Gen Z Is Choosing Not to Drive

[Max Rockatansky]

When we build an utterly depressing outside for teenagers and young adults, it's no wonder they choose to socialize virtually and not in the dwindling number of third places. On top of that, the cost of a used car and its maintenance makes it hard to justify if you live in an area with half-decent alternative options. I myself am looking forward to driving far less once a big transit expansion is completed later this year.

What is it exactly that is depressing outside in Washington State?  When I was in high school in Michigan, I would have killed to have outdoor recreational activities that are available in Washington State.  A huge contributing reason I moved to Arizona a week out of high school was the times I spent with my older brother while on vacation out there circa 1996-2000.

The suburbs. The lack of walkable places is still a huge issue here and only getting worse as traditional third places are ripped out.

The recreational opportunities all require a vehicle and the ability to jockey for very limited parking on weekends. The exception is the Trailhead Direct bus, which runs on weekends to already overfull trails, so they aren't enjoyable.

Trailheads are often where you make them.  Speaking as a distance runner (and sometimes cyclist) I tend to just park further away from popular urban trailheads and travel on foot to them.  Alternatively if I know a trail is going to be super busy I often just get up before everyone (usually before sunrise) else does.  Going on weekdays I've found is often an easiest bypass for crowds at any popular trail (urban or otherwise).

Regardless, you certainly have way more urban trails in your area than any other place I've lived.  You also have a lot of Cascade Range stuff near you, but it would require having a car to visit practically.  Why limit yourself fully to what is your immediate urban environment if one could afford to do otherwise?  I'm sure that I would think Fresno was way worse if I never left the city to partake in what is in the mountains around me. 

[Max Rockatansky]

When we build an utterly depressing outside for teenagers and young adults, it's no wonder they choose to socialize virtually and not in the dwindling number of third places. On top of that, the cost of a used car and its maintenance makes it hard to justify if you live in an area with half-decent alternative options. I myself am looking forward to driving far less once a big transit expansion is completed later this year.

What is it exactly that is depressing outside in Washington State?  When I was in high school in Michigan, I would have killed to have outdoor recreational activities that are available in Washington State.  A huge contributing reason I moved to Arizona a week out of high school was the times I spent with my older brother while on vacation out there circa 1996-2000.

The suburbs. The lack of walkable places is still a huge issue here and only getting worse as traditional third places are ripped out.

The recreational opportunities all require a vehicle and the ability to jockey for very limited parking on weekends. The exception is the Trailhead Direct bus, which runs on weekends to already overfull trails, so they aren't enjoyable.

I would say there is a contradiction here. You want  things to be within the walking range, presumably in high density areas - yet not crowded? Is that possible?

Having to deal with or out compete the crowds are just part of the experience on any popular trail.  Starting early, late or during a work week can go long way.  I don't necessarily like taking such measures but if you want an enjoyable crowd-free experience it is often what has to be done.

[Rothman]

When we build an utterly depressing outside for teenagers and young adults, it's no wonder they choose to socialize virtually and not in the dwindling number of third places. On top of that, the cost of a used car and its maintenance makes it hard to justify if you live in an area with half-decent alternative options. I myself am looking forward to driving far less once a big transit expansion is completed later this year.

What is it exactly that is depressing outside in Washington State?  When I was in high school in Michigan, I would have killed to have outdoor recreational activities that are available in Washington State.  A huge contributing reason I moved to Arizona a week out of high school was the times I spent with my older brother while on vacation out there circa 1996-2000.

The suburbs. The lack of walkable places is still a huge issue here and only getting worse as traditional third places are ripped out.

The recreational opportunities all require a vehicle and the ability to jockey for very limited parking on weekends. The exception is the Trailhead Direct bus, which runs on weekends to already overfull trails, so they aren't enjoyable.

I would say there is a contradiction here. You want  things to be within the walking range, presumably in high density areas - yet not crowded? Is that possible?

Having to deal with or out compete the crowds are just part of the experience on any popular trail.  Starting early, late or during a work week can go long way.  I don't necessarily like taking such measures but if you want an enjoyable crowd-free experience it is often what has to be done.

Or...you establish quotas and pay for enforcement of such.

[kalvado]

When we build an utterly depressing outside for teenagers and young adults, it's no wonder they choose to socialize virtually and not in the dwindling number of third places. On top of that, the cost of a used car and its maintenance makes it hard to justify if you live in an area with half-decent alternative options. I myself am looking forward to driving far less once a big transit expansion is completed later this year.

What is it exactly that is depressing outside in Washington State?  When I was in high school in Michigan, I would have killed to have outdoor recreational activities that are available in Washington State.  A huge contributing reason I moved to Arizona a week out of high school was the times I spent with my older brother while on vacation out there circa 1996-2000.

