom to not drive, and when so much of the driving we do involves waiting in traffic to do the most mundane things.

 

Freedom is not having a never ending, always increasing expense for driving which can equal ~$9000 per year.

 

the environment for driving has changed, and people young and old are moving away from it, no matter how hard the industry and the road lobby, push for more subsidies for driving the Trends away from it continues.

 

Perfect Example is I 94 through bankrupt Detroit.

 

$1.3 BILLION TO WIDEN JUST SEVEN MILES OF I-94 IN DETROIT

The most expensive of MDOT’s plans is the widening of just seven miles of Interstate-94 in Detroit for $1.3 billion. We’re asking you to pay special attention to this project because it epitomizes what is wrong with MDOT’s priorities.

 

If expanded, the I-94 freeway and its parallel service drives would cover an unprecedented 24 lanes, between I-96 and Connor Avenue. After completing this project, MDOT plans to continue widening I-94 along a 20-mile stretch between Wyoming Avenue and I-696, for untold billions of dollars more. The massive $1.3 billion price tag for phase one of the I-94 widening is roughly equal to the state’s entire annual budget for road repair.

 

 

 

This whole project is desperately needed. 94 turns into a complete clusterfuck through the entire city of Detroit around rush hour. What should be a 15 minute trip can easily top an hour. Yes, it's going to cost a ton of money. Yes there's people that live right up against the freeway that will need to be relocated and compensated. In the end, for a city that is really trying to turn itself around, something needs to be done to try to create a spark, because clearly the whole I-75 gateway project a few years back didn't really help much. Matty Moroun and his jackasssery had a lot to do with that.

 

Nice jab at Detroit BTW, like that hasn't been said thousands of times. What does Detroit being bankrupt have to do with it. Oh by the way, do some research, they exited bankruptcy a few weeks ago.

[Hugh]

I think its that the Young Hipster types in GTA and Vancouver don't have enough income to buy a car they want or feel they deserve with the property values the way they are.

FIFY

[AGR]

Counterpoint:

http://www.autoextremist.com/

[Kev-Mo]

I think its that the Young Hipster types in GTA and Vancouver don't have enough income to buy a car with the property values the way they are.

The mindset is different - Smartphone is the Millennial vision of "freedom" that the first used car was to previous generations (and cost about the same as my first car!).

 

Cars are too expensive for young people making 8 -10 bucks an hour. Not to mention their acquired debt to pay for the degree that landed them a killer job at Starbucks or Kohl's. Credit card debt, rent to share a 2 bathroom apt. with 3 other people and no parking spaces. Aside from a small percentage that get it, only those heavily subsidized by mommy and daddy can afford a $25k car. I have nieces and nephews from my side and my wife's side - all are in that boat. 23 - 28 years old with 6 figures invested in their education, and daddy still pays for the car and insurance. Or they get free hand me downs.

 

30 years ago you could make 5-6 bucks an hour and save for a decent used car. or even a new car. Can't do that today as lower end wages clearly have not kept up with necessary living expenses.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Kev-Mo

[silvrsvt]

30 years ago you could make 5-6 bucks an hour and save for a decent used car. or even a new car. Can't do that today as lower end wages clearly have not kept up with necessary living expenses.

 

Hmmm I started driving about 20 years ago and was making about $5-6 an hour PT at the supermarket. I did get hooked up since my dad sold his car to me for $100 bucks, but then again I was paying close to $1K in car insurance since I was male under 21 years old!

 

I spoke about this before...I know my wife's Aunt and Uncle where looking for a reliable used car for her cousin in college, since it got totalled out through no fault her own. They where looking at 8 year old VW Jetta and similar compact cars and where looking at spending well north of $7K to get it. I remember when I was 17 or so in 1992, and people getting 8-10 year old cars for $1500 bucks or so!

[akirby]

Cash for clunkers killed the cheap used car market.

 

You should go price used F150s. Even a 10 yr old model with 120K miles is over $10K. No such thing as a good cheap used vehicle.

[silvrsvt]

Cash for clunkers killed the cheap used car market.

