AARoads Forum

From Fast Company:

Millennials Don't Drive--And Here's Why They Aren't Likely To Start Anytime Soon
It's not because they're broke. They just don't need cars.

QuoteAn auto industry exec might argue that millennials are driving less, and are less likely to buy cars, because they're broke. But a new report explains in detail why anyone who makes that argument is missing the point--and why millennials, the largest generation in the U.S., are likely to keep shunning cars no matter how the economy changes.

"The general trajectory we've been on, this 60 year driving boom, really does appear to be over," says Phineas Baxandall, a senior policy analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the organization that co-authored the report with the Frontier Group. An update on a previous 2012 report, the study pulls in new census data through last year, along with multiple state-specific studies and opinion polls.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/11m)

Quite frankly, I don't buy it. It may work in high-urbanized areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York City, but not in Sacramento.

Quote from: ZLoth on October 25, 2014, 08:31:44 PM
They just don't need cars.

Try saying that to anyone who lives in a highly suburbanized area (Hillsborough, Hamilton, any of the Brunswicks besides New Brunswick...etc) in New Jersey.

Quote from: Zeffy on October 25, 2014, 08:50:52 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on October 25, 2014, 08:31:44 PM
They just don't need cars.

Try saying that to anyone who lives in a highly suburbanized area (Hillsborough, Hamilton, any of the Brunswicks besides New Brunswick...etc) in New Jersey.

Or anyone here in Madison County, AL.

Quote from: ZLoth on October 25, 2014, 08:31:44 PM
From Fast Company:

Millennials Don't Drive--And Here's Why They Aren't Likely To Start Anytime Soon
It's not because they're broke. They just don't need cars.

QuoteAn auto industry exec might argue that millennials are driving less, and are less likely to buy cars, because they're broke. But a new report explains in detail why anyone who makes that argument is missing the point--and why millennials, the largest generation in the U.S., are likely to keep shunning cars no matter how the economy changes.

"The general trajectory we've been on, this 60 year driving boom, really does appear to be over," says Phineas Baxandall, a senior policy analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the organization that co-authored the report with the Frontier Group. An update on a previous 2012 report, the study pulls in new census data through last year, along with multiple state-specific studies and opinion polls.

FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/11m)

Quite frankly, I don't buy it. It may work in high-urbanized areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York City, but not in Sacramento.

FTFY - LA and SF (for SF outside the city itself) depend on cars to get around due to the sheer size of the areas.  LA's transit system is not as extensive as SF's or NY's

I think that this is based off of the flawed thought that there is a net inward migration to cities. In reality, young adults move into the city to start their careers, but move out to the suburbs when they are older and have a family.

It's bullshit, and has been proven bullshit in other articles before.  They're broke, and have access to other vehicles not their own.

Right, cars last longer and millenials have massive phone bills that used to be money that could go towards car payments.

The relative value of used cars to reliability is a big part of the problem in my mind. At least in my family, we pass cars down and around the chain. If my parents get a new car, their used car is likely worth more than it's worth on the open market (it's a well maintained, perfectly reliable car)- it's better just to sell that car to the kid for the trade-in value than to have them buy a brand new car and make payments.

I have two cars right now- one is my grandma's 2001 Honda Accord and one was my uncle's 2002 Jeep Liberty. I paid for both of them, but I did so knowing their history and knowing that they are perfectly good, reliable cars despite their age. It would be silly for me to assume car payments on a new car in that situation, especially since I'm still just getting started and trying to build up a good base of savings.

Had my grandmother or my uncle sold these vehicles on the open market, they would have gotten a few thousand bucks each for them, which really isn't a fair price for vehicles that could be driven to Alaska and back without hesitation. Better to keep those cars in the family and pass them around until the wheels fall off- that's where the value is maximized. I might actually buy a new car to replace the Honda next year, and at that point I will probably sell the Honda to my younger sister, and it will still be reliable.

Millenials are really the first folks to be in that bubble- cars now can comfortably stay reliable for 20 years and hundreds of thousands of miles. Previous generations didn't have the luxury of a massive pool of reliable used cars to choose from, so young people had to bear the expense of buying a new car if they wanted something reliable.

It's not that they're less likely to have cars, it's that they're less likely to buy new cars since they are broke and as rational actors there are plenty of perfectly reliable used cars around. That's what's hurting the auto industry. The Japanese coming in and forcing Ford and GM to build better cars over the last 30 years to the point that every car sold today is pretty damn reliable, breaking the old "trade in your car every three years or you will be stranded on the side of the road" thing is the "problem."

I've noticed a trend of younger people shunning driving, not completely, but partly.  Almost everyone I know of driving age has a car (or pickup) here in suburban and rural Texas, but my younger friends aren't eager to drive and often look to avoid it.  I've always enjoyed driving, and just going places before I could drive.  To me, the trip there is part of the reason to go, an added benefit.  To the younger people I know, the drive is more often thought of as a reason not to go.  Even my friend who enjoys driving fast and crazy prefers only short distances; he has no affinity for long distance travel.  In my small part of the world, this article seems to be overstating the case, but just about everyone I know from high school age up to late 20s or early 30s seems to want to avoid driving as much as they can.

See, I am perfectly happy driving to some place hours away, it's commuting and doing tasks around town I'd prefer not to drive to. I would love to be able to walk or bike to work but my job isn't in the same county I live in, and the town my job is in isn't a place I'd really like to live.

QuoteIt's bullshit, and has been proven bullshit in other articles before.  They're broke, and have access to other vehicles not their own.

We've sparred about this before, but in my experience, it hasn't been fully dis-proven yet, especially in urban areas as others have mentioned.  You are right in that they tend to be broke (especially in rural areas such as where I am), but even when they have "access to other vehicles", they often don't use it.

Scott's comment is also dead-on to the mentality and the notion that they just aren't as interested in daily driving (occasional trips, yes....every day, no).

My 16-year-old wants his drivers license NOW so he can start driving where ever he wants to NOW!!  He says he loves to drive and wants to drive long distance trips.  My child bucks the article big time.

QuotePart of the trend is also driven by external forces, like the fact that some states are making it more difficult to get a drivers license, so the number of high school seniors with a license keeps dropping. Universities are making it more difficult to keep cars on campus, and adding new programs, like bike sharing, that students might give students new habits they want to keep after graduating.

Yep. In Maryland, you can't get a license now until you are 16 and a half and can't have non-family passengers for the first 151 days (5 months). At my alma mater (Lynchburg College), you can't have a car as a resident freshman unless you have extenuating circumstances (like a job off campus or something), and even then you still have to pay $500 for a freshman permit. I was able to get my license in 2003 at age 16 and one month and have a car on campus in 2005 for a $50 permit fee.

I was born in a generation gap, so a lot of my cousins are getting to driving age and aren't driving. Their reasons include not the cost of the car itself, but in the car insurance. Simply, they are using the money that they would have used for car insurance on a smartphone. With all of the restrictions stated above, there's no reason to get a car if they can't drive friends around and are going to college in an urban area where they won't need a car anyway.

Another huge contributing factor is that these kids are helicopter kids with helicopter parents. Their parents are more than happy to drive them around because it's safer and less scary, and the kids are more than happy to get rides because they're free and the rides give them extra time that they can sit and use their phones. Also, their parents can pick up their friends and their friends' parents can pick them up - if they or their friends drive, they can't ride together anyway.

Everyone is so busy these days, too, that parents see giving rides as another opportunity for quality time with their kids. If they have to do it until the kid is 16.5, why not do it for the extra year and a half before they go to college?

Being a Roadgeek, I am ashamed to possibly be thought of as a smartphone-addicted teen who shuns driving (not by you guys, but possibly by the rest of society). I actually use my smartphone a good bit, but I'm going to be honest, I only use it when away from home or "in bed," and I only mostly use it for:

* Accessing this forum on Safari
* Going on Google Maps
* Taking road videos/pictures if on the road
* communicating with some roadgeeks & friends on both Instagram & Skype
* and texting/calling

Yep, that's it, haha. And honestly, I actually don't know how addicted these teens are to their phones (when I'm at my friends', we just play video games and play outside). But if they're honestly addicted to the point where they sped every available moment on it? Do they have lives? Do they have hobbies? And if they get caught in this habit, theyre going to be much too lazy when they get a job! And also, if kids wait until after college to start driving, they're gonna suck. People need experience. I'm getting my permit at age 15 and license at age 16, but I've been practicing driving since I turned 14 (shh, it's only been in neighborhoods and parking lots  :sombrero: ). You have to have experience driving or else you'll wreck your first day on the road!!

I do not like this trend at all.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 26, 2014, 04:38:03 AM
See, I am perfectly happy driving to some place hours away, it's commuting and doing tasks around town I'd prefer not to drive to. I would love to be able to walk or bike to work but my job isn't in the same county I live in, and the town my job is in isn't a place I'd really like to live.

This is my thought as well on driving. I absolutely love driving for pleasure, but driving to work or to the store is something I dislike doing immensely. Here in Helena, I don't want to rent a place within walking distance of the downtown area where I also work because the markup over property value to rent down there is absurd, but as soon as I can afford to buy down there that's my plan so I can stop driving to work.

I also wonder if beefed up DUI enforcement hasn't led to the movement of young people downtown. Part of the reason I'd like to live downtown is that I can go out and not even get wasted but have a couple and not have to worry about the risks of getting home. A generation ago, DUI was a bit easier to get away with, not a total societal faux pas, and the penalties weren't as severe.

Quote from: SSOWorld on October 25, 2014, 09:22:06 PMFTFY - LA and SF (for SF outside the city itself) depend on cars to get around due to the sheer size of the areas.  LA's transit system is not as extensive as SF's or NY's

This is true.  However, the Metro in Los Angeles is a good bit more extensive than it was when I first visited in 1998, and is very heavily used, while Metrolink offers reasonably good regional connectivity.  Both systems have good timekeeping because they are rail-based.  This is an important advantage over the freeways, which now offer very poor travel time reliability since their capacity has lagged regional population growth for at least 50 years now.  In Los Angeles at least, there is also good connectivity with a dense bus route network.  When I visited LA for a couple of days last month, I was struck by the heavy load factors on the Blue Line running between South LA (I-105 corridor) and downtown.

Even in much less densely populated towns elsewhere on the same 6750-mile roadtrip, I saw many more people walking and riding bicycles than was the case when I took a 10,000-mile roadtrip back in 2003 that traversed many of the same states.  It seemed to me like many have absorbed all the "America is an obese country" messaging of the past five years or so and decided  purposefully to do something about it.

Quote from: corco on October 26, 2014, 12:03:14 AMRight, cars last longer and millenials have massive phone bills that used to be money that could go towards car payments.

The relative value of used cars to reliability is a big part of the problem in my mind. At least in my family, we pass cars down and around the chain. If my parents get a new car, their used car is likely worth more than it's worth on the open market (it's a well maintained, perfectly reliable car)- it's better just to sell that car to the kid for the trade-in value than to have them buy a brand new car and make payments.

These factors, as well as crippling student debt and high youth unemployment, would help explain why millennials are far less likely to buy new cars, but the problem is broader than that since car ownership (whether new or used) and driving in general are down among that age group.  Also, any family that can afford to pass on a car owned from new to a kid that starts driving is in a quite privileged position.  A family car has added value only to the extent that its service history is fully documented and the manufacturer's recommended severe-service maintenance schedule has been rigorously followed.  Since the income squeeze is multigenerational, many people I know from high school that have children starting to drive have simply bought used cars for them (whether from a dealer or through private sale) because their own cars are secondhand with unknown or poorly documented service histories.

And while smartphones are expensive, on a monthly basis they are still much smaller than the monthly payments for a new car, which are now quite high since prices have risen almost commensurately with mechanical longevity.  It is now hard to leave a dealer's lot without paying $15,000 for a small car in base trim.  Add 30% or so for a five-year finance period and the buyer has to commit to a $334 monthly payment, which is quite large compared to a monthly smartphone bill of about $60.  I think the real story is that the comparative advantage of Internet-enabled devices to cars has ballooned lopsidedly in favor of the former since the mid-1990's.  This trend has only been accentuated by the involuntary deleveraging many households have had to go through since 2008 when consumer credit became very, very tight.

I live in suburbia, and while 'suburbia' here is probably more dense than American suburbia, I don't think you need to drive to live here, unless your job requires you to.

You may catch lifts off others or need to borrow a vehicle every now and then, sure, but you can walk/cycle to many useful places, get groceries and shopping delivered, use public transport, etc, etc. A car is more of a convenience out here than in a city (where it might even be an inconvenience), but its still not an essential for the able-bodied 20-something.

Quote from: corco on October 26, 2014, 11:32:46 AMI also wonder if beefed up DUI enforcement hasn't led to the movement of young people downtown. Part of the reason I'd like to live downtown is that I can go out and not even get wasted but have a couple and not have to worry about the risks of getting home. A generation ago, DUI was a bit easier to get away with, not a total societal faux pas, and the penalties weren't as severe.

DUI is a consideration for some.  The other side of the coin is that almost two-thirds of Americans simply don't drink (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/how_much_alcohol_do_americans_drink_consumption_predicts_alcoholism_and.html).  As an example, my alcohol consumption averages out to about two drinks a week and that puts me in the 70th percentile.  (Even if you are not in charge of a motor vehicle, you still have to be careful not to walk around falling-down drunk because that hugely raises your risk of dying in a vehicle/pedestrian accident and also, if you are a woman, being sexually assaulted.  Pedestrians can be charged with being drunk and disorderly, and in some jurisdictions it is an offense to be drunk in charge of a cycle.)

Downtowns have significant pull factors as well.  For young people they are the best places to experiment with different social identities--can you imagine a hipster in the suburbs?  Also, they tend to serve as clusters for cultural facilities such as art museums and public libraries.  Even in Wichita, which has struggled for more than 20 years to create a livable downtown, the public library, the art museum, a quite good branch of the local YMCA, and an arts-and-restaurants district are all within easy cycling distance of each other and of several high-rise apartment buildings and condo developments.  As I see it, the main disadvantage of downtown living in the US (though not in western Europe) is that they tend to be food deserts.  In Wichita you have to go to the suburbs to find a store that sells fresh vegetables.

Quote from: Laura on October 26, 2014, 10:04:50 AM

QuotePart of the trend is also driven by external forces, like the fact that some states are making it more difficult to get a drivers license, so the number of high school seniors with a license keeps dropping. Universities are making it more difficult to keep cars on campus, and adding new programs, like bike sharing, that students might give students new habits they want to keep after graduating.

Yep. In Maryland, you can't get a license now until you are 16 and a half and can't have non-family passengers for the first 151 days (5 months). At my alma mater (Lynchburg College), you can't have a car as a resident freshman unless you have extenuating circumstances (like a job off campus or something), and even then you still have to pay $500 for a freshman permit. I was able to get my license in 2003 at age 16 and one month and have a car on campus in 2005 for a $50 permit fee.

When I was a senior in college (2006), there was practically a riot at my college when they raised the parking permit fee from $25 to $35. Now, the university I'm doing my Ph.D. at has a parking permit fee of $200 and it's cheap relative to other universities. So I walk to campus instead of driving.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 26, 2014, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: SSOWorld on October 25, 2014, 09:22:06 PMFTFY - LA and SF (for SF outside the city itself) depend on cars to get around due to the sheer size of the areas.  LA's transit system is not as extensive as SF's or NY's

This is true.  However, the Metro in Los Angeles is a good bit more extensive than it was when I first visited in 1998, and is very heavily used, while Metrolink offers reasonably good regional connectivity.  Both systems have good timekeeping because they are rail-based.  This is an important advantage over the freeways, which now offer very poor travel time reliability since their capacity has lagged regional population growth for at least 50 years now.  In Los Angeles at least, there is also good connectivity with a dense bus route network.  When I visited LA for a couple of days last month, I was struck by the heavy load factors on the Blue Line running between South LA (I-105 corridor) and downtown.

Even in much less densely populated towns elsewhere on the same 6750-mile roadtrip, I saw many more people walking and riding bicycles than was the case when I took a 10,000-mile roadtrip back in 2003 that traversed many of the same states.  It seemed to me like many have absorbed all the "America is an obese country" messaging of the past five years or so and decided  purposefully to do something about it.