The suburbs. The lack of walkable places is still a huge issue here and only getting worse as traditional third places are ripped out.

The recreational opportunities all require a vehicle and the ability to jockey for very limited parking on weekends. The exception is the Trailhead Direct bus, which runs on weekends to already overfull trails, so they aren't enjoyable.

I would say there is a contradiction here. You want  things to be within the walking range, presumably in high density areas - yet not crowded? Is that possible?

More options means that people can be a bit more dispersed. Note that Seattle's popular neighborhoods are far enough apart that one doesn't totally overcrowd on a normal weekend (events excluded), while a centralized suburban destination like a shopping mall would be very hard to reach by most modes.

More options means less population density, especially when you are talking urban thousands per square mile.
Until you consider a bench on a 20x20 patch of grass as a recreational option.

[Rothman]

Eh, last time I was in WA a few weeks ago, we walked around the woods by Evergreen State without any issue on the weekend.  My sister, the local, didn't seem to worry about a crowding issue.

Same goes for my brother and walking around on the few trails around Redmond or Bothell.

[Max Rockatansky]

When we build an utterly depressing outside for teenagers and young adults, it's no wonder they choose to socialize virtually and not in the dwindling number of third places. On top of that, the cost of a used car and its maintenance makes it hard to justify if you live in an area with half-decent alternative options. I myself am looking forward to driving far less once a big transit expansion is completed later this year.

What is it exactly that is depressing outside in Washington State?  When I was in high school in Michigan, I would have killed to have outdoor recreational activities that are available in Washington State.  A huge contributing reason I moved to Arizona a week out of high school was the times I spent with my older brother while on vacation out there circa 1996-2000.

The suburbs. The lack of walkable places is still a huge issue here and only getting worse as traditional third places are ripped out.

The recreational opportunities all require a vehicle and the ability to jockey for very limited parking on weekends. The exception is the Trailhead Direct bus, which runs on weekends to already overfull trails, so they aren't enjoyable.

I would say there is a contradiction here. You want  things to be within the walking range, presumably in high density areas - yet not crowded? Is that possible?

Having to deal with or out compete the crowds are just part of the experience on any popular trail.  Starting early, late or during a work week can go long way.  I don't necessarily like taking such measures but if you want an enjoyable crowd-free experience it is often what has to be done.

Or...you establish quotas and pay for enforcement of such.

Even then, most quota and reservation systems can be circumvented.  I did that a ton during 2020 with Yosemite.  All I had to do was get inside the park boundary before the reservation hours started.  The only to blame for not getting up early and to the park was me. 

[jeffandnicole]

Also...

Uber and other rideshares didn't exist in 1997.

Older teens want something?  Order via Amazon.  Or UberEats.  Options that also didn't exist in 1997.

Parents, who have coddled their kids to the point where kids have no clue what unstructured playtime is, have never ridden a bike around the block on their own and are called upon for their every need, continue to drive them around.

Used car prices are much higher.

I would agree that the shopping mall and the movies don't hold quite the attractions to kids now verses when I was growing up in the 1980s. There is also somewhat less of a trust of the outside world compared to earlier years. Even then, my mother would insist on driving me to/from the shopping mall verses allowing me to walk to Sunrise Mall because it was along the very busy Sunrise Blvd. Now, if it was dark, rainy, and/or very cold, I can understand. If I planned it right, I could take the bus home. But, there is nothing wrong with walking or biking.

Having said that, the reality check may be cashed when they get a job. Being the ones with the least seniority, they usually get the worst shifts including working weekend shift. When they get the schedule and see that they are scheduled to begin at 5 AM, but the earliest they can get there (with transit) is 6:30 AM and protest, their supervisor will look at them and state, "How is that my problem? You need this job more than I need you."

Then, of course, you point to the "helicopter parents" who, being ever fearful, won't allow the kids to walk the neighborhood or bike in the streets unsupervised or without checking in every ten minutes.

I'm not sure what age you're referring to, but available hours are usually discussed during the interview. 

Teenagers still have school, so a boss isn't generally going to say "Well, that's your problem".  Applicants need to know what they can work and convey it.  If the boss decides to change the employees time after they started the job to hours that aren't conductive with the employee, that's a boss that probably is best to get away from and quit, and a boss that wasted the company's time hiring employees that weren't qualified due to working hour constraints.

If they're an adult, well, lots of adults don't drive.  And they still work.  In my office, I'd say about 10% solely take transit, including from 1+ hours away.

[Rothman]

Also...