 

You should go price used F150s. Even a 10 yr old model with 120K miles is over $10K. No such thing as a good cheap used vehicle.

 

Its a good/bad thing...if you own a car, it means you have a bigger trade in...if your getting into the market or want something cheap....good luck

[akirby]

Yep. Unfortunately I'm in the market for a nice cheap 70's F100 and you can't find a decent one less than $3500. The $1500 ones are complete junk.

[AGR]

More on that MTV study:

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/27/millennials-like-cars-after-all-mtv-study/

[Biker16]

 

 

This whole project is desperately needed. 94 turns into a complete clusterfuck through the entire city of Detroit around rush hour. What should be a 15 minute trip can easily top an hour. Yes, it's going to cost a ton of money. Yes there's people that live right up against the freeway that will need to be relocated and compensated. In the end, for a city that is really trying to turn itself around, something needs to be done to try to create a spark, because clearly the whole I-75 gateway project a few years back didn't really help much. Matty Moroun and his jackasssery had a lot to do with that.

 

Nice jab at Detroit BTW, like that hasn't been said thousands of times. What does Detroit being bankrupt have to do with it. Oh by the way, do some research, they exited bankruptcy a few weeks ago.

 

Detroit needs people living in detroit, no highway project will get more people to live and work in detroit, I-94 will just make it easier for people to live further away and still have access to The remaining heavily subsidized amenities in the city. This isn't a substitute for people living and working in the city of detroit.

 

It's ironic southeast michigan cannot find a way to fund a regional transit system, yet can spend billions on Freeways that do little to improve the City of Detroit.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

Detroit needs people living in detroit, no highway project will get more people to live and work in detroit, I-94 will just make it easier for people to live further away and still have access to The remaining heavily subsidized amenities in the city. This isn't a substitute for people living and working in the city of detroit.

 

It's ironic southeast michigan cannot find a way to fund a regional transit system, yet can spend billions on Freeways that do little to improve the City of Detroit.

General Motors had/has a lot to do with that. They absolutely do not want mass transit taking off in their own back yard.

 

Detroit has more problems than just a need for a mass transit system. They can't even handle busses right now. I could go on and on about it, but this isn't the thread for it.

 

Now that they got the finances balances in order, what they really need to do is figure out how to be sustainable with 700,000 people living in a city that's sized for 2 million. Again, not the thread for it.

[akirby]

Most people don't want to live in the city - they want to live in the suburbs where they can have a larger house, lower taxes, a yard, etc.

[Biker16]

General Motors had/has a lot to do with that. They absolutely do not want mass transit taking off in their own back yard.

 

Detroit has more problems than just a need for a mass transit system. They can't even handle busses right now. I could go on and on about it, but this isn't the thread for it.

 

Now that they got the finances balances in order, what they really need to do is figure out how to be sustainable with 700,000 people living in a city that's sized for 2 million. Again, not the thread for it.

 

where did those 1.4 million people go? Suburbs

 

How did they get there? interstate highway system.

 

Is there a correlation between the out flow of residents and the construction of highways that lead to Auto centric suburbs, yes.

 

this is an image of how much land was developed in Cuyahoga County Ohio in 1948, population 1.3 million

 

this how much land was developed by 2002:same county with 1.3 million people in 2002

 

People will live within a ~30 minute commute shed highways can drastically expand the commute shed of a given area.

 

Most people don't want to live in the city - they want to live in the suburbs where they can have a larger house, lower taxes, a yard, etc.

 

That is changing cities are growing faster the suburbs for the first time in 100 years., the only reason taxes are lower in SOME suburbs is because they don't have the infrastructure and they often use the infrastructure Roads, Water sewage, ETc of other municipalities or are subsidized by the state. The larger house, lower taxes, a yard come at the expense of someone else, the widening of I-94 is perfect example of this, because the people of Detroit will not be the primary beneficiary of this project but the people who commute form these large houses on these large lots will benefit the most yet pay the least for this project, and hundreds of other projects like it. It is a subsidy to drive more and drive further.