Yea I can imagine about that.  When I first visted LA - briefly - in 1997, I had not heard of the Metro Rail.  In fact, I was a little scare of the city as it was. (only the Red, Blue and Green lines existed then - as you pointed out briefly).  When I went back there last year (2013), I took advantage of it, MetroLink and Amtrak to get around a bit (I was out there for half the year) when I went sightseeing.  I had parked either at the Soledad Canyon station in the SCV near where I "lived", or at the North Hollywood station park-and-ride.  I had taken both the Red and Blue line end-to-end.  Sure beats attempting to find parking spots in the tourist areas like Hollywood or Long Beach (the two points I went to).  However, the only way I could have commuted to the job by transit was Metrolink and via buses - which would have taken way longer compared to just getting on the 5 and driving down (Route: Magic Mtn. Pkwy in Santa Clarita to Balboa Blvd in Sylmar - 20 min drive in free-flow traffic) SF's BART and the commuter rails/transits on the east coast are WAY more extensive and offer more routes - giving commuters a chance to use them more often.  I've used NJTransit from MetroPark to NY Penn, the former station's large parking areas get full, FAST!!!!

Quote from: algorerhythms on October 26, 2014, 01:24:46 PM

Quote from: Laura on October 26, 2014, 10:04:50 AM

QuotePart of the trend is also driven by external forces, like the fact that some states are making it more difficult to get a drivers license, so the number of high school seniors with a license keeps dropping. Universities are making it more difficult to keep cars on campus, and adding new programs, like bike sharing, that students might give students new habits they want to keep after graduating.

Yep. In Maryland, you can't get a license now until you are 16 and a half and can't have non-family passengers for the first 151 days (5 months). At my alma mater (Lynchburg College), you can't have a car as a resident freshman unless you have extenuating circumstances (like a job off campus or something), and even then you still have to pay $500 for a freshman permit. I was able to get my license in 2003 at age 16 and one month and have a car on campus in 2005 for a $50 permit fee.

When I was a senior in college (2006), there was practically a riot at my college when they raised the parking permit fee from $25 to $35. Now, the university I'm doing my Ph.D. at has a parking permit fee of $200 and it's cheap relative to other universities. So I walk to campus instead of driving.

At the college my sister attends (Georgia Tech) I've heard that it's cheaper to pay parking tickets than it is to pay the $500 parking fee.

It's similar here as long as you get caught fewer than 10 times per semester. The parking permit is $200 and a parking ticket is $20.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on October 26, 2014, 10:24:35 AM

Yep, that's it, haha. And honestly, I actually don't know how addicted these teens are to their phones (when I'm at my friends', we just play video games and play outside).

WOW!! Teens that still play outside??  :wow: My son only goes outside to go to school & walk his flea-bitten dog.  His main focus is his x-box, his x-box & his x-box.  He wants a job to make his own money, but I don't know if he fully understands the responsibility that goes with all of that....despite my trying to explain it to him.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on October 26, 2014, 10:24:35 AM

But if they're honestly addicted to the point where they sped every available moment on it? Do they have lives? Do they have hobbies? And if they get caught in this habit, theyre going to be much too lazy when they get a job!

You are wise beyond your years.   :nod:

I think it's interesting that these articles only survey Millenials in NYC or Silicon Valley.  I was also surprised by the article posted upthread that most Americans don't drink.  When I was in college, you were a social outcast if you weren't nursing a hangover a least a few times per semester.  Maybe it's generational.  Oddly enough, Clarkson didn't charge for parking permits while I was there, and as far as I know, they still don't (I honestly don't see how they can still do that while simultaneously increasing enrollment and reducing the number of parking spaces).

In NY, you can't get any kind of licence until 16 1/2.  From 16 1/2 to 17, the only licence you can have is a "limited junior license" that allows driving to work and school ONLY.  From 17 to 18, you can get a "junior licence" that allows driving only during the day unless driving to/from work or with a parent in the car and has a limitation on the number of non-family passengers, though you can get a full licence if you've taken driver's end from a public school (doesn't work with getting driver's ed from a driving school; the state considers such courses to be worthless even though they're probably better than most of the public schools).  NYC is even more restrictive, with it being illegal to even learn outside of driver's ed (de facto - the language is technically that they need to be in a car with passenger side brakes; it's also illegal to drive on the expressways until age 18).  It is also illegal to drive in a DMV roadtest area with a learner's permit across the entire state, so if you happen to live in one, you're just screwed.

I think it's funny that with all this hype about how teens are such unsafe drivers and making it much harder to get a full license that the written and road tests are still trivially easy.  Seriously, you'd have to TRY to fail those things.  I suck at parallel parking and still got a perfect score on both.

Quote from: Thing 342 on October 26, 2014, 02:21:50 PM

Quote from: algorerhythms on October 26, 2014, 01:24:46 PM

Quote from: Laura on October 26, 2014, 10:04:50 AM

QuotePart of the trend is also driven by external forces, like the fact that some states are making it more difficult to get a drivers license, so the number of high school seniors with a license keeps dropping. Universities are making it more difficult to keep cars on campus, and adding new programs, like bike sharing, that students might give students new habits they want to keep after graduating.

Yep. In Maryland, you can't get a license now until you are 16 and a half and can't have non-family passengers for the first 151 days (5 months). At my alma mater (Lynchburg College), you can't have a car as a resident freshman unless you have extenuating circumstances (like a job off campus or something), and even then you still have to pay $500 for a freshman permit. I was able to get my license in 2003 at age 16 and one month and have a car on campus in 2005 for a $50 permit fee.

When I was a senior in college (2006), there was practically a riot at my college when they raised the parking permit fee from $25 to $35. Now, the university I'm doing my Ph.D. at has a parking permit fee of $200 and it's cheap relative to other universities. So I walk to campus instead of driving.

At the college my sister attends (Georgia Tech) I've heard that it's cheaper to pay parking tickets than it is to pay the $500 parking fee.

Yep. I should have emphasized that the Lynchburg College $500 fee is only for freshman in an attempt to encourage biking and ridesharing. The upperclassmen fee is still $50. They now have a deal where you can get free bus passes and the like, and there's a bike shop on campus where you can volunteer to work on bikes and earn your own.

http://www.lynchburg.edu/content/bike-shack

From what I've heard, the program is working really well. (I think the free transit passes also help!)

As a point of reference, at my current university (Morgan State) parking permits for residents are $125 per semester. It's free for commuters.

Quote from: algorerhythms on October 26, 2014, 01:24:46 PM

Quote from: Laura on October 26, 2014, 10:04:50 AM

QuotePart of the trend is also driven by external forces, like the fact that some states are making it more difficult to get a drivers license, so the number of high school seniors with a license keeps dropping. Universities are making it more difficult to keep cars on campus, and adding new programs, like bike sharing, that students might give students new habits they want to keep after graduating.

Yep. In Maryland, you can't get a license now until you are 16 and a half and can't have non-family passengers for the first 151 days (5 months). At my alma mater (Lynchburg College), you can't have a car as a resident freshman unless you have extenuating circumstances (like a job off campus or something), and even then you still have to pay $500 for a freshman permit. I was able to get my license in 2003 at age 16 and one month and have a car on campus in 2005 for a $50 permit fee.

When I was a senior in college (2006), there was practically a riot at my college when they raised the parking permit fee from $25 to $35. Now, the university I'm doing my Ph.D. at has a parking permit fee of $200 and it's cheap relative to other universities. So I walk to campus instead of driving.

When I was a college freshman in '96, my college said freshmen must park at the football stadium about a 20 or 25 minute walk from the dorms. No problem until it rains. So I found a friend who had a slightly off campus apartment and parked there. The other people on my floor were quite pissed I thought of that and they didn't.

Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2014, 03:49:09 PM
I was also surprised by the article posted upthread that most Americans don't drink.  When I was in college, you were a social outcast if you weren't nursing a hangover a least a few times per semester.  Maybe it's generational.

I don't think it's generational so much as it's just an age thing. My parents drank a lot back when they were in college but today they typically only have a few drinks per week. That drunken party culture is college culture and has been so for quite some time. But it has also been true for quite some time that people later grow out of it, usually as they start settling down in life. Most hangover nursers are young and single.

Which, then, feeds into the previous point about how cities are amazing places for people who are young and single, but are not really great places to raise a family. Hence why a lot of people move (back) to the suburbs after they get married.

Still, even within the suburbs, lifestyles can change. It used to be that around where I grew up the only people you saw out on bikes were athletic types who were serious about riding for exercise. It is now not unheard of for someone to use a bike merely as a means of getting around. This was always possible, but it wasn't done because people just used their cars.

Something very important that I think has changed is that crime rates in the US have gone down a lot compared to in the 70s and 80s. The height of the suburban boom happened because people were fleeing crime-ridden cities, and being in a car was seen as offering more protection from shady activity than biking or walking. So the planning of that era revolved around leaving your garage at home in a shielded bubble known as an automobile and then not exiting said shielded bubble until you have reached your destination. Now that crime has gone down, people are more comfortable traveling without a metal shell surrounding them.

Quote from: Duke87 on October 27, 2014, 01:51:07 AM
I don't think it's generational so much as it's just an age thing.

I have to agree with that.  I never owned a car until I was 22, which was mostly because I could always either get a ride from one of my parents, who I still lived with then, or else they let me borrow their car, or heaven forbid, my dad's truck, or else I lived close enough to work that I could ride my bike.  During my college days, they had a bus system in town I used, so I'd use that, or else ride my bike, or I'd even walk once in a while.  Of course, getting a car changed everything.

A new article was just posted on the Baltimore Sun about how millennials are moving in large numbers back to Baltimore: http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-millennials-20141025-story.html#page=1

Quote"A new analysis of census data has quantified the explosive growth. It found that the number of college-educated people ages 25 to 34 living within three miles of Baltimore's central business district increased 92 percent from 2000 to 2010. Their numbers grew from about 13,000 to 25,000, according to the study released last week.

The increase was the fourth-highest among the 51 metro areas in the study, which included Boston, Memphis and New York. And it occurred despite an overall decline in population in those Baltimore neighborhoods during the period."

Quote"We lived in Bethesda, so we did a long trek downtown to D.C. ... The environment wasn't – I don't want to say not as friendly – but it just seemed to be more lighthearted and less serious in Baltimore," she said. "There's always something going on, and everything we could possibly want is within walking distance.""

Quote"Young people helped move public transportation – including the Red Line, which would snake through neighborhoods such as Canton – to the fore of public debate. And they're pushing the city to be more bike- and pedestrian-friendly, said Cole of the BDC, a former city councilman who represented South Baltimore and other neighborhoods."

Quote"Irvine and her fiance, who works at Legg Mason, bought a home in Federal Hill in May, choosing a location from which they could walk or bike to work.

"We absolutely bought a house that is more space than the two of us need right now," she said. "We're pretty open-minded to staying here long-term. I have friends who have little kids in the city. The more of those types of people that are around, the more we want to do it.""

Quote from: vdeane on October 26, 2014, 03:49:09 PM
.... I suck at parallel parking and still got a perfect score on both.

Heh. Not all states include parallel parking on the road test. Virginia doesn't, for example. I strongly suspect many southern states don't as evidenced by (a) the frequency of on-street diagonal parking in many southern cities and towns and (b) the prevalence of designated "spaces" for parallel parking where they stripe actual spaces instead of just allowing you to park if your car fits.

---

Quote from: gilpdawg on October 26, 2014, 10:16:36 PM
When I was a college freshman in '96, my college said freshmen must park at the football stadium about a 20 or 25 minute walk from the dorms. No problem until it rains. So I found a friend who had a slightly off campus apartment and parked there. The other people on my floor were quite pissed I thought of that and they didn't.

We weren't allowed to have cars first semester of first year. That meant if we brought cars for second semester, we got the least desirable parking passes up near the basketball arena, a 20-minute walk (probably similar on the bus). I used to try to parallel park on the street near the church close to my dorm but didn't always succeed. Second through fourth years was a crapshoot depending on where you lived. The building where I lived second and third years guaranteed one parking pass per apartment (worked well for me, I was the only one of the four of us with a car) and then had a lottery for the remaining passes. Where I lived fourth year, they just sold as many passes as people wanted, which meant they oversold the lot, but at least the basketball arena was right across the street so overflow parking was easy.

The risk in Charlottesville of parking your car somewhere not on-Grounds for any length of time was the county/city decal issue. Back then every jurisdiction in Virginia required those things. If the city or county cops saw your car parked on city or county land for too many days without a local decal, you would get a ticket and the hassle of that would wind up outweighing the advantage of not getting the University parking permit.

Regarding bringing cars during your first year, my brother went to William & Mary and I thought their system made sense. First-years were not allowed to bring cars EXCEPT for the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas (to aid in getting home for Christmas break, when many people would take home extra stuff) and during final exams in the spring (for the same reason). Of course they got stuck in crappy parking, but I thought it made a lot of sense to allow cars at the end of the semester like that, especially since it's a public university with a high percentage of in-staters.

---

I never got a parking ticket in college, but I was an expert on the economics of parking violations. UVA gave you one free "warning" ticket within a 12-month period unless your violation was a fire lane or handicapped space. So I quickly realized it was cheaper to park on the grass or the sidewalk ($10 fine, eligible for "warning" ticket) than it was to park in a fire lane ($50 fine, no warning). If I had to nip into one of the buildings in a hurry, I sometimes drove up the little handicap-access curb cut, parked on the sidewalk, and ran inside to do whatever. Somehow I never got a ticket. I believe in the 20 years since then they have raised a lot of the fines in part because they got wise to people doing that sort of thing. Of course, they've also built more parking options in the meantime too.

I do not know about any of this, but here in Orlando we have too many young drivers that are millennials!   There is even a group that congregates at Wal Mart on Sand Lake Road on Saturday evenings that love to cruise around town with about 50 or so millennials after their meet.

Now I do not know if they meet up at Wal Mart anymore, but they were on Orange Avenue a few weeks ago blocking traffic.  Yes, all parked in six lanes of both NB and SB Orange Avenue near Meadow Woods, FL where no one could get through.  They're must of been more than 50 cars and all young Hispanic millennials just gathered for whatever reason they chose.  Anyway the group's nature and what they are doing is another story, but the fact is that many young adults of today drive around Orlando. 

I am guessing it depends on where you are in the country as different regions have different traditions.  Though I find this topic to be interesting that some are waiting before they drive.

Quote from: About the AuthorAdele Peters is a writer who focuses on sustainability and design and lives in Oakland, California. She's worked with GOOD, BioLite, and the Sustainable Products and Solutions program at UC Berkeley.

The above-author bio/description tells me right there how limited perspective (read slanted) the article findings probably are.

Yes, there are some that have held off buying a car of their own; but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not driving at all.  Many cities, Philadelphia being one of them, have car-share companies (examples: ZipCar and Enterprise Car-Share) that basically rent vehicles by the hour as opposed to by the day.  These vehicles are parked at pods located throughout the city.  One need not head to a rental office to reserve nor pick up a vehicle.  One can do so on-line or via phone, provided they have an account (account users are given a special fob that unlocks the vehicle).

Their marketing usually contains buzz words/phrases such as "the convenience of having a car without the costs of ownership".  I'd be curious to know how many of these urban millennials that don't own cars either rent them or have similar fore-mentioned car-share accounts?  Such would be an interesting supplement/rebuttal to the posted article.

Quote from: SSOWorld on October 25, 2014, 09:22:06 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on October 25, 2014, 08:31:44 PM
Quite frankly, I don't buy it. It may work in high-urbanized areas like San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York City, but not in Sacramento.

FTFY - LA and SF (for SF outside the city itself) depend on cars to get around due to the sheer size of the areas.  LA's transit system is not as extensive as SF's or NY's

From my perspective, Los Angeles has a more extensive transit system compared to Sacramento. And, from the author's perspective, you should be living in the more urban (more expensive) area than the cheaper 'burbs.

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2014, 11:15:17 AM
Yes, there are some that have held off buying a car of their own; but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not driving at all.  Many cities, Philadelphia being one of them, have car-share companies (examples: ZipCar and Enterprise Car-Share) that basically rent vehicles by the hour as opposed to by the day.  These vehicles are parked at pods located throughout the city.  One need not head to a rental office to reserve nor pick up a vehicle.  One can do so on-line or via phone, provided they have an account (account users are given a special fob that unlocks the vehicle).