Uber and other rideshares didn't exist in 1997.

Older teens want something?  Order via Amazon.  Or UberEats.  Options that also didn't exist in 1997.

Parents, who have coddled their kids to the point where kids have no clue what unstructured playtime is, have never ridden a bike around the block on their own and are called upon for their every need, continue to drive them around.

Used car prices are much higher.

I would agree that the shopping mall and the movies don't hold quite the attractions to kids now verses when I was growing up in the 1980s. There is also somewhat less of a trust of the outside world compared to earlier years. Even then, my mother would insist on driving me to/from the shopping mall verses allowing me to walk to Sunrise Mall because it was along the very busy Sunrise Blvd. Now, if it was dark, rainy, and/or very cold, I can understand. If I planned it right, I could take the bus home. But, there is nothing wrong with walking or biking.

Having said that, the reality check may be cashed when they get a job. Being the ones with the least seniority, they usually get the worst shifts including working weekend shift. When they get the schedule and see that they are scheduled to begin at 5 AM, but the earliest they can get there (with transit) is 6:30 AM and protest, their supervisor will look at them and state, "How is that my problem? You need this job more than I need you."

Then, of course, you point to the "helicopter parents" who, being ever fearful, won't allow the kids to walk the neighborhood or bike in the streets unsupervised or without checking in every ten minutes.

I'm not sure what age you're referring to, but available hours are usually discussed during the interview. 

Teenagers still have school, so a boss isn't generally going to say "Well, that's your problem".  Applicants need to know what they can work and convey it.  If the boss decides to change the employees time after they started the job to hours that aren't conductive with the employee, that's a boss that probably is best to get away from and quit, and a boss that wasted the company's time hiring employees that weren't qualified due to working hour constraints.

If they're an adult, well, lots of adults don't drive.  And they still work.  In my office, I'd say about 10% solely take transit, including from 1+ hours away.

As someone who interviews, strangely enough, one of the first interviews that I ever conducted, the interviewee was up front with how Girl Scouts would take precedent to the job and that she would prefer not to perform one of the bulleted duties in our advertisement.

I didn't hire her.  So, yeah, an applicant can ask for all the flexibility in the world.  But, as someone who's hiring right now, the market is never so labor-sided that one can dictate their own demands and still be competitive.  That goes for jobs from admin assistants up to deputy directors in my line of work.

Have to say I've had a darned good track record hiring people for the betterment of the workplaces...something I'm quite proud of.  Comes down to really demonstrating skills and real relevant experience.  Guess I'm good at interrogating people who stretch their experience too far...

[Max Rockatansky]

One of the first things I ask applicants about availability.  Minor stuff (like no overnights or small restrictions on certain workdays) I'm willing to agree to but sometimes it can get pretty outlandish.  I've found that most people aren't fully truthful regarding their availability on their job applications and need to be asked directly. 

[Road Hog]

At my store you have to be 18 to work, and there is a fair number of teenagers who have to get rides to and from work. In fairness, one suffers from epilepsy and can't drive.

[Bruce]

Trailheads are often where you make them.  Speaking as a distance runner (and sometimes cyclist) I tend to just park further away from popular urban trailheads and travel on foot to them.  Alternatively if I know a trail is going to be super busy I often just get up before everyone (usually before sunrise) else does.  Going on weekdays I've found is often an easiest bypass for crowds at any popular trail (urban or otherwise).

Regardless, you certainly have way more urban trails in your area than any other place I've lived.  You also have a lot of Cascade Range stuff near you, but it would require having a car to visit practically.  Why limit yourself fully to what is your immediate urban environment if one could afford to do otherwise?  I'm sure that I would think Fresno was way worse if I never left the city to partake in what is in the mountains around me. 

I'm not an early-riser, so I'd rather have some scraps left to those on a different circadian rhythm. 

While we are spoiled for choice, there's definitely crowding at the trails that have become popular for their payoffs, gentler terrain, and accessibility. And some of us do want to see what the hype is all about before it gets trampled over by Instagrammers.

Eh, last time I was in WA a few weeks ago, we walked around the woods by Evergreen State without any issue on the weekend.  My sister, the local, didn't seem to worry about a crowding issue.

Same goes for my brother and walking around on the few trails around Redmond or Bothell.

You missed peak season by a few months (for most trails) or weeks (for Larch Madness). In summer, it's not uncommon for cars to be blocking parts of SR 20 and US 2 because they "have" to be over the shoulder to fit their car and be within a mile of the trailhead. Towing isn't going to be a quick option in more remote areas and I have been personally blocked in by a car that parked right across a trail access road.

If you're referring to Evergreen State College, then the crowding isn't much of a problem down there. JBLM is a massive traffic wall that means a lot of the demand gets pushed east and north of Seattle into places like the Issaquah Alps, Snoqualmie River Valley, and the Mountain Loop Highway.

[Max Rockatansky]

That being the case the problem is more you not willing to make some minor adjustments to visit the trails on the terms you are looking for.  Most normal people aren't as likely bothered by having to compete with crowds (I use my wife as an exhibit) during the most desirable and peak trail hours.  I don't get up super early all the time either, but if I want to out compete a crowd to get somewhere I want to visit on my terms I'll do it. 

[Rothman]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

[Bruce]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

Looks like we were on the wrong page. In local parlance, "hiking" is almost always mountain hiking. Anything local is just a walk or trek.

[Rothman]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

Looks like we were on the wrong page. In local parlance, "hiking" is almost always mountain hiking. Anything local is just a walk or trek.

But you were originally complaining about the lack of walkable places in the suburbs...

[bing101]

The correct headline is:

Some in Gen Z Is Choosing Not to Drive

Like all such sweeping pronouncements, taking a statistical change from one "generation" to another and then extrapolating this as "Generation whatever" does this or that, is just poor journalism. 

And, yes, as others above have pointed out, these "this kids today, they don't want a car" stories have been out for a very long time.

True and in some cases the youngest members of Gen Z are not old enough to drive. I worked in places where some of the people starting their first job is at the older half of Gen Z it's just that we need to wait decades to find out more on how Gen Z are able to drive or not.
It's a case of if you live in the downtown portions of cities with more Public Transit then you don't need a car that much. If you live in suburban areas then a car is a must.  NorCal Examples if you live in Solano County, CA yes having a car is a must but if you live in Sacramento, Davis, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley having a car is optional.

[Bruce]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

Looks like we were on the wrong page. In local parlance, "hiking" is almost always mountain hiking. Anything local is just a walk or trek.

But you were originally complaining about the lack of walkable places in the suburbs...

It was two different statements by Max that I was responding to, hence the paragraph break.

[Rothman]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

Looks like we were on the wrong page. In local parlance, "hiking" is almost always mountain hiking. Anything local is just a walk or trek.

But you were originally complaining about the lack of walkable places in the suburbs...

It was two different statements by Max that I was responding to, hence the paragraph break.

Still seems to me you may have an overly negative view of opportunities to walk around in the suburbs of Seattle.

[kalvado]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

Looks like we were on the wrong page. In local parlance, "hiking" is almost always mountain hiking. Anything local is just a walk or trek.

But you were originally complaining about the lack of walkable places in the suburbs...

It was two different statements by Max that I was responding to, hence the paragraph break.

Still seems to me you may have an overly negative view of opportunities to walk around in the suburbs of Seattle.

There are not enough walkable places, just stop arguing with the party line.

[Rothman]

Bruce seems quite choosy in the trails he wants to go on.  I was talking about trails right in the suburbs and he was talking about mountain hikes on WA 20 and US 2.

I thought the discussion was about walking opportunities right in the metro/urbanized area rather than heading out on 20 or 2.

Looks like we were on the wrong page. In local parlance, "hiking" is almost always mountain hiking. Anything local is just a walk or trek.

But you were originally complaining about the lack of walkable places in the suburbs...

It was two different statements by Max that I was responding to, hence the paragraph break.

Still seems to me you may have an overly negative view of opportunities to walk around in the suburbs of Seattle.

There are not enough walkable places, just stop arguing with the party line.

Going against the Party certainly has negative consequences.

[1995hoo]

I find it interesting to read this thread and to think about our relatives in Florida. My wife's brother near Miami has two kids; one is 20 and the other just turned 18 this month. The 20-year-old got his driver's license two years ago shortly after graduating from high school. He has not (at least, not yet) gone to college and needed to be able to drive in order to go to work. His sister, who will graduate from high school this year, doesn't have her learner's permit yet (her father drives her to and from school each day) but was talking about getting one because she is thinking about going to college and may well go away to school elsewhere in Florida, in which case her mother is pushing her to get a license so she can drive home when needed. The interesting thing to me is that both of them are what I would have considered immature for their age compared to anyone I knew when I was in my late teens/early 20s; the 18-year-old, for example, doesn't know how to use a knife and fork correctly, and when we were at the shopping mall a few weeks ago the only thing of her own she carried was her iPhone (tucked under her armpit) because she gave anything else of hers to her mother instead of carrying a purse or similar. I've often wondered whether overall immaturity might correlate to less interest in learning to drive. By comparison, our relatives in Fort Myers have three kids; one of them is too young to drive, one of them is approaching driving age and has his learner's permit, and the other is off at college and got his license roughly when he was first able to do so. Perhaps not coincidentally, they are all considerably more mature than the two kids near Miami (in some ways, the youngest one acts the most mature of all five of them). I've noted that the parents in Fort Myers are, in many ways, a lot more like my own parents were compared to the parents in the Miami area and they've raised kids who are generally far more independent do-it-yourself types. I'm certain that factors in as well—I just have a gut feeling that kids who are used to having their parents run their lives and do everything for them, and who don't go places on their own unsupervised, are probably less likely to take an interest in learning to drive because, to some extent, driving represents independence. (I got my driver's license on my 16th birthday, the first day I was eligible. My brother, who is two years younger than I am, got his two days after his birthday because they had changed the rules to require a form from the school and he was unaware of the rules change. But let's just say we were both very eager to get our licenses—and our mom commented that when I drove away by myself for the first time after getting my license it made her feel really sad.)