Their marketing usually contains buzz words/phrases such as "the convenience of having a car without the costs of ownership".  I'd be curious to know how many of these urban millennials that don't own cars either rent them or have similar fore-mentioned car-share accounts?  Such would be an interesting supplement/rebuttal to the posted article.

Plenty, but the point stands that someone with a ZipCar account is probably not driving nearly as many miles as someone who owns their own car. Because on account of where they live and work they don't need to.

The real statistic to look at is how many people are commuting via car. That number is shrinking. Not even so much because of increased transit usage but simply because 1) more people are working from home, and 2) baby boomers are retiring.

Quote from: Duke87 on October 27, 2014, 11:53:37 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2014, 11:15:17 AMI'd be curious to know how many of these urban millennials that don't own cars either rent them or have similar fore-mentioned car-share accounts?  Such would be an interesting supplement/rebuttal to the posted article.

Plenty, but the point stands that someone with a ZipCar account is probably not driving nearly as many miles as someone who owns their own car. Because on account of where they live and work they don't need to.

So.  I also know people, myself being one of them (I take the SEPTA Regional Rail to/from work to save on parking), that own cars but don't use them for commuting.  They're also accumulate less miles than those that use their cars for commuting and/or work.  Typically, they change/buy cars less frequently as well.  One friend of mine who drives less than 5000 miles/year, because he lives not too far from where he works (suburb-to-suburb commuter BTW), traded in his '95 Saturn that he owned since new for a 2014 Honda Civic.

Quote from: Duke87 on October 27, 2014, 11:53:37 PMThe real statistic to look at is how many people are commuting via car. That number is shrinking. Not even so much because of increased transit usage but simply because 1) more people are working from home, and 2) baby boomers are retiring.

IMHO, your second point could put automakers in this country in a bit of a quagmire in terms of lost customers down the road; the highest percentage of drivers either driving less or literally dying off.

QuoteIMHO, your second point could put automakers in this country in a bit of a quagmire in terms of lost customers down the road; the highest percentage of drivers either driving less or literally dying off.

They will either adapt, or they will wither away with the rest of the baby boomers.  Though it was slightly different circumstances, 2008 should have been a wake-up call to all of them.

Quote from: Duke87 on October 27, 2014, 11:53:37 PMThe real statistic to look at is how many people are commuting via car. That number is shrinking. Not even so much because of increased transit usage but simply because 1) more people are working from home, and 2) baby boomers are retiring.

I want to know where that stat is coming from, because I travel 40 miles mostly by highway for my commute, and traffic has been getting very noticeably heavier over the past few years.  When I started this commute 16 years ago, I could set the cruise control on some sections of highway. Those same sections are now congested with traffic. 

Maybe the *percentage* of people that aren't commuting via car is decreasing, but the actual *number* of people commuting is definitely increasing.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2014, 03:02:33 PMI want to know where that stat is coming from, because I travel 40 miles mostly by highway for my commute, and traffic has been getting very noticeably heavier over the past few years.  When I started this commute 16 years ago, I could set the cruise control on some sections of highway. Those same sections are now congested with traffic. 

Maybe the *percentage* of people that aren't commuting via car is decreasing, but the actual *number* of people commuting is definitely increasing.

Has there been any additional suburban development leeward of your commute route?  That could be where the additional cars are coming from--this is how you get congestion without any increase in either the percentage or absolute numbers of people commuting.

So yesterday the lunch keynote speaker at the DE/MD APA conference pretty much based his talk on this very topic.

He hit a lot of points in this thread (moving back to cities, smartphones, etc.) but something else that he mentioned that we haven't yet is the media.

Movies and TV shows help create new trends in city and suburban living. In "I Love Lucy" in January 1957, Lucy and her family move to the suburbs. The next week, Fred and Ethel visit, and then the next week they buy a house near Lucy.

However, starting in the 1990's with Seinfeld, TV show plots started happening in the city. Young adults who are unmarried were living together and having a good time.

Anusingly, he pointed to Back to the Future's vibrant 2015 to show that people were moving back to the city center.


iPhone

Funny, I think of Hill Valley in Back to the Future as being a suburban town rather than a city ("alternate 1985" excepted, I suppose)–to use a local example, a place like Upper Marlboro or Manassas.

Quote from: Laura on October 29, 2014, 05:51:59 AMAnusingly, he pointed to Back to the Future's vibrant 2015 to show that people were moving back to the city center

Anusingly?  That's a new one for me.    :sombrero:

Obviously a typo. for amusingly I presume.

QuoteFunny, I think of Hill Valley in Back to the Future as being a suburban town rather than a city ("alternate 1985" excepted, I suppose)–to use a local example, a place like Upper Marlboro or Manassas.

Manassas would fit the bill, but I think Leesburg fits it better....an old, rural town swallowed up by suburban development.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 28, 2014, 03:51:03 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2014, 03:02:33 PMI want to know where that stat is coming from, because I travel 40 miles mostly by highway for my commute, and traffic has been getting very noticeably heavier over the past few years.  When I started this commute 16 years ago, I could set the cruise control on some sections of highway. Those same sections are now congested with traffic. 

Maybe the *percentage* of people that aren't commuting via car is decreasing, but the actual *number* of people commuting is definitely increasing.

Has there been any additional suburban development leeward of your commute route?  That could be where the additional cars are coming from--this is how you get congestion without any increase in either the percentage or absolute numbers of people commuting.

Like most suburban locations, there has been residential growth.  But nothing substantial over the past few years, when we're being told that car usage is nearly stagnant or going down.

It could even be something like a new, large employer opened in the area.  Several hundred employees could be using the road, and that would bring a sudden jump to the volume of traffic. Amazon did open a new warehouse in Robbinsville off of 195 which added over 1,000 full time jobs (according to a newspaper story).  So it's entirely possible several hundred of those people live along 295, and if they're standard working hours, it could make a dramatic, sudden difference on the roads.

And no doubt the issue isn't just related to this area; but is probably country-wide.  Car usage may be going down overall, but rush hour usage could be rising.

Quote from: froggie on October 29, 2014, 10:15:35 AM

QuoteFunny, I think of Hill Valley in Back to the Future as being a suburban town rather than a city ("alternate 1985" excepted, I suppose)–to use a local example, a place like Upper Marlboro or Manassas.

Manassas would fit the bill, but I think Leesburg fits it better....an old, rural town swallowed up by suburban development.

Heh. If you've been around here long enough, you remember Manassas being way out in the sticks in the not-so-distant past! (Heck, the AAA map of Northern Virginia in the late 1970s did not include Burke Lake Park because it was too far out in a rural area to merit inclusion!) :-D

Quote from: Laura on October 29, 2014, 05:51:59 AM
So yesterday the lunch keynote speaker at the DE/MD APA conference pretty much based his talk on this very topic.

He hit a lot of points in this thread (moving back to cities, smartphones, etc.) but something else that he mentioned that we haven't yet is the media.

Movies and TV shows help create new trends in city and suburban living. In "I Love Lucy" in January 1957, Lucy and her family move to the suburbs. The next week, Fred and Ethel visit, and then the next week they buy a house near Lucy.

However, starting in the 1990's with Seinfeld, TV show plots started happening in the city. Young adults who are unmarried were living together and having a good time.

Anusingly, he pointed to Back to the Future's vibrant 2015 to show that people were moving back to the city center.


iPhone

Interesting.  I grew up watching Home Improvement and Sabrina the Teenage Witch, both of which are suburban (well, at least Sabrina was in the first few seasons while she was still in high school).  Additionally, the neighborhood I grew up in was part of a first ring suburb that had many characteristics that are unusual for suburban development (like a "downtown" area within a mile of where I lived).  While my neighborhood was built in the 50s, many of the surrounding ones date to the 40s or earlier.  In many neighborhoods in Rochester, one can clearly see which development pre-dates the 50s and which is newer simply by looking at where the sidewalk randomly dead ends.  The area where I live now, on the other hand, while not modern, is significantly newer (I'd guess late 60s or 70s) and it's significantly less dense and less walkable than what I had growing up.  Instead of being within a mile of what acts like a village square, it's 2.5 miles just to get to the corner gas station, and strip malls beyond that.  This probably skews may views of cities vs. suburbs since I'm used to this urban/suburban hybrid thing.

Quote from: Laura on October 29, 2014, 05:51:59 AM
Anusingly, he pointed to Back to the Future's vibrant 2015 to show that people were moving back to the city center.

I'm not really sure I agree that BttF is a good example of that... The characters are depicted visiting the city center, but they actually live in Hilldale, which is apparently at least an hour's drive (by skyway in bad traffic) from the city center, which sounds more like suburban living than urban living.

(why yes, I have seen the Back to the Future movies far too many times; why do you ask?)

I really think it's mostly due to money issues.

I'm wondering if there are more young people whom are not able to get cars due to their parents not providing them.

In the past, most people got married and then had children. Children were a lot more likely back them to grow up in a proper two-parent household, in which the father did a good job of providing financially for the family.

Nowadays, way more children are born out of wedlock. People just screw wildly without protection, without thinking of the consequences of bringing a child into this world without first doing what needs to be done to make sure they have the proper financial resources to care for the children.

I think, because of this rising irresponsibility, parents are not providing cars to their children as much as they used to.

Our society has gone downhill.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2014, 10:15:53 AMLike most suburban locations, there has been residential growth.  But nothing substantial over the past few years, when we're being told that car usage is nearly stagnant or going down.

Even a little steady residential growth can have a rather large effect on traffic volumes and level of service.  My "home" three-digit Interstate--I-235 in Wichita--was built around 1960, when the city had 254,000 people, and was forecast to carry 6635 VPD along its southern flank in 1975, when the city population was about 279,000.  Now city population is about 380,000 (only 50% higher than 1960), but the same part of I-235 carries 35,700 VPD and is teetering at the point where cruise control is unusable during the peak commuting period.

QuoteIt could even be something like a new, large employer opened in the area.  Several hundred employees could be using the road, and that would bring a sudden jump to the volume of traffic. Amazon did open a new warehouse in Robbinsville off of 195 which added over 1,000 full time jobs (according to a newspaper story).  So it's entirely possible several hundred of those people live along 295, and if they're standard working hours, it could make a dramatic, sudden difference on the roads.

And no doubt the issue isn't just related to this area; but is probably country-wide.  Car usage may be going down overall, but rush hour usage could be rising.

These are all possible factors.  The nationwide decline in car usage has actually been quite modest on a per capita VMT basis, and it may also be that because housing has gotten much less affordable, due to tight supply in many areas exacerbated by tight credit post-2008, VMT drops due to baby boomers retiring, millennials not starting to drive, etc. are being largely offset by an expansion in hypercommuting.

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2014, 08:31:11 AM

Quote from: Laura on October 29, 2014, 05:51:59 AMAnusingly, he pointed to Back to the Future's vibrant 2015 to show that people were moving back to the city center

Anusingly?  That's a new one for me.    :sombrero:

Obviously a typo. for amusingly I presume.

Quote from: Forum Guidelines
When replying to other posters, messages should focus on the content of the post being replied to, and not its presentation (spelling, grammar, usage, etc.)

If you can tell what someone meant to say, just let it go.

Quote from: Brian556 on October 29, 2014, 01:50:55 PM
I really think it's mostly due to money issues.

I'm wondering if there are more young people whom are not able to get cars due to their parents not providing them.

In the past, most people got married and then had children. Children were a lot more likely back them to grow up in a proper two-parent household, in which the father did a good job of providing financially for the family.

Nowadays, way more children are born out of wedlock. People just screw wildly without protection, without thinking of the consequences of bringing a child into this world without first doing what needs to be done to make sure they have the proper financial resources to care for the children.

I think, because of this rising irresponsibility, parents are not providing cars to their children as much as they used to.

Our society has gone downhill.

Finances are an issue regardless of family size.  It takes two incomes to do now what one income could do in the 70s.  In a two parent family, it's likely that both parents work and have to pay for daycare.  College costs are also a big faster as they have risen by an ASTRONOMICAL amount.  It used to be possible to pay for college with no financial aid by flipping burgers in the summer.  Now, you can't even pay for textbooks doing that.  Now, you could buy a brand new Tesla for the cost of one year of college (and I'm NOT exaggerating; the 2015-2016 cost for year at Clarkson University is about $57,000, which is the base price of a Tesla Model S BEFORE the tax credit).

Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2014, 01:26:31 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on October 29, 2014, 01:50:55 PM
I really think it's mostly due to money issues.

I'm wondering if there are more young people whom are not able to get cars due to their parents not providing them.

In the past, most people got married and then had children. Children were a lot more likely back them to grow up in a proper two-parent household, in which the father did a good job of providing financially for the family.

Nowadays, way more children are born out of wedlock. People just screw wildly without protection, without thinking of the consequences of bringing a child into this world without first doing what needs to be done to make sure they have the proper financial resources to care for the children.

I think, because of this rising irresponsibility, parents are not providing cars to their children as much as they used to.

Our society has gone downhill.

Finances are an issue regardless of family size.  It takes two incomes to do now what one income could do in the 70s.  In a two parent family, it's likely that both parents work and have to pay for daycare.  College costs are also a big faster as they have risen by an ASTRONOMICAL amount.  It used to be possible to pay for college with no financial aid by flipping burgers in the summer.  Now, you can't even pay for textbooks doing that.  Now, you could buy a brand new Tesla for the cost of one year of college (and I'm NOT exaggerating; the 2015-2016 cost for year at Clarkson University is about $57,000, which is the base price of a Tesla Model S BEFORE the tax credit).

AMEN vdeane!   :nod:

Back when Ward and June were raising Wally and Theodore (the Cleavers from "Leave it to Beaver" for you youngens who were deprived of watching fine quality TV programming  :sombrero:), one income could easily support a household, allowing the wife (in 99% of the households) to stay home and tend to the house and children. Inflation and value of the dollar (gold standard vs market trading value especially) really put a hurt on "the traditional family".

I had to buy my 1st car because my mom couldn't afford to buy it.  I had to pay my own insurance, my bills, yadda yadda yadda because she couldn't.  My child has a parent who is more well off than my mom...but I'm not gonna buy his car for him.  I want him to know what it's like to make big purchases on his own and hopefully he will feel as much pride in his ride as I do now.  I will help here and there, but I want him to know what it means to be fiscally responsible.

I think that Brian's point was that one-parent families aren't able to afford cars for their kids, not that there's too many kids for parents to buy cars for.

So saying that one income doesn't stretch as far as it used to is backing him up.

It's also not totally true - pretty much everything but housing and saving (ie putting money in the bank) is cheaper in real terms now than in the 70s. We just 'need' more stuff to live, like smartphones and computers.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 29, 2014, 03:46:32 PM
If you can tell what someone meant to say, just let it go.

Heh heh. Did someone say man asses?

Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2014, 01:26:31 PM
Finances are an issue regardless of family size.  It takes two incomes to do now what one income could do in the 70s.  In a two parent family, it's likely that both parents work and have to pay for daycare.  College costs are also a big faster as they have risen by an ASTRONOMICAL amount.  It used to be possible to pay for college with no financial aid by flipping burgers in the summer.  Now, you can't even pay for textbooks doing that.  Now, you could buy a brand new Tesla for the cost of one year of college (and I'm NOT exaggerating; the 2015-2016 cost for year at Clarkson University is about $57,000, which is the base price of a Tesla Model S BEFORE the tax credit).

When I was in law school (Duke University) in the 1990s, the annual cost was around $35,000 per year. It seemed steep enough then, but I was shocked to see recently the annual estimated cost has risen to about $77,000. As I said, that's per year! For the current academic year, tuition alone is $54,460! (Recognizing parents are typically not involved in paying for postgraduate education, that's even more of a colossal sum of money.) I have no idea what the undergraduate cost is, but damn! Duke, interestingly, has more graduate and professional students than undergraduates. I wonder how common that is at private universities.

The spike in higher education costs in the past 20 years is astonishing. My father told me my undergraduate tuition (just tuition, not including textbooks or housing or the rest) at the University of Virginia as an in-state resident was around $5000 a year. It'd now be around $12,600 or so, which is still a massive bargain by today's standards and helps explain why admissions there are so competitive. If I were applying today with the same grades I had 25 years ago, I'd never get accepted.

Quote from: cjk374 on October 30, 2014, 11:06:36 PMBack when Ward and June were raising Wally and Theodore (the Cleavers from "Leave it to Beaver" for you youngens who were deprived of watching fine quality TV programming  :sombrero:), one income could easily support a household, allowing the wife (in 99% of the households) to stay home and tend to the house and children. Inflation and value of the dollar (gold standard vs market trading value especially) really put a hurt on "the traditional family".

Actually, the Leave it to Beaver scenario was true only for the middle classes.  In the working classes, both parents had to work and quite often the wife might be the only one of the two to be gainfully employed, especially in the years following World War II when there was veterans' preference and men who had either not been drafted or had been inducted into the army but not sent overseas had difficulty finding jobs.

My paternal grandparents finished high school but had no college degrees.  My grandfather was drafted in 1944 but was at Fort Sam Houston, fixing typewriters, when the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  He was thereafter without regular employment until 1949.  My grandmother supported the family by working first as a saleslady at a department store and then as a customer-service representative and executive secretary at Southwestern Bell.  My grandfather eventually got in as a machinist at the Wichita Eagle (fixing newspaper presses) but worked second jobs for most of the following two and a half decades until he was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.

My grandparents were far from alone in doing this.  My parents have family friends close to their age who also remember their mothers being the breadwinners in the family because their fathers weren't in the war and couldn't find jobs right after 1945.

I'd also question the assumption that children won't respect their cars as the expensive investments they are if they are simply given them, as opposed to having to work for them, take out loans to buy them, etc.  There are certainly a few spoiled kids with rich parents who see cars as an entitlement and assume they can be repaired or replaced easily if they are wrecked or mistreated.  But there are also many kids who cherish their first car and see it as an opportunity to learn all about automotive engineering, and about the economics of trading off maintenance against repair costs, e.g. by using full-synthetic instead of dino juice but keeping the oil change interval the same until the inside of the engine virtually gleams.

I've read a lot of stories about $25 used cars in the old days.

Quote from: GCrites80s on October 31, 2014, 10:50:25 AM
I've read a lot of stories about $25 used cars in the old days.

My brother paid $65 for a drivable 10-year old Chevy back in 1977.

That's like spending a few hundred today, and it happens ("driveable," of course, not being a synonym for "inspectable" or "good idea.")

I bought my first car, a 1977 Ford Granada, for $325 in 1989 from a guy at my father's office. It was an OK car for a high school student, I suppose, although it was a piece of junk in most ways. I sold it to my brother for $400 two years later because by then it had an upgraded radio and a new paint job.

In 2004 I got a '93 Taurus for $250. It wasn't driveable, though, because the previous owner had run it without coolant and cracked the heads. I ended up trading my previous car (an '87 Blazer which had been damaged in an accident) for a engine for the Taurus. I still have the Taurus and it still (mostly) works, but I doubt it would pass an inspection...

Quote from: english si on October 31, 2014, 04:40:47 AM
It's also not totally true - pretty much everything but housing and saving (ie putting money in the bank) is cheaper in real terms now than in the 70s.

Education and health care are also much more expensive.  Note that the consumer price index doesn't include those little items.

What's cheaper is electronics and consumer goods made in poor countries.

Quote from: cjk374 on October 30, 2014, 11:06:36 PM
Inflation and value of the dollar (gold standard vs market trading value especially) really put a hurt on "the traditional family".

The price of gold is a very poor measure of prices generally.  Remember, gold was officially $35 an ounce from 1933 to 1974, and you couldn't buy it unless you were a jeweler or dentist.  Since then, the gold price at least reflects a free market, but it's more a measure of the financial markets anticipating a crisis than costs generally.  And the market is so small that a single country deciding to sell some of its gold reserves or a single mine opening or closing can have an oversize impact on the world price.

Putting the prices in terms of wages gives a clearer picture.  (And it's not pretty for the middle or lower classes.)

Quote from: english si on October 31, 2014, 04:40:47 AM
I think that Brian's point was that one-parent families aren't able to afford cars for their kids, not that there's too many kids for parents to buy cars for.

So saying that one income doesn't stretch as far as it used to is backing him up.

It's also not totally true - pretty much everything but housing and saving (ie putting money in the bank) is cheaper in real terms now than in the 70s. We just 'need' more stuff to live, like smartphones and computers.

I never said anything about "too many kids for parents to buy cars for".  Wages have been stagnant and prices have gone up on this side of the pond.  In addition to education costs, groceries have been increasing steadily, and gas is MUCH more expensive (I still remember when $2/gallon gas was unheard of and I'm not even 25 yet AND I live in a state with high gas prices), not to mention health care.  I also got the sense that Brian was blaming the existence of non-traditional families for parents not being able to buy cars for their kids, which my point disproves (not to mention that the nuclear family is still dominant, even if less common).

Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 31, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
That's like spending a few hundred today, and it happens ("driveable," of course, not being a synonym for "inspectable" or "good idea.")

My first car was a 1969 Ford LTD that I paid $300 for in 1982; and, yes, it did pass MA's state inspection (which was still twice a year back then).

And the original article was baloney, as I previously claimed.

Millennials embrace cars, defying predictions of sales implosion (http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-autos-millennials25-20150425-story.html)

Behind paywall, so here it is:

QuoteIn recent years, it has become widely accepted that millennials don't like cars.

According to conventional wisdom, the generation born from about 1980 to 2004 prefers public transportation or Uber. They get jazzed about the latest iPhone, not the new Ford Focus. Cue dire predictions for the auto industry.

Turns out the doomsayers may be wrong. Millennials – also known as Generation Y – accounted for 27 percent of new car sales in the U.S. last year, up from 18 percent in 2010, according to J.D. Power & Associates. They've zoomed past Gen X to become the second-largest group of new car buyers after their boomer parents. Millennials are starting to find jobs and relocating to the suburbs and smaller cities, where public transport is spotty.

Hayley Born is typical. After studying medicine in New York, she's moving to Cincinnati for her residency and bought a new Hyundai Elantra to get around. Born, 27, acknowledged she and her peers have been "delaying adulthood," but are hitting "life milestones" that often necessitate buying a car. She could have bought used but practicality won out.

"The convenience of having a five-year bumper-to-bumper warranty was not to be understated," Born said.

Millennial car buyers are emerging at a pivotal moment for the industry. Boomers' share of new auto purchases peaked in 2010 and will only go down from here, according to John Humphrey, senior vice president of automotive operations at J.D. Power.

Mark Reuss, who runs global product development at General Motors, never bought into the theory that Gen Yers disdain the automobile. "That's insane," he said earlier this month. Millennials haven't been buying cars because "they don't have jobs. Our internal research says that they've only been able to afford used cars, if anything at all."

Now that's changing. The employment rate for 25- to 34- year-olds held at 76.8 percent in March from the month before, the highest level since November 2008, according to Labor Department data. After lackluster growth throughout most of the recovery, wages are also starting to pick up for millennials.

Even though cars are getting more expensive, long-term, low-interest loans are making them affordable. When stage manager Niladri Sinha, 25, decided to replace the used Toyota Prius he totaled last year, he weighed buying, leasing or signing up for a car-sharing service. Ultimately, he decided to purchase a Subaru Crosstrek because he figured buying new would save him money in the long run. With a seven-year loan, his monthly payment is $250.

"When I tend to come across a chunk of money from freelance work I try to put that towards the car, on top of the monthly payments," said Sinha, who lives outside Boston.

In a happy coincidence, the industry is in the midst a technological revolution. The latest iteration of wired, smart cars plays well with a generation that grew up and live online. Newer cars are also more fuel-efficient and spew less pollution, a boon for environmentally conscious millennials.

"The idea of what kind of car people want is changing," Born said. "It's cool to have a Tesla, not cool to have an Escalade."

Entry-level compacts stuffed with technology are selling particularly well to this cohort. For about $19,000, a recent college grad can buy a standard Honda Civic, featuring Bluetooth capability and the Eco Assist System, which teaches drivers how to squeeze more miles out of each gallon of gas.

Of course, many millennials still can't afford to buy a new car. When Evan Hudson, 26, graduated from college in 2011, he took one look at the job landscape and headed back to school, saddling him with student loans he's now paying off.

So for the time being, Hudson, a 3-D modeler at a New York startup, will probably buy a used vehicle. Still, he enjoys customizing and tinkering with cars and is particularly keen on a revamped Ford Focus expected to debut in the near future.

"There's a bunch of cars coming out in the next two or three years that I really want," Hudson said. "Then I can get it new."

Like some of us were trying to tell folks, they need money and jobs first.

I can say this article is bullshit cause I'm a millennial, I might be broke, but I love driving  :biggrin:

Quote from: ET21 on April 27, 2015, 04:29:19 PM
I can say this article is bullshit cause I'm a millennial, I might be broke, but I love driving  :biggrin:

Which article: the OP's or the one that Brandon recently posted?

Of course, the latter article seems to focused on new car purchases.  Typically, used car purchases encompasses a much greater percentage of the overall vehicle purchasing pie; regardless of age demographic.

I've been saying this all along as well.  Ironically enough, recently I just met a millennial who doesn't like driving (at least outside of rural areas).  The only reason she even learned how to drive is because her parents forced her to (it was either learn to drive or drop all her extracurriculars).  She currently lives in the city, has no car, and takes the bus everywhere.

She also doesn't like suburbs, though she's fascinated with Malta because it has so many roundabouts.  She likes them because they force cars to slow down to the speed of her bike.

While she does acknowledge that cars can be useful in suburban/rural situations, arguments like "but I can go wherever I want whenever I want" and "I don't feel like hauling my groceries to/from the bus stop" don't work on her.  I didn't bother to try "my commute is longer than your commute and takes half the time".

Quote from: vdeane on April 27, 2015, 10:07:19 PM
She also hates suburbs, though she's fascinated with Malta because it has so many roundabouts.  She likes them because they force cars to slow down to the speed of her bike.

Malta, the island in the Mediterranean?

Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2015, 10:29:56 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 27, 2015, 10:07:19 PM
She also hates suburbs, though she's fascinated with Malta because it has so many roundabouts.  She likes them because they force cars to slow down to the speed of her bike.

Malta, the island in the Mediterranean?

The one not terribly far from Rome, Syracuse, Ithaca...?

Goddamn 19-century neoclassicists.

Malta the suburb of Albany that has 16 roundabouts and counting within the town limits.

Living in Albany without a car sounds like torture. Is public transit THAT reliable and extensive?

It seems to be decently reliable for her.  Of course, she's currently riding the CDTA busses for free, and will be until she finishes her masters degree (it's a benefit for SUNY Albany students).  It goes a decent amount of places, and has been expanding as of late, but it's also worth noting that she lives IN the city, doesn't travel deep into the suburbs, and isn't afraid to walk a couple miles to/from the bus stop on each end.

Hmmmm.... how much are the parking fees? I know that for California State University-Sacramento, the daily parking is $6 or a semester parking permit is $165. However, a public transit pass is included as part of the registration fees. For the first part of my college career, my workplace was close to the university, so I ended up parking at work and taking the bus to campus. But, when I switched jobs, that plan no longer worked out.

I take the bus to university everyday. One bus, no pain about worrying where to park or if my car's going to break down. 30 min from home, and I'm there. Bus passes also can count towards a tax break as well. At least for now, there is no incentive to get a car.

This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating.

It's called a bike. I'm depressed with social anxiety and I've tried various things all over the Orlando area using the combination of bike+bus.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

I have a car now, and I wouldn't choose to do without one.  But I chose to live without a car as a working adult for about 15 years.  Yes, being carless closes the door to exploring most rural areas pretty thoroughly.  But one can still explore interesting nooks and crannies within the city.  You get to know a city much better by bus and walking than you do driving -- in the car, you have to be watching the road more than interesting things alongside, and even if you do see something interesting there may not be a handy place to pull over for a better look.  I also rented cars for weekend trips a couple of times a year.

Man, if I were in DC I could spend a year's free time just visiting all the museums.  But that's just me.

Quote from: kkt on April 30, 2015, 01:33:45 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

I have a car now, and I wouldn't choose to do without one.  But I chose to live without a car as a working adult for about 15 years.  Yes, being carless closes the door to exploring most rural areas pretty thoroughly.  But one can still explore interesting nooks and crannies within the city.  You get to know a city much better by bus and walking than you do driving -- in the car, you have to be watching the road more than interesting things alongside, and even if you do see something interesting there may not be a handy place to pull over for a better look.  I also rented cars for weekend trips a couple of times a year.

Man, if I were in DC I could spend a year's free time just visiting all the museums.  But that's just me.

That is a fair point, but you'd be amazed at how quickly you can visit the museums and then go "what now?" There are certain parts of nearby Appalachia that I want to explore and some Civil War stuff in Virginia that I can't get to. Bikes only really get you as far as public transit will, especially in an area with extensive public transit. I'm not saying that I don't like exploring the city, I do and I often take at least an hour each day to walk somewhere new. I find that walking is an exceptional way to explore a city and get some exercise. I'm not complaining about being in DC, I'm just complaining about not having the freedom to leave and explore the non-metro surrounding area.

I would never drive my car IN the city, I'd still use public transit and love that I have the opportunity to do so. I just miss having a car and by extension the option to leave and explore new things. I just hate the idea of thinking "I want to visit here!" and then looking into the logistics of getting there and realizing that it's impossible.

Just my two cents, but I also have an extreme case of wanderlust.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

Wait, the people that are not traveling around in a glass booth, isolated from sound, weather, and direct personal interaction are the ones in a bubble?

It has been explained here often, but just as a refresher, in cities like Boston or New York, not only can you live life and cover lots of needs with walking, biking, and public transit, but you can also rent a car for an hour, an afternoon, a day, or longer without much hassle.  It's a pretty manageable lifestyle, and I know a lot of well-adjusted people that do it.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 30, 2015, 01:42:34 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

Wait, the people that are not traveling around in a glass booth, isolated from sound, weather, and direct personal interaction are the ones in a bubble?

It has been explained here often, but just as a refresher, in cities like Boston or New York, not only can you live life and cover lots of needs with walking, biking, and public transit, but you can also rent a car for an hour, an afternoon, a day, or longer without much hassle.  It's a pretty manageable lifestyle, and I know a lot of well-adjusted people that do it.

You can, yes. But I just hate not having the freedom to just leave for a few hours without having to go through the hassle of renting a car to do so. It's a lifestyle that I'm trying right now and that I find I don't particularly like.

I'm also not much of a city person so maybe I'm the opposite of much of my generation.

Are there zipcars or some equivalent there -- a service that has short-term rental cars available at many places in the city, where you can sign up for the service in advance and when the need comes rent them for an hour or two?  They got expensive if you wanted them all day, but they're handy for short-term things.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
There are certain parts of nearby Appalachia that I want to explore and some Civil War stuff in Virginia that I can't get to. Bikes only really get you as far as public transit will, especially in an area with extensive public transit.

Manassas at least is an easy 5-mile ride from the Fairfax Connector at Centreville. Beyond that, I guess you could find someone else in the area with a car who's into that stuff and go fantasize about upholding slavery together.

Quote from: NE2 on April 30, 2015, 01:56:58 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
There are certain parts of nearby Appalachia that I want to explore and some Civil War stuff in Virginia that I can't get to. Bikes only really get you as far as public transit will, especially in an area with extensive public transit.

Manassas at least is an easy 5-mile ride from the Fairfax Connector at Centreville. Beyond that, I guess you could find someone else in the area with a car who's into that stuff and go fantasize about upholding slavery together.

How do you know they won't be fantasizing about sawing off limbs without anaesthesia?

Quote from: NE2 on April 30, 2015, 01:56:58 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
There are certain parts of nearby Appalachia that I want to explore and some Civil War stuff in Virginia that I can't get to. Bikes only really get you as far as public transit will, especially in an area with extensive public transit.

Manassas at least is an easy 5-mile ride from the Fairfax Connector at Centreville. Beyond that, I guess you could find someone else in the area with a car who's into that stuff and go fantasize about upholding slavery together.

I'm on the Union side here, it just so happens that most of the war was fought in this area of the country. Same with the War of 1812 actually. Some of us appreciate history and want to see where it happened, warts and all. I'm a history buff, not a damn racist.