With all that said, I have a 24-year-old colleague at work who doesn't have a driver's license and that somewhat astonishes me because he's not a New Yorker. I could understand why someone who doesn't live in New York might not have a driver's license, but he lives in Indiana. He took Greyhound when he went to visit his parents in Michigan for a weekend last fall. I guess if it works for you, who am I to criticize, but I was somewhat astonished when he said how he was getting home. Part of it comes from my feeling that not getting a driver's license would severely limit your options when you travel because you won't be able to rent a car if you decide you might want to go somewhere less convenient—for example, earlier this month when we were visiting the aforementioned relatives near Miami, we decided to drive down to the Keys one day. My gut tells me that something like Uber would be godawful expensive, and likely impractical, for a trip like that. Of course, I suppose I should recognize that my colleague is 24 years old and thus probably couldn't rent a car anyway.

[kalvado]

Thinking about it... Maybe it's the case when entire population is smarter than each individual person?
Many factors here to consider.
An elephant in the room is, certainly, is car being a luxury on a global scale. With the real-world labor productivity dropping, it may become a luxury in US as well
Second is population dynamics is changing. US switched to birth rates below replenishment rates some time around 2008. Numbers are still positive due to life expectancy growth and immigration. There are projections of population decrease coming. If anything, colleges are starting to feel population cliff - those reduced 2008 numbers become reduced numbers of college age kids. In another 10-15 years that would become reduced numbers of new home buyers - along with expiring baby boomers. Just remember, rise of suburbs coincided with doubling population between 1950 and 2013.

There is a strong push for more residential construction right now - but there is an equally strong push for higher density rather than expansion. Many places, especially both coasts with mountain ridges limiting inland growth, are simply running low on developable land (and keep in mind, land is required for agriculture as well!)
Long story short, I suspect there will be a return from spread-out suburbs to higher density urban (maybe not in the old cities, though). That would mean less commute - and likely more public transportation options.
Not learning a skill may be less than wise for young people, but usefulness of that skill may go down in relatively near future.

[Rothman]

Labor productivity decreasing?  According to the BLS, it's increased generally over time since at least 2013:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/PRS85006092

[kalvado]

Labor productivity decreasing?  According to the BLS, it's increased generally over time since at least 2013:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/PRS85006092

Ah sure, statistics says life is good. Let's look at the road-related example, though.
Tappan Zee bridge in 1950: $81M = $1.06B in 2023
Replacement Daddy's bridge in 2017:  $3.98B = $5B in 2023.

There are many reasons for such a difference, yet deliverable (bridge) is functionally similar...

Another example, maybe more relevant to a parallel "Gen Z woes" thread:

The household median income in the U.S. in 1950 was $2,990 — roughly 40% of the median home value of $7,354 at the time, according to census data. By 2010, household median income was $49,445 — or 22% of the $221,800 median home value.

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/slideshow/How-much-the-typical-home-cost-in-your-state-in-228135.php

I really want to quote one pretty famous writer from Albany area here...

[jeffandnicole]

Labor productivity decreasing?  According to the BLS, it's increased generally over time since at least 2013:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/PRS85006092

Ah sure, statistics says life is good. Let's look at the road-related example, though.
Tappan Zee bridge in 1950: $81M = $1.06B in 2023
Replacement Daddy's bridge in 2017:  $3.98B = $5B in 2023.

There are many reasons for such a difference, yet deliverable (bridge) is functionally similar...

You mean bridges.  They built 2 of them.

And the 'many reasons for such a difference' goes probably way beyond what most people here would know.  Simple things like water runoff basins and modern end-treatments of guard/guiderails that weren't required 70 years ago will add to a project's costs today.