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 27, 2015, 05:06:07 PM

Quote from: ET21 on April 27, 2015, 04:29:19 PM
I can say this article is bullshit cause I'm a millennial, I might be broke, but I love driving  :biggrin:

Which article: the OP's or the one that Brandon recently posted?

Of course, the latter article seems to focused on new car purchases.  Typically, used car purchases encompasses a much greater percentage of the overall vehicle purchasing pie; regardless of age demographic.

Original OP

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

To be honest, I HATE driving. If I can get everything done with the bus, bike or walking, I'll do it. Taking pictures of signs though is troublesome, but because I'm not a roadgeek (wanting to clinch routes) it isn't that bad.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AMThis is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore. I'm restricted to as far as public transit can take me and that's infuriating. I've been to Tyson's Corner, Virginia more times than I care to admit just because the Metro goes there and it's about as far as I can get without using Amtrak or one of the intracity bus lines. I like exploring rural areas so neither option works particularly well for me anyway.

I'm a road geek though so maybe I derive more pleasure from driving than the average person.

I love to drive, but I did without a car for a decade, using a bicycle for most trips and either walking or taking transit for the rest.  With a bicycle, it is not too hard to get out of a reasonably compact city, so rural exploration was pretty easy.  It is not a lot of fun to own a car or attempt to use it in an area where parking is heavily rationed.

Some things are better at 80mph, others are better at 1mph.

The way I see it, it's just not practical to live in the city and have a car, especially if one can use public transportation to get from Point A to Point B. It's another thing to have a car if there are longer trips involved.

That's why I've decided that I'm not a city person. I like making long trips and having a car in a city is expensive and impractical.

Thanks to those who answered my questions though. Different strokes for different strokes.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 01, 2015, 01:37:03 PM
That's why I've decided that I'm not a city person. I like making long trips and having a car in a city is expensive and impractical.

Thanks to those who answered my questions though. Different strokes for different strokes.

There's a balance to be had if you want it.  It's not like "city person" necessarily equates with "carless."  I have both a driveway and good access to public transit.  Probably the biggest added cost for me is city insurance prices and parking tickets, both of which can be kept to a minimum if you're careful.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
This is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble? I haven't had a car in 4 months and I've nearly gone crazy from not being able to leave and explore.

Long-distance driving is the only reason I own a car; I never had one until I was almost 26 and I only finally caved and bought one because it looked for a while like I was going to have to move to Nashville for my job. I'm glad I have it, especially since my s/o moved from Texas to D.C. a couple of years ago so I can do a sort of weekend commuter thing now, not to mention owning a car has been largely responsible for tapping a previously-unrealized thirst for wandering. As far as day-to-day living goes, though, I almost never drive anywhere and I'm much happier (and probably healthier) for it.

Personally, I never understood how people can live their lives according to the transit schedule.  I like being able to just go somewhere wherever I want.  Plus I wouldn't want to be limited to wherever transit goes (especially since I never learned how to ride a bike; too scared of falling).

So that means I'd need a car.  And parking is NOT fun in a city; it's typically all on-street, even for residential areas, and parking in commercial areas often isn't free (and I refuse to use meters or their more modern equivalents because of the need to guess how long you'll be parked).  And on-street parking is a HUGE hassle in winter when you have to play musical parking spaces with the legality of where one can park constantly changing due to snow removal.  And traffic isn't fun either; it takes forever to drive anywhere until you get to the freeway (at least suburbs have SOME areas where you can avoid slow moving strip mall corridors; in cities, EVERYTHING moves at that pace!).

Plus I like to have services nearby rather than having to drive to the next town, so rural areas/small towns are out too, at least for anywhere I'd be living permanently (for now; maybe when I retire and no longer need to commute the equation will be different).

Hence why I'm a suburban girl.  I don't really like the sprawl of modern suburbs (my preference is for the more compact 40s/50s era development, but there's not much of it in the Albany area), but I'll take them over all the issues in urban/rural areas.

Urban areas are great for someone who likes walking/biking, is in reasonable shape (enough that the idea of hauling groceries to/from the bus stop isn't a daunting prospect), willing to be flexible enough with their routine and scheduling to accommodate the transit schedule, and like to go out often within the area but don't need to go outside of it often.  I would wager that this set of traits is more likely to be found among students and recent grads than the population at large.

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2015, 11:10:22 PM
I never learned how to ride a bike; too scared of falling.

It's never too late. I didn't learn until my late teens and now I regularly ride 5-10 miles to get places.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on April 30, 2015, 11:59:22 AMThis is going to come across the wrong way to some, but I don't GET people who can live without cars. Do you never want to venture outside of your bubble?

You know those things at the bottom of your legs? If you put one in front of the other, then the other in front of it, you can travel quite some distance given time. If you want to go further, throw in a metro journey and then ramble somewhere, or invest in a machine that converts walking motion into wheel rotation allowing you to travel further and faster.

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2015, 11:10:22 PMPersonally, I never understood how people can live their lives according to the transit schedule.

I live with half-hourly off-peak trains. I still barely notice the schedule.

Half-hourly is rather poor for mass transit, which typically runs at TUAG frequencies of 4tph (6tph in London as they are used to better) or higher. Certainly the Underground only has schedules on one line, because the others don't need it (some lines are running a train every 2.5 minutes off-peak now) and much of it is running at every 5 minutes or less.

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2015, 11:10:22 PM
Personally, I never understood how people can live their lives according to the transit schedule.  I like being able to just go somewhere wherever I want.  Plus I wouldn't want to be limited to wherever transit goes (especially since I never learned how to ride a bike; too scared of falling).

Living with transit schedules has become much easier with the advent of arrival-time apps.  And as for going off the network, use a car.  Not every mode serves every need. 

QuoteSo that means I'd need a car.  And parking is NOT fun in a city; it's typically all on-street, even for residential areas, and parking in commercial areas often isn't free (and I refuse to use meters or their more modern equivalents because of the need to guess how long you'll be parked).

When you start saying things like "I refuse to use meters" you realize you're stacking the deck, right?  Tiny towns have parking meters.  Suburbs have parking meters.  At a certain point, requirements like this add up to "being difficult."

QuoteAnd on-street parking is a HUGE hassle in winter when you have to play musical parking spaces with the legality of where one can park constantly changing due to snow removal.  And traffic isn't fun either; it takes forever to drive anywhere until you get to the freeway (at least suburbs have SOME areas where you can avoid slow moving strip mall corridors; in cities, EVERYTHING moves at that pace!).

Huge hassle?  What would you call having no legs, then?  It's an inconvenience for most, little more.  Almost all of the time there is not a major snow emergency going on even here; in most cities it's not even that much.  And no, everything doesn't move at a crawl.  Your experience is limited or you're exaggerating.

QuoteUrban areas are great for someone who likes walking/biking, is in reasonable shape (enough that the idea of hauling groceries to/from the bus stop isn't a daunting prospect), willing to be flexible enough with their routine and scheduling to accommodate the transit schedule, and like to go out often within the area but don't need to go outside of it often.  I would wager that this set of traits is more likely to be found among students and recent grads than the population at large.

See, urban areas are good for people who like the amenities, culture and feel, and easy accessibility they provide.  They are not repositories for people who never go anywhere else and lug everything around in a cart (though there certainly are some of those people).  Most people I know in this one own cars, use a mix of modes, and handle the minor issues of things like parking and making room for other people with calm and perspective.

I couldn't really care less where you live nor what obstacles you choose to put in your way, but I think some of the assumptions you're presenting about how it works to live in a city do not accurately reflect most city-living experiences.  Most cities are not Manhattan nor like it. 

You are right on one thing, though–we do tend to be in reasonable shape.

Quote from: english si on May 02, 2015, 05:27:54 AM

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2015, 11:10:22 PMPersonally, I never understood how people can live their lives according to the transit schedule.

I live with half-hourly off-peak trains. I still barely notice the schedule.

The problem is that in most smaller American cities, transit buses operate more like English village buses.  For example, in this city of 400,000, there is a bus stop about fifteen minutes' walk from where I live, right in front of a supermarket, but I have never been tempted to take the bus because it runs on once-an-hour frequency, only on weekdays and Saturdays, and in one direction only.  And because it is a bus and not a train that leaves each stop no earlier than quoted in the timetable, I can easily arrive at the bus stop on time only to discover that the bus I was aiming for came and went a minute ago and I have a wait of about an hour for the next one.

Here's the schedule for the bus that serves the stop near me:

http://www.wichitatransit.org/Routes/Documents/Meridian.pdf

My stop is #2 on the schedule (13th and West):

Shelter (northbound direction) (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.709383,-97.389674,3a,75y,134.39h,85.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVoARZX_obuub3g3QgXNSHA!2e0)

Suppose I want to board at #2 and unboard at #1 (Towne West Mall, still a significant traffic generator and employment center even in this age of decline for enclosed shopping malls):  because the bus runs in one direction only, I have no choice but to ride nearly all of the bus route, through downtown, past the machine shops and salvage yards in south Wichita, on I-235 for a brief hop, etc.  This takes 52 minutes by bus for a journey that takes barely 15 minutes by car, which is essentially door-to-door with far less walking on either end.  Being able to make the return journey in just 8 minutes is not compensation since this still averages out to 30 minutes per journey.

Meanwhile, in Oxford, a city of about 150,000, frequency of less than 6 buses an hour each direction for each of the two competing bus lines is considered unacceptable except on the very outskirts.

Also, observe at the bus stop that there is (1) no bus pull-out, (2) no concrete bus pad so the bus can stop and accelerate without destroying the pavement structure, and (3) no dedicated bus lane.  (1) and (2) are fairly extensively used in more bus-friendly metropolitan areas (e.g. San Francisco Bay Area) while (3) is a staple of local transport in Britain.

My stop in Oxford (southbound direction) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/University+of+Oxford/@51.768637,-1.261869,3a,75y,101.59h,80.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPUHKP0qKN_E4DlnTvtk41g!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x4876c6a9ef8c485b:0xd2ff1883a001afed)

I wouldn't count on reasonably usable transit in any American metropolitan area outside the top 20 in population, and it tends to be rather better in cities that have hung on to fairly dense rail-based mass transit (e.g. Chicago and New York).  Even in Washington, DC, which has the Metro and an extensive bus system, I once roomed with a guy who took one of our colleagues to the mall in his van to spare her the inconvenience of a two-hour bus journey for a trip that ordinarily takes just 30 minutes by car.

In Wichita, the buses are less of a public facility and more of a necessary evil for epileptics and the extremely poor--in short, those who either cannot obtain a driver's license even by Kansas' rather relaxed standards, or cannot afford to own a car.  The city council is well aware of the shortcomings of the bus system, and one of the members (who, as it happens, represents my district) is a committed advocate of improvements, but a sales tax increment that would have funded them failed at last November's election because it was rolled up with a jobs slush fund.

I own a car, so I participate in autopia and am no greenhouse-gas angel, but at least it is a 1994 model--meaning no energy has had to be spent to produce a new car in the last 21 years solely on my account--and I keep it tuned up so it can sustain at least 30 MPG US (somewhat north of its original EPA highway mileage rating) for about three-quarters of the year in my current mix of urban and rural driving.

There's a bus stop half a mile from our house, but we seldom use it for two reasons: (1) Going to the subway on the bus takes forever because the bus gets stuck in the same traffic as everyone else and it can easily take half an hour. (2) Coming home, the bus runs once an hour and we can't rely on the subway being on time to make the connection. Also, lots of people in the DC area do not necessarily work a precise x:xx AM to y:yy PM work schedule and so cannot depend on leaving work in a timely enough fashion for a fixed bus schedule. That's a serious impediment for many people.

So we usually drive to the other subway station near our house (takes ten minutes to make the drive and park). I like having the bus as a backup option and have used it when, for example, I unexpectedly had to leave the car at the mechanic overnight and I had no way to get home. My wife was about to use the bus yesterday when her office closed early due to the parking garage collapse at the Watergate (next door to where she works), but a colleague gave her a ride home. Still, it's nice to have the option of a bus in a pinch.

(Why not ride the bus to the subway station where we park, given less traffic? Takes too long due to a convoluted route designed to serve as many neighborhoods as possible. While that's what the bus should be doing, it makes little sense to ride a bus for 40 minutes when it takes 10 minutes to drive.)

Quote

When you start saying things like "I refuse to use meters" you realize you're stacking the deck, right?  Tiny towns have parking meters.  Suburbs have parking meters.  At a certain point, requirements like this add up to "being difficult".

Everyone has the right to establish their personal ground rules without criticism.

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 02, 2015, 02:21:33 PM
Everyone has the right to establish their personal ground rules without criticism.

My ground rules prohibit ground rules. And cars.

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 02, 2015, 02:21:33 PM
Quote

When you start saying things like "I refuse to use meters" you realize you're stacking the deck, right?  Tiny towns have parking meters.  Suburbs have parking meters.  At a certain point, requirements like this add up to "being difficult".

Everyone has the right to establish their personal ground rules without criticism.

I actually used to work in the mayor's office in a small town that DIDN'T have parking meters in their downtown core. They frequently complained about fiscal issues so I recommended that they install meters to raise at least a tiny bit of revenue. They didn't take my suggestion seriously.

I think it's a mistake to assume that having a car in a city means using it for intra-city transport. If I had my car right now, I wouldn't because it makes more sense to walk or use public transit. A car IS useful for getting to areas that public transit doesn't go and getting outside of the urban core. When I lived in a small town where most people drove from point A to point B, I'd usually opt to walk because it's more enjoyable. If a distance is 3 or fewer miles, I'll just walk it even if my car is in my driveway because I take pride in being in shape. I also go hiking in my spare time, a habit that is actually VERY difficult if one doesn't have a car. Good trails aren't exactly in the middle of urban cores. Having your own mode of transit does vastly expand your "things I can possibly do" list.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 02, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I also go hiking in my spare time, a habit that is actually VERY difficult if one doesn't have a car. Good trails aren't exactly in the middle of urban cores.

Boston has a decent number of large parks with easy bus/train access.

Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2015, 12:06:26 AM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 02, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I also go hiking in my spare time, a habit that is actually VERY difficult if one doesn't have a car. Good trails aren't exactly in the middle of urban cores.

Boston has a decent number of large parks with easy bus/train access.

The best hiking in New England though is a relatively short drive north in either New Hampshire or Maine (or a slightly longer drive into Vermont). If you don't have a car, the parks in cities will do. Boston has absolutely gorgeous parks, as do a number of other cities. Part of the fun of hiking though is possibly discovering something new and pushing yourself to try harder and harder trails.

I'm a nature person and a history buff, my lifestyle isn't well suited for living in an urban area without a car.

Until recently, I often took the bus in Seattle.  Overcrowded during commute hours, often passed up because the bus was too full, and hardly ever got a seat.  I lived with that for years, but faced with many needs to leave work, do an errand, and come back, I finally shelled out for a parking permit about six months ago.  If/when the errands decrease, I may go back to busing to work.

However, in the late evening, the character of the bus riders changes markedly.  A theatre downtown has info nights I take my daughter to some weekday evenings, and they are a dilemma.  The traffic downtown is terrible until past 7:00 on weekdays, one can easily crawl for an hour to make it 1/4 mile from the freeway exit to a parking garage.  The bus has a grade separated tunnel that would make it downright easy to get downtown then.  But then the theatre lets out around 9:30 or 10:00, and there are so often other passengers that are throwing up drunk, violent, or inappropriately affectionate that I will no longer take the bus then.  Drivers won't get involved and there's no security on the buses.

Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2015, 12:06:26 AM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 02, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I also go hiking in my spare time, a habit that is actually VERY difficult if one doesn't have a car. Good trails aren't exactly in the middle of urban cores.

Boston has a decent number of large parks with easy bus/train access.

There's a big difference between an urban park and a large, rural natural area.

Quote from: Brandon on May 03, 2015, 07:34:41 AM

Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2015, 12:06:26 AM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 02, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
I also go hiking in my spare time, a habit that is actually VERY difficult if one doesn't have a car. Good trails aren't exactly in the middle of urban cores.

Boston has a decent number of large parks with easy bus/train access.

There's a big difference between an urban park and a large, rural natural area.

True, but you can hike in the woods quite a lot of places on the MBTA:

http://www.oocities.org/hikeinfo/

Yeah, but the Boston T is unusually extensive and probably 2nd only to New York in that regard. You can't use Boston as a measuring stick for how easy it is to do things while being carless in a city.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 03, 2015, 10:35:15 AM
Yeah, but the Boston T is unusually extensive and probably 2nd only to New York in that regard. You can't use Boston as a measuring stick for how easy it is to do things while being carless in a city.

Maybe you can and maybe you can't, but if that's what one is looking for, this is a place it's possible.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2015, 11:19:59 AM

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2015, 11:10:22 PM
Personally, I never understood how people can live their lives according to the transit schedule.  I like being able to just go somewhere wherever I want.  Plus I wouldn't want to be limited to wherever transit goes (especially since I never learned how to ride a bike; too scared of falling).

Living with transit schedules has become much easier with the advent of arrival-time apps.  And as for going off the network, use a car.  Not every mode serves every need. 

Guess who doesn't have a smartphone?

Quote

QuoteSo that means I'd need a car.  And parking is NOT fun in a city; it's typically all on-street, even for residential areas, and parking in commercial areas often isn't free (and I refuse to use meters or their more modern equivalents because of the need to guess how long you'll be parked).

When you start saying things like "I refuse to use meters" you realize you're stacking the deck, right?  Tiny towns have parking meters.  Suburbs have parking meters.  At a certain point, requirements like this add up to "being difficult."

In the metro areas I've lived in (Rochester and Albany), it was the cities with parking meters, and in the suburbs parking was off street.

Quote

QuoteAnd on-street parking is a HUGE hassle in winter when you have to play musical parking spaces with the legality of where one can park constantly changing due to snow removal.  And traffic isn't fun either; it takes forever to drive anywhere until you get to the freeway (at least suburbs have SOME areas where you can avoid slow moving strip mall corridors; in cities, EVERYTHING moves at that pace!).

Huge hassle?  What would you call having no legs, then?  It's an inconvenience for most, little more.  Almost all of the time there is not a major snow emergency going on even here; in most cities it's not even that much.  And no, everything doesn't move at a crawl.  Your experience is limited or you're exaggerating.

This winter, there was a multi-day snow emergency EVERY SINGLE WEEK.  The news was full of stories about people frantically digging out their cars with nowhere to put the snow because there were five foot snow drifts next to their car.

Quote

QuoteUrban areas are great for someone who likes walking/biking, is in reasonable shape (enough that the idea of hauling groceries to/from the bus stop isn't a daunting prospect), willing to be flexible enough with their routine and scheduling to accommodate the transit schedule, and like to go out often within the area but don't need to go outside of it often.  I would wager that this set of traits is more likely to be found among students and recent grads than the population at large.

See, urban areas are good for people who like the amenities, culture and feel, and easy accessibility they provide.  They are not repositories for people who never go anywhere else and lug everything around in a cart (though there certainly are some of those people).  Most people I know in this one own cars, use a mix of modes, and handle the minor issues of things like parking and making room for other people with calm and perspective.

I couldn't really care less where you live nor what obstacles you choose to put in your way, but I think some of the assumptions you're presenting about how it works to live in a city do not accurately reflect most city-living experiences.  Most cities are not Manhattan nor like it. 

You are right on one thing, though–we do tend to be in reasonable shape.

Yeah, I'm not in reasonable shape.  The idea of hauling four bags of groceries to/from the bus stop does NOT sound like fun for me.  And my flats tend to irritate my toes and ankle if I walk too much in them.

I feel like it'd actually be better to be living in a denser urban area during a snow emergency. Like, do you really want to be living somewhere that necessitates total car dependence when you get several feet of snow suddenly dropped on you?

Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2015, 08:18:45 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2015, 11:19:59 AMLiving with transit schedules has become much easier with the advent of arrival-time apps.  And as for going off the network, use a car.  Not every mode serves every need.

Guess who doesn't have a smartphone?

As someone who did without a smartphone until 2 1/2 years ago, I am very hesitant to advocate spending another $720 a year just for on-the-hoof data access.  Rooting or jailbreaking a smartphone is also a nontrivial job, and unless it is done the phone cannot be outfitted with a HOSTS file to provide adequate protection from ads or viruses.  I also know people who use their smartphones as their sole means of Internet access (no computer at home, no broadband subscription); since data plans are highly constrained, and smartphones (in spite of the prevalence of mobile website versions) are a very awkward way to access many websites, this has the potential to lock in digital illiteracy in a family.

All of this said, however, there is a huge gain in convenience from not having to waste time scavenging data access to book hotels, check position on the map, etc.  When I took my 6750-mile road trip last September, I had data everywhere but in Death Valley and I estimate it saved me several hundred dollars in lodging costs.  I did take along an old laptop to take advantage of free wifi access where I could find it, and ended up hardly using it because in this age of video streaming and ubiquity of consumer data access devices, community wifi can no longer provide the bandwidth to keep up with demand (largely because the additional devices and configuration required to provide adequate connectivity to a large population of connected devices are an order of magnitude more than is required to set up a simple modem and router).

Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2015, 08:18:45 PMIn the metro areas I've lived in (Rochester and Albany), it was the cities with parking meters, and in the suburbs parking was off street.

Parking meters are not just a revenue source--they are an essential tool for rationing parking.  Pretty much every largish city I have visited (it does not matter whether it is administratively independent from its suburban areas) has meters in its downtown area and free off-street parking further out.

I don't like feeding meters either, but I feel it imposes too great a cost to refuse ever to use metered parking.  Wichita has a standard charge of one dime per half-hour and one quarter per two hours, so I always make sure I am carrying a coin purse with dimes and quarters when I think I may have to use metered parking.  Credit-card parking meters are also increasingly common--Denver has them now, for example.

Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2015, 08:18:45 PMYeah, I'm not in reasonable shape.  The idea of hauling four bags of groceries to/from the bus stop does NOT sound like fun for me.  And my flats tend to irritate my toes and ankle if I walk too much in them.

Spoilage of perishables can be a consideration as well--I would never "bus it" to buy fresh milk.  This said, there are plenty of people who do their shopping without cars, including not just out-of-shape young people but frail elderly, bicyclists, etc.  The secret is to have means of expanding cargo carrying capacity for the mode you are currently using.  When I was living carlessly in Britain, I had a basket on the back of my bike that could be used for carrying groceries, and I could pack any overflow into my backpack.  Quite often I saw elderly women pulling wheeled carts with enough room for a week's groceries.

Quote from: wphiii on May 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
I feel like it'd actually be better to be living in a denser urban area during a snow emergency. Like, do you really want to be living somewhere that necessitates total car dependence when you get several feet of snow suddenly dropped on you?

This depends on how good your locality is at snow cleanup. Some areas are good about getting plows out ASAP and keeping up with the snowfall. Snow emergencies are relatively rare too.

As an aside, I would not advocate living where there is regular snow and not having covered parking. When I lived in New Hampshire, I did not have covered parking and digging my car out of the snow was not a fun chore.

You went from NH to Washington DC?

As someone who lived in NH, and would be back if not for the property taxes (and their resultant high rents), I don't know how you did it.

Quote from: wphiii on May 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
I feel like it'd actually be better to be living in a denser urban area during a snow emergency. Like, do you really want to be living somewhere that necessitates total car dependence when you get several feet of snow suddenly dropped on you?

I can't remember a snow emergency being declared at any time when I lived in NH.  They know how to deal with it.  Snow emergencies are for places that don't know what they're doing with it, either due to lack of experience with it, like Georgia, or simple recto-cranial inversion syndrome, like Massachusetts. <snicker>

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 04, 2015, 01:27:23 PM
You went from NH to Washington DC?

As someone who lived in NH, and would be back if not for the property taxes (and their resultant high rents), I don't know how you did it.

Quote from: wphiii on May 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
I feel like it'd actually be better to be living in a denser urban area during a snow emergency. Like, do you really want to be living somewhere that necessitates total car dependence when you get several feet of snow suddenly dropped on you?

I can't remember a snow emergency being declared at any time when I lived in NH.  They know how to deal with it.  Snow emergencies are for places that don't know what they're doing with it, like Massachusetts. <snicker>

I'm only here for another couple of weeks (at most). I'll probably be heading back to New Hampshire within the next month. I miss that place.

And I will echo how good New Hampshire is at handling snow. Plow trucks are deployed immediately and they make a real effort to keep up with snow removal. I do hear though that a snow emergency was declared in the Seacoast during this year's snowpocalypse.

And since NH and snow came up, I feel compelled to share this:

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 04, 2015, 01:27:23 PM
You went from NH to Washington DC?

As someone who lived in NH, and would be back if not for the property taxes (and their resultant high rents), I don't know how you did it.

I didn't know about that. "Live expensively or die" huh?

When I lived without a car, I did small grocery trips every couple of days, and rarely bought more than one bag at a time.  There are also delivery options in a lot of cities, though I didn't use them myself.

Quote from: GCrites80s on May 04, 2015, 02:05:12 PM

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 04, 2015, 01:27:23 PM
You went from NH to Washington DC?

As someone who lived in NH, and would be back if not for the property taxes (and their resultant high rents), I don't know how you did it.

I didn't know about that. "Live expensively or die" huh?

With no income or sales tax, the state has to make ends meet somehow. Jacking up property taxes is the way to do it.

Quote from: wphiii on May 04, 2015, 10:58:39 AM
I feel like it'd actually be better to be living in a denser urban area during a snow emergency. Like, do you really want to be living somewhere that necessitates total car dependence when you get several feet of snow suddenly dropped on you?

Let's see... my commute is mostly on state highways, my local town is generally good with plowing, as is my apartment complex.  Getting snow/ice off the car is generally only an issue in the event of freezing rain.  If it's really bad, I can just stay home from work.  So it's not too much of an issue.  The issue the cities have is because they need to get the cars out of the way to plow the street, especially when the snow drifts don't have a chance to melt in between storms (most areas in upstate NY are dependent on this to have somewhere to put the snow; these past two winters, that has not happened, and contrary to most, I consider them to be a new normal).  Once the drifts get high enough, cars wind up parked in the travel lanes, and getting to the car becomes a challenge.

There's also the fact that I can leave my car where it is until needed when in a driveway or parking lot (my landlord desires people to move their cars to cleared spaces to facilitate snow removal, but in practice this isn't enforced, and there are plenty of spaces).  In a municipality with on-street parking, you're moving your car every few hours until the streets are cleared.  If there are no spots, tough.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 04, 2015, 12:00:20 PM
Parking meters are not just a revenue source--they are an essential tool for rationing parking.  Pretty much every largish city I have visited (it does not matter whether it is administratively independent from its suburban areas) has meters in its downtown area and free off-street parking further out.

I don't like feeding meters either, but I feel it imposes too great a cost to refuse ever to use metered parking.  Wichita has a standard charge of one dime per half-hour and one quarter per two hours, so I always make sure I am carrying a coin purse with dimes and quarters when I think I may have to use metered parking.  Credit-card parking meters are also increasingly common--Denver has them now, for example.

I have NO PROBLEM with paying for parking as long as the rates are reasonable.  My issue is that you has to pre-pay and guess how much time they will use.  Guess too little, and you might get a ticket and/or towed.  Guess too much, and you just wasted money.  Even the new "smart" meters are just adding technology to doing the same old thing - the only benefit is not having to use coins.  If I had my way, we'd use truly smart meters that no longer needed to be pre-paid.  You'd enter your plate number, insert your credit card, and you'd get a slip.  When you left, you'd insert the slip and your card would be billed for how long you were there (if someone tried to cheat the system by not inserting the slip when leaving, they'd be billed for 24 hours plus a decently sized fee).  Of course, the reason this doesn't happen is because minute maids would be writing a lot fewer parking tickets that way.

As for groceries, I prefer to shop every six days - the length of time it takes me to use up a carton of eggs (and bagel package, and 2/3 of a loaf of bread - I like everything in sync).

Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 04, 2015, 04:28:34 PM
With no income or sales tax, the state has to make ends meet somehow. Jacking up property taxes is the way to do it.

Yeah, most states seem content with doing all three.

Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2015, 10:34:40 PMI have NO PROBLEM with paying for parking as long as the rates are reasonable.  My issue is that you has to pre-pay and guess how much time they will use.  Guess too little, and you might get a ticket and/or towed.  Guess too much, and you just wasted money.  Even the new "smart" meters are just adding technology to doing the same old thing - the only benefit is not having to use coins.  If I had my way, we'd use truly smart meters that no longer needed to be pre-paid.  You'd enter your plate number, insert your credit card, and you'd get a slip.  When you left, you'd insert the slip and your card would be billed for how long you were there (if someone tried to cheat the system by not inserting the slip when leaving, they'd be billed for 24 hours plus a decently sized fee).  Of course, the reason this doesn't happen is because minute maids would be writing a lot fewer parking tickets that way.

I see having to guess how long I will be at a particular place the same way I do having to break eggs to make an omelet.  I think there are pay-and-display lots in Europe that work much as you describe (billing in arrears based on the time actually spent in the parking space), but unless technology upgrades are in the picture somehow, payment in arrears for actual time in the US usually means a parking facility with a small number of ingress/egress points that can be controlled.  That can often translate into higher unit parking charges because it is expensive to staff a payment booth.  Facilities of this type also tend to be multi-story parking garages instead of flat lots, which is another cost driver.

Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2015, 10:34:40 PMAs for groceries, I prefer to shop every six days - the length of time it takes me to use up a carton of eggs (and bagel package, and 2/3 of a loaf of bread - I like everything in sync).

With the other people in this house, I am lucky if there is an agreed "meal grid" so I know which days I am to cook dinner and have all the fresh ingredients I need on hand.  On my own, I tend to shop on a shorter cycle (two or three days) for freshness.

Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2015, 10:34:40 PM
I have NO PROBLEM with paying for parking as long as the rates are reasonable.  My issue is that you has to pre-pay and guess how much time they will use.  Guess too little, and you might get a ticket and/or towed.  Guess too much, and you just wasted money.  Even the new "smart" meters are just adding technology to doing the same old thing - the only benefit is not having to use coins.  If I had my way, we'd use truly smart meters that no longer needed to be pre-paid.  You'd enter your plate number, insert your credit card, and you'd get a slip.  When you left, you'd insert the slip and your card would be billed for how long you were there (if someone tried to cheat the system by not inserting the slip when leaving, they'd be billed for 24 hours plus a decently sized fee).  Of course, the reason this doesn't happen is because minute maids would be writing a lot fewer parking tickets that way.

That's a good idea.  I wonder if it's ever been tried.  There would still need to be parking enforcement (minute maids? what century is this?) to catch people who didn't pay at all, and people who stayed parked longer than the maximum stay.  The parking enforcers would probably still collect enough fines to pay for their salaries.

Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2015, 10:34:40 PM
Even the new "smart" meters are just adding technology to doing the same old thing - the only benefit is not having to use coins. 

Our "smart" meters here in Pittsburgh are horrible. All of the transactions are done at one kiosk per block where you enter your plate # and decide how much time you want to spend there. The problem is, there's no way to "top up." You literally have to wait until your previous allotment runs out in order to buy more time, which is a nightmare to deal with when you're planning to visit several different places in a particular neighborhood and just want to tack another half hour on when you happen to be passing by your car on your way from one store to another.

Yes I know I'm reviving this topic, but I'd like to get it back to where it was a bit earlier as I can sort of relate.

At least where I am, I don't think the latter millennials are skipping on getting their license. I of course grew up with the earlier millennials, and even here in Brampton when I went to high school, everyone was eager to get their license, so I don't buy that nonsense myself. Like many have suggested, I believe it's simply a financial barrier.

Even though I was always interested in roads, I was a bit hesitant in getting my license, well I got my permit (which they call a G1 here) at 16 (which is the minimum age here), but didn't move on to the second step until I was close to 18, I had a school bus ride to high school so it wasn't an issue for me at all.

Just an aside, I think Ontario is the only one of our 63 Canadian provinces/territories or US states that RESTRICTS any freeway driving at the learner's permit level......and when I got to the second stage of graduated licensing, I was on the nasty 401 Toronto section a few days later, and it didn't bother me one bit.

Now since I'm a recent student now at Ryerson University, which is in downtown Toronto. I was actually shocked to learn than they actually have permit parking at all, sure, it's not cheap, roughly $800 for one full year, but it's a bargain compared to if you were to drive down and park everyday, where daily rates easily top $18-$22 close to that area. My commute involves driving to the train station and taking the train, as I think that's better than the unnecessary headaches of dealing with the Gardiner, I remember once I drove from my place in Brampton to go to a Blue Jays game, and it took me 2 hours to reach my parking spot for sporting events (which is a brisk walk away and only costs $6 for the night). Those are the kind of headaches I'm talking about and it's not worth it, I see some of my professors taking trains for the exact same reason.

But when some of us from outside Toronto proper on the first few days of classes discussed our routes in how we got to campus, I was shocked to hear that there were people from Vaughan who drove to Wilson Subway Station and took the subway in, and mind you, these are the students 10 years younger than me straight out of high school. I'm actually surprised at the amount who claim that they have their full license and are of that age, as you need to be a minimum of 17 years 8 months to get a full license in Ontario.

I think there are many millennials who will chase the city core, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I definitely don't see suburbia disappearing anytime soon. Give it enough time and the millennials will be back to the suburbs.

New York City is actually more restrictive than Ontario: not only are people with permits explicitly banned from driving on freeways, they are also banned from driving vehicles that don't have dual brake controls (which functions as a de facto ban on learning from one's parents like a normal person; it's drivers ed only for teens in NYC).

Down here, graduated licensing is cited as a reason why millennials are delaying learning to drive.  In many areas, the restrictions on teenage drivers are enough that "why bother?" is the question that many are asking (for example, teenagers are NOT allowed to drive their friends under any circumstances, are restricted from driving at night unless to/from work, and if below 17 in NY, cannot even drive at all unless it's to/from work or school).

The Stage 2 restrictions on NYC seem quite harsh. What we call a G2 in Ontario is basically the same as a full license except you can't have more than 1 passenger between midnight and 5 am. Other than that time restriction you are allowed to go anywhere. In case you were wondering, the time between stage 1 and 2 is 8 months if you do a drivers education course or 12 months if you don't.

As for G1, this is right from their site about freeways which is something that made me think:

"You must not drive on 400-series highways with a posted speed limit over 80km/h. Also, you must not drive on certain high-speed roads including the Queen Elizabeth Way, Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway in the Greater Toronto Area, the E.C. Row Expressway in Windsor and the Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener-Waterloo. However, if your accompanying driver is a driving instructor, you may drive on any road."

So MTO, does that mean a G1 driver can use the Linc and Red Hill Valley Parkway in Hamilton? How about Highway 11, which alternates between a RIRO and freeway up to North Bay. Or how about that new freeway portion of Hwy 69 south of Sudbury, remember folks it's not a 400 series highway yet. You also mentioned the Conestoga Parkway, but what about the Hwy 8 bypass that connects the 401 to King Street/Conestoga Parkway?


But vdeane, the restrictions in NY State do actually seem worse in my opinion. In Ontario, no matter what your age, you have to go through the GDL procedure, is there an upper age limit to GDL in NY?

In Minnesota 18 is the upper GDL limit. I actually didn't get my license until after I turned 18 and it was a standard full-privilege license.

Instead of operating strictly by age, some privileges increase after set amounts of time on a Minnesota GDL. For the first six months on a GDL regardless of when you get it you can only have one non-family passenger under 20 years of age in your car, and after that six months it increases to three non-family members. After the year of passenger restrictions, those restrictions lift entirely. The initial night driving restrictions, which are otherwise similar to NY's also lift after the first six months.

Everything NY is by age.  "Limited junior licence" (the one where one can't drive except to work/school) is for people who manage to drive the required hours and pass the road test while still 16.  Those who pass the test at 17 and haven't had driver's ed (at least when I got my licence... that loophole may have been eliminated now) get a "junior licence" (with the other restrictions mentioned), and everyone 18 or over or who has driver's ed at 17 gets an unrestricted licence.  The NYC-specific restrictions are permit only; the rest are statewide.  I believe other states have similar restrictions.

Quote from: vdeane on February 22, 2016, 07:41:55 PM
I believe other states have similar restrictions.

Um, South Dakota says hi.

I started legally driving at 14; we get our unrestricted licenses at 16, and everyone (at least everyone I knew) upgraded as soon as they could.

Feeling old since the regulations in Ohio have changed so much since I started driving that I don't know what they are anymore.

My buddy and I got our driver's ed teacher fired so it took us longer to get our licenses that we had liked. It took them a while to find a replacement.

Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2015, 08:18:45 PM
Yeah, I'm not in reasonable shape.  The idea of hauling four bags of groceries to/from the bus stop does NOT sound like fun for me.  And my flats tend to irritate my toes and ankle if I walk too much in them.

If your shoes cause irritation when you walk in them too much, then wear more comfortable shoes when you expect to be doing a lot of walking. It's not unheard of in NYC to commute in sneakers and then change into nicer shoes when you get to work.

It does, however, require being in a mindset where you are willing to walk. And as for being in shape, if you walk places regularly, you will be in the necessary shape. If nothing else it's good for your health.

Indeed, I feel a need to go outside and walk somewhere on a daily basis or I feel blech from the lack of physical activity. If I don't have a place I need to walk to, I'll walk around the block.

I got my permit at 16 in Illinos in 1986, and I was allowed to drive with any licensed driver in the front seat, regardless of age. My little brother got his permit at 16 here in North Carolina in 1992, and the only additional restriction was that the licensed right seater had to be and adult (18 or older).

In both cases once we passed the test and got our actual licenses we could drive anywhere, at anytime, with whomever we wanted to be with in the car.

My kids have had it rough with all the license restrictions, only a parent or legal guardian can accompany them while the learn to drive now, and they have to show proof of insurance before they can even get their restricted license, which holds a lot of kids back because parents can't afford the hit their insurance takes to have them added as a driver. What we had to do was to buy our older kids a beater, and have them obtain their own insurance (which meant getting a job before they were even able to drive to it) to basically pay just for the insurance-they rarely made enough to pay any more than that-we ended up footing the bill for gas/repairs etc until they got out on their own. Part of the problem is that for us as a family, my wife and I combined make less than just my dad did when I was the same age as my kids. My dad was clearing $100k a year in the 80's and we are making right about $70k a year combined now (adjusting for inflation that probably means we are making less than half than he did).

My youngest has it a little easier, his grandma doesn't drive much anymore so she has basically given him her Santa Fe (she still owns it though) and she decided to put him on her insurance (it really hasn't gone up that much which is weird) and we pay the difference on her car only. It would have cost three arms and four legs to put him on our Mustangs, and he doesn't seem to be able to drive stick anyway so we are pretty lucky there lol.

Which brings us to another interesting point to the actual topic. Much like my little brother and I (and my wife too) my older two kids, born in 1990 and 1992, were going crazy to be able to drive at their earliest opportunity. My youngest, born in 1999, doesn't really seem to be in much of a hurry to complete his 50 hrs of required driving (10 of which must be at night) before he can get his restricted license. His best friend, born the same year doesn't even want to get his permit-he much prefers that his parents chauffeur him around everywhere. It's going to suck to be him in a few years when he turns 18 and his mom sends him packing off to college with no way to get around, lol. My youngest wants to folllow his brothers into the military (though he wants to be a Marine, God bless him) so he'll probably want his full drivers license before he goes to boot camp (he's a sophomore now so that's a couple of years off).

Quote from: slorydn1 on February 29, 2016, 07:51:19 AM
Which brings us to another interesting point to the actual topic. Much like my little brother and I (and my wife too) my older two kids, born in 1990 and 1992, were going crazy to be able to drive at their earliest opportunity. My youngest, born in 1999, doesn't really seem to be in much of a hurry to complete his 50 hrs of required driving (10 of which must be at night) before he can get his restricted license. His best friend, born the same year doesn't even want to get his permit-he much prefers that his parents chauffeur him around everywhere. It's going to suck to be him in a few years when he turns 18 and his mom sends him packing off to college with no way to get around, lol. My youngest wants to folllow his brothers into the military (though he wants to be a Marine, God bless him) so he'll probably want his full drivers license before he goes to boot camp (he's a sophomore now so that's a couple of years off).

My neighbor's kid, now 23, still doesn't have his license.  Apparently doesn't have any interest in getting it, even though we live in an area where you're quite limited on where you can get without a car.  (I once drove by him in a torrential thunderstorm in the neighborhood, and after realizing who it was, made a u-ey and picked him up)

His younger brother got his license as soon as possible. 

Kansas also has a fifty-hour supervised driving requirement and this is enforced through logbooks.  It was not in effect when I was learning to drive, but I would have had relatively little difficulty complying with it.  I got an instructional permit in January 1992, and by the time I got my full license the following June, I estimate I had had about 100 hours of supervised driving experience.  Most of this came from half an hour spent driving after school every day, though I picked up another 15 hours driving to and from Nebraska and several hours from weekend errand running.  I started with gravel roads (some others consider this advanced because it is easy to get going too fast and not realize it until you have to stop), and only graduated to sustained freeway driving comparatively late, with a drive to Newton and back, taking old US 81 out and I-135 back.

Middle-class people were considerably less squeezed financially back then than they are now, but there were plenty of people in my driver's education class who had difficulty getting learning time behind the wheel.  When I was riding in the learner vehicle in driver education class, the instructor had to deploy the passenger brake once.  This was on I-135 and the student who was driving was next to a weaving lane but was not adjusting his speed to allow another vehicle to merge.  It turned out that his father, who had just bought a sports car, was refusing to give him behind-the-wheel time.

NY had a 20 hour requirement when I learned to drive, and people who had driver's ed (from an approved school, which means a government one); it is now 50 hours (no idea if the driver's ed exemption is still there).

Virginia was 40 hours when I was learning. By the time I actually got my license, I'd had my learners for at least 3 years, but probably hadn't had 40 hours of experience. My mom was extremely stingy about letting me drive her car, and it wasn't until I moved in with my dad and grandfather at 18 that I finally started driving somewhat regularly.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2016/03/14/sacramento-state-students-ride-in-self-driving-shuttle-to-get-to-class


What about this there's going to be an automated shuttle service at some places where the driver is not needed.

Thread Bump:

An article from last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/cars/20170101_Millennials_enter_the_car_market_____carefully.html) stating that contrary to popular belief; millennials are indeed buying cars... just a little later than life than their ancestors.

Quote from: Philadelphia Inquirer articleA 2016 J.D. Power's Power Information Network study reported that the share of millennials in the new-car market jumped 28 percent. By 2020, they are expected to make up 40 percent of U.S. car sales.

"They've been delaying their purchases of vehicles," said Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Association, "but they're still going to enter the market."

The spike is not that surprising: It's only natural to presume that as 20-year-olds turn into 35-year-olds, they become more likely to buy cars, as every generation did before them.

"When you think about it, people are having families later, they're getting married later, they may be leaving their home later - all of those factors," Maas said. "So it makes logical sense that they might buy their cars later, too."

Add to that that a good number of Millennials are also getting saddled with large amounts of student loan debt, and are also going into an economy looking for jobs which have all been shipped overseas or were cut back by the "Great Recession", which is going to delay when they can buy things.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2017, 03:28:02 PM
Thread Bump:

An article from last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/cars/20170101_Millennials_enter_the_car_market_____carefully.html) stating that contrary to popular belief; millennials are indeed buying cars... just a little later than life than their ancestors.

Quote from: Philadelphia Inquirer articleA 2016 J.D. Power's Power Information Network study reported that the share of millennials in the new-car market jumped 28 percent. By 2020, they are expected to make up 40 percent of U.S. car sales.

"They've been delaying their purchases of vehicles," said Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Association, "but they're still going to enter the market."

The spike is not that surprising: It's only natural to presume that as 20-year-olds turn into 35-year-olds, they become more likely to buy cars, as every generation did before them.

"When you think about it, people are having families later, they're getting married later, they may be leaving their home later - all of those factors," Maas said. "So it makes logical sense that they might buy their cars later, too."

Funny, I keep hearing the phrase "25 is the new 18" thrown out there.  It seems like every age group growing up from Gen X on is approaching life stages 5-10 years from what the Baby Boomers and prior generations did.  Kind of makes you wonder what the causes of that are, there certainly isn't the expectation to grow up as fast these days even compared to when I was a kid.  Basically it seems like nobody really expects much out of you until that 25 year barrier be it; your family, school, work, people you are in a relationship, ect.  I'd be curious to really see if that trend is something happening in other first world countries or if it is something that is mainly a U.S. phenomenon.

Incidentally anyone in the 30-40 range ever look back at family photos of your parents or grand parents recently?  I've scanned a lot of my family albums recently and its stunning to see how much older people looked at a younger age the further you go back. 

I think the "expectation to grow up as fast [as previous generations]" is definitely dampened by the fact that college is now the dominant next step after high school and due to that enormous increase in demand for college education, the cost has skyrocketed to the point where those that can work to meet their costs are in the minority.

Tangent: I know someone raises their hand whenever someone says that you can't work through college anymore and then says something idiotic like, "I took a full load and worked two jobs and got it done!"  Congrats.  Not everyone can do that due to their particular program's schedule and perhaps even physical and psychological factors.  Even then, my father worked one menial job and got himself through college, covering all costs involved.  Shoot, I had a great package when I went to grad school (most of my college cost waived, except for a few fees, given a research assistantship to earn some money, etc.) and still had to go into some debt to cover living expenses.

Anyway, the short of it is that due to the idea that college is the only way to go for most of middle-class America has boosted costs to ridiculous levels and have required a lot of kids to rely on their parents and other sources for longer.  They go into debt, can't cover the debt payments with the job they get, so they live at home to avoid rent, for one example.

I've been urging my own kids to find alternate education and career paths to avoid taking on an absurd amount of debt.  I think it's much harder for them than it was for me when it came to graduating from high school and figuring out what to do, simply because it can't be assumed that college is worth the expense in all fields (Heck, even in my office, I'm kicking myself for paying to get a masters degree, since, instead of paying for those years, I could have been working a traineeship for those years, making money and ending up at the same salary level anyway). 

It's incredible that we're now expecting 17-year-old kids have to figure out the best bang for the buck given the huge change in the paradigm.  My baby boomer parents -- those that point their fingers and sneer at the younger generations as being irresponsible or whatnot -- never had to deal with that.  Both of them just headed off to college and had a much easier go of making ends meet than I did and definitely my children.

If anything, the world is worse off because of baby boomers making it harder on the subsequent generations and not because millennials are entitled brats.

Here's something I never really understood, how did college educations get such a premium social value with this generation compared to mine or the Baby Boomers?  I grew up hearing repeatedly (Gen X age) that some day that all the jobs will require a four year degree even to apply for them.  While that might be the case with top flight corporate jobs that never seemed to be something that ever came to fruition as advertised.  For me maybe it was different, I've always been involved in Law Enforcement or the types of entities that surround it.  In that sphere most people are straight up in telling you that you need career experience more than anything to succeed and then you add college gradually later as you go.  Is that kind of thing appealing to young people?...I tend to think it really isn't very much anymore.  But one thing is for certain, you hear countless stories of kids who go get a four year degree who come out the back side without a job still.  Generally it comes down to one of two things; one graduating individual is arrogant because they have a college education and expects success to be handed to them, or the employer comes back and says entry level positions need career experience.

So it begs the question what the hell was the point of being saddled with all that debt if it takes you literally nowhere out of school?  I can imagine that is pretty disheartening to get constant rejections, but the stress on the debt ridden finances is even worse.  Really it isn't so much of a surprise then that people grow up slower or don't have buying power to purchase things, cars included.  I guess its really a damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  Really there isn't much alternatives others than to go in the military for a paid education, get an academic scholarship, or enter the work force for career experience and accumulate an education at a more gradual rate. 

One thing that seems to be missing that Baby Boomers and Gen Xers had was entry level jobs that were unskilled that paid well.  Really that is a discussion for another thread but most of the blue collar stuff has been pushed out of the country by wage price point and benefits.  So really there isn't much out there but crappy throw away entry level jobs that don't leave much in the way of career experience unless you find something with a practical skill being taught.

Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2017, 09:05:27 AMI think the "expectation to grow up as fast [as previous generations]" is definitely dampened by the fact that college is now the dominant next step after high school and due to that enormous increase in demand for college education, the cost has skyrocketed to the point where those that can work to meet their costs are in the minority.

College is one of a few sectors in the economy where the cost basis has been rising much faster than inflation (health care is another), but outside of the desperately under-regulated for-profit schools, I don't think that is actually a result of increased demand as reflected in a rise in student numbers.  Universities have not only carbon-copied the CEO pay syndrome from the private sector, but have also greatly increased non-instructional spending (dorms and sports facilities are probably the most often-quoted examples, but there are also things like library digitization initiatives and so on).  Meanwhile, the academic labor force--the people who actually do the teaching--has seen no significant real increase in pay and in fact has faced casualization and loss of job security.

Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2017, 09:05:27 AMTangent: I know someone raises their hand whenever someone says that you can't work through college anymore and then says something idiotic like, "I took a full load and worked two jobs and got it done!"  Congrats.  Not everyone can do that due to their particular program's schedule and perhaps even physical and psychological factors.  Even then, my father worked one menial job and got himself through college, covering all costs involved.  Shoot, I had a great package when I went to grad school (most of my college cost waived, except for a few fees, given a research assistantship to earn some money, etc.) and still had to go into some debt to cover living expenses.

In 1970 it was actually possible to put yourself through college without taking on any debt--meeting living expenses as well as tuition, fees, and books--while working a minimum-wage job.  Even as late as the mid-1990's, I was able to meet all of my college-related costs with scholarships.  That is much more difficult for even bright students to do now, simply because the increase in college costs even at Midwestern state universities has far outstripped the growth in endowment income that is disbursable through scholarships.

As for expecting young people in late high school, with little to no life experience and decision-making faculties that will not fully mature until they are in their mid-twenties, to sign up for a college program only on the strength of a fully elaborated cost-benefit analysis, I don't think that is any more sustainable than college costs rising faster than inflation.  Why are we asking 17- to 18-year-olds to try to guess what the job market will be like four or five years in the future when experienced investors with much better access to raw data and analysis struggle with the same problem?  Ultimately the main benefit of a college education is what, for lack of a better description, may be called a graduate outlook on life.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2017, 11:51:20 PM
I'd be curious to really see if that trend is something happening in other first world countries or if it is something that is mainly a U.S. phenomenon.

There is a similar trend in the Netherlands. Particularly during the recession, young adults remained in school for a longer period, taking up a new study because the job prospects were bad. They often end up with a huge student debt.

The result is marriage at a later point in life, buying their first house later, getting children at a later point in life, starting a fulltime job later, and as a result, buying a car later.

Though the taxes on cars are insanely high in the Netherlands so young people usually do not buy a brand new car, but rather a used one. Even many older people with good jobs do that, for them it makes no sense to buy a mid-size car and see $ 20,000 depreciate in the first 4-5 years.

New car sales are as low as the were in the 1960s. Some people say it's because people aren't interested in driving anymore, but other statistics disprove that point, as the total car fleet is still growing and VMT records are recorded almost every year, even during the recession.

Quote from: Chris on January 05, 2017, 01:27:03 PM
Even many older people with good jobs do that, for them it makes no sense to buy a mid-size car and see $ 20,000 depreciate in the first 4-5 years.

Honestly, it makes no sense to worry about a car's depreciation, unless someone has full intentions on selling it after a few years.  And even then depreciation is the wrong term.  A buyer is mostly concerned about the overall condition of the vehicle.  A clean car with low mileage will sell a lot better than the same car, same age that is stained and dented with oil leaking out the engine.  Depreciation is mainly a tax term, and someone writing off their vehicle over a period of years is only concerned about the depreciation schedule, not the condition of the vehicle.

That's why I never thought the argument that once you drive a new vehicle off a car lot, it loses $1,000.  That may be true if you take it around the block and return it, because now the dealership has to clean it, prep it, advertise it, etc.  Stuff like that costs money.  It had nothing to do with depreciation...it has to do with the expenses required to resell it.

Guess what...if someone drives a used car off the lot and decides to return it, the used car dealer will probably buy it back...for a thousand less than you bought it.  That used car salesman still has those same expenses to worry about.

Well, why would you spend $ 35,000 - 40,000 on a mid-size car, while you can spend $ 14,000 on a 4-5 year old model with a relatively low mileage? One's transportation cost could go way down without compromising too much on quality. At least in the Netherlands, the used car market is generally reliable, in particular for used cars that aren't too old. You can buy a decent used car with 40-50,000 miles on it without it being 'stained and dented with oil leaking out the engine'. That's a primary reason why new car sales are so low over here, the used car market is a better option for many. (140,000 new cars vs 1,800,000 used car sales in 2016).

'Peak car' has been predicted many times in the Netherlands as well. However 2014-2016 had the strongest VMT growth in the 21st century, while there was no pronounced decline in VMT during the recession. Anti-highway advocacies often claim that traffic models contain too much growth to justify road investment. While in reality, VMT growth even outpaces the high growth scenario used in the national traffic model.

My views have changed slightly since the first page of this thread.

The situation, as it is now, is that I am 17 years old with an expired driver's permit (and no license). I have battled anxiety disorders since age 14 (much longer if you include OCD), but they have worsened in recent years. At age 15 I had a permit, and was planned and set to get my license once I turned 16. However, in the midst of 2015, my anxiety disorders got worse, and now I cannot drive. Now, for the past almost 2 years, if I get behind the wheel I begin to have tremors, heart palpitations, and I start hyperventilating and I'm on the verge of having a panic attack. Why? I have not a clue. At one time I wasn't like this, and with my permit, I drove, and I drove good. But now I have had to adapt to a life of no driving. Yes, it is not as good as a life of being able to drive, but I no longer have that privilege. Being somebody who is now physically and mentally unable to drive, I have had a new kind of understanding for pedestrians and people who don't drive. The majority of millennials who don't drive are not in my situation, but I still have a new understanding for people who do not drive. While not always the case, some people, like me, simply have health issues that prohibit them from driving. This also means I have a new light on pedestrian safety and enjoying seeing it in things as simple as Diverging Diamond Interchanges. This also means I highly support many bike lanes. This also means I understand a lifestyle of taking mass transit. I love roads, and support a world of driving, but I have a new understanding for other, alternative lifestyles now. So this is the reason why I can no longer drive.

Quote from: Chris on January 05, 2017, 02:12:26 PMWell, why would you spend $ 35,000 - 40,000 on a mid-size car, while you can spend $ 14,000 on a 4-5 year old model with a relatively low mileage? One's transportation cost could go way down without compromising too much on quality. At least in the Netherlands, the used car market is generally reliable, in particular for used cars that aren't too old. You can buy a decent used car with 40-50,000 miles on it without it being 'stained and dented with oil leaking out the engine'. That's a primary reason why new car sales are so low over here, the used car market is a better option for many. (140,000 new cars vs 1,800,000 used car sales in 2016.)

Similar considerations apply in the US, where used-car sales are around 40 million a year while new-car sales are 7 million.  Former fleet cars, cars that have just come off leases, and certified pre-owned cars are considered especially safe choices among used cars.  However, many people try to buy new for cars they plan to keep indefinitely, in order to avoid inheriting someone else's undisclosed problems and to have full control over choice of optional equipment.

I suspect the relatively low ratio of new cars in the sales mix in the Netherlands (7.8% versus 15% in the US) has to do with steep purchase tax of up to 45%.  In the US typically only sales tax (which varies from one jurisdiction to another, with 10% being considered quite high) is levied on new car sales.  The Netherlands also has periodic vehicle inspection, while many US jurisdictions do not.  The structure of the wholesale market in used vehicles may also be different.  The US has auto auctions, relatively few of which are open to buyers other than licensed dealers, and there are auto information services (Carfax and the like) that will sell service histories for a given VIN but do not capture any DIY work or necessarily the details of work done by a shop even if it externally reports generating an invoice for it.

Quote from: Chris on January 05, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
Well, why would you spend $ 35,000 - 40,000 on a mid-size car, while you can spend $ 14,000 on a 4-5 year old model with a relatively low mileage?

Depends on how long you intend to keep the vehicle and what kind of miles you are puting on the vehicle.  For me, buying new makes more sense as I'll keep the vehicle 10 years (or more) and put a ton of miles on it.  All the miles and therefore all the problems are mine, and mine alone.  I know the entire maintenance history of the vehicle.  I also have a substantial period of time without a car payment.

Old people are responsible for a massive amount of new car sales. Many of them can't deal with breakdowns like younger people can. That's why the secondary market is flooded with 5-year-old Buicks and Implalas that are only popular with low-income individuals needing basic transportation and no one else. Even cars like Land Rovers, Maseratis and Lincolns are in much, much higher demand on the primary market than secondary since nobody wants them when they are more than three years old.

Quote from: Chris on January 05, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
Well, why would you spend $ 35,000 - 40,000 on a mid-size car, while you can spend $ 14,000 on a 4-5 year old model with a relatively low mileage? One's transportation cost could go way down without compromising too much on quality. At least in the Netherlands, the used car market is generally reliable, in particular for used cars that aren't too old. You can buy a decent used car with 40-50,000 miles on it without it being 'stained and dented with oil leaking out the engine'. That's a primary reason why new car sales are so low over here, the used car market is a better option for many. (140,000 new cars vs 1,800,000 used car sales in 2016).

And what is the feature set that the car has? And does it meet your requirements?

When I last went car shopping in 2014 (my 2005 Chevy Malibu was rear-ended and got totaled), there were specific features that were simply "must-haves". One of them was air conditioning because of California. The other was a Bluetooth connection because of smart phones. Yes, I listen to pre-recorded music and audiobooks on long trips. I ended up getting a 2013 Buick Verano with 15K miles on it. If I were car shopping today, that requirement would now be to have Android Auto integration because of the GPS.

The funny part was that, three weeks prior, my mother and I had a discussion about cars. If her 1998 car became non-operable, she was going to get my 2005 Malibu, and I was getting a new car. I had plans on getting a new car anyways, but not for a year or so at that point.  :-D

Quote from: ZLoth on January 14, 2017, 02:18:28 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 05, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
Well, why would you spend $ 35,000 - 40,000 on a mid-size car, while you can spend $ 14,000 on a 4-5 year old model with a relatively low mileage? One's transportation cost could go way down without compromising too much on quality. At least in the Netherlands, the used car market is generally reliable, in particular for used cars that aren't too old. You can buy a decent used car with 40-50,000 miles on it without it being 'stained and dented with oil leaking out the engine'. That's a primary reason why new car sales are so low over here, the used car market is a better option for many. (140,000 new cars vs 1,800,000 used car sales in 2016).

And what is the feature set that the car has? And does it meet your requirements?

When I last went car shopping in 2014 (my 2005 Chevy Malibu was rear-ended and got totaled), there were specific features that were simply "must-haves". One of them was air conditioning because of California. The other was a Bluetooth connection because of smart phones. Yes, I listen to pre-recorded music and audiobooks on long trips. I ended up getting a 2013 Buick Verano with 15K miles on it. If I were car shopping today, that requirement would now be to have Android Auto integration because of the GPS.

The funny part was that, three weeks prior, my mother and I had a discussion about cars. If her 1998 car became non-operable, she was going to get my 2005 Malibu, and I was getting a new car. I had plans on getting a new car anyways, but not for a year or so at that point.  :-D

Kind of begs the question, what is the expectation in a car for Millennials or in general pretty much everyone else.  I checked out a Chevy Spark before I bought my Sonic.  I would argue that the Spark had a lot more stuff in it that would appeal to younger people than the Sonic had, there was all sorts of connectivity stuff that could be had at a low under 20k price on a new car.  Really all these automakers are putting a huge effort to attract young people to entry level cars and it hasn't been working....it is people like me who buy them.  :-D

Really for me all I care about in daily driver is three things; automatic transmission, cruise control, and an AUX jack.  I prefer my cars to be new so I don't have to worry about what someone else might not have done in regards to maintenance.  You'd be amazed at how worn away a clear coat can be from 3-4 years of neglect.  Even though a daily driver for me is disposable I'd like have something that hasn't been neglected and I can maintain for a presentable resale when my use for it is done.

^ In my case–bucking the trend as a millennial who bought a new car last year–the decision to buy brand new and not even a leftover 2015 was primarily driven by the availability of new technologies.

With a new baby, a wife who's never been keen on driving, and currently living in an area with comically inept drivers, I wanted every safety technology we could reasonably afford. For 2016, Volkswagen began offering an optional Driver Assistance package for Golf models that includes lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring, rear cross traffic monitoring, adaptive cruise, forward collision warning with autonomous braking, and more. As of a year ago, that made the Golf one of the most affordable cars available with such a comprehensive suite of safety technologies–in addition to the fact that the underlying car does exceptionally well on all IIHS crash tests. VW had offered a "driver assist"  package in 2015, but it lacked many of the features that were added the following year, most notably autonomous breaking.

In addition, Volkswagen did a major overhaul of their infotainment systems between 2015 and 2016, and many reviews of the 2015 Golf included a comment along the lines of "...the new Golf is great, but wait to buy until next year when the electronics have been upgraded."

From the outset, I wanted a hatchback or wagon–so my shopping list was quite short when I started. In addition to the Golf wagon, I was also considering the Subaru Impreza and Mazda 3 hatches. But availability of technology was the final nail in the coffin for the two Japanese contenders. VW supports Apple CarPlay in a big way, but neither Subaru nor Mazda did as of a year ago (though I think Subaru is adding it for 2017).

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 04, 2017, 11:51:20 PM
It seems like every age group growing up from Gen X on is approaching life stages 5-10 years from what the Baby Boomers and prior generations did.

To some degree it is also that people are doing things in a different order.

My parents met in college, got engaged right after they graduated, started having kids while they were still living in rented apartments, and didn't buy the house they settled down in until after all of their kids were already born.
I did not meet my fiancée until several years after I finished college, and after we get married we plan on buying the house we settle down in before we start having kids.
If all goes according to plan, while we will be marrying and reproducing at a later age than my parents did, we will actually buy the house we settle down in at a younger age than they did.

Found this interesting article discussing millennials and gen x 'ers and factors taken into consideration when buying a vehicle.

https://www.rickey.org/millennials-want-new-cars-and-dont-care-about-price-says-new-study/300583/

That chart lists a great irony. Someone is apparently worried about environmental impact, yet wants a NEW car.....

Well, this seems to be the most truthful item I've seen printed in the press in a very long time:

QuoteAs far as the most popular cars, the study found that the Ford Mustang is shared as the most popular performance car of the two generations

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww34%2Fslorydn1%2FMustang%2520Pics%2F20140209_172717_zps8264f499.jpg&hash=211ff2e6292741a3482ae31c0115b99c4d0572f2)


I can't argue with that statement!

Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2017, 11:36:50 PM
Well, this seems to be the most truthful item I've seen printed in the press in a very long time:

QuoteAs far as the most popular cars, the study found that the Ford Mustang is shared as the most popular performance car of the two generations

*snip*
I can't argue with that statement!

Further down in the article:

Quote... but that's pretty much where the similarities ended. For example, in the truck category, millennials prefer the Chevy Silverado 1500, while Gen Xers prefer the Ford F-150. Among SUVs, Gen Xers prefer the Toyota RAV4 while millennials side with the Honda CR-V.

Split on brands, yes; split on vehicle types, no.

Fluff article IMHO; especially since the Mustang has been a vehicle to bridge so-called generation gaps since its inception.

All of the articles I have been able to find about this Autolist "study" look like paid placement--there is typically an inline link, apparently for the full study on Autolist's website, that actually goes to a listing page for the Honda Civic where you can find instances available for sale.  If I instead go to the top page for Autolist's website, I cannot (easily) find a press-release page where I might be able to find a PDF link either for the full report or for a summary.

Autolist also appears to be pandering to the popular "pampered snowflakes" stereotype about millennials.  I am especially suspicious of the statement that millennials like to keep cars for only five years while Generation X'ers keep them for ten years or longer.  The reality is that a middle-income cost- and value-conscious consumer of any age who is intent on not carrying a car payment will keep a car for as long as it remains in good running order with an acceptable appearance.  Depending on climate, service profile, and component reliability, this will be a good deal longer than 10 years.

Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 26, 2017, 09:24:39 PM
Found this interesting article discussing millennials and gen x 'ers and factors taken into consideration when buying a vehicle.

https://www.rickey.org/millennials-want-new-cars-and-dont-care-about-price-says-new-study/300583/

Eeep...that site is everything wrong with webvertizingaggregationbait today! Three paragraphs of information and a cloud of mustard gas.

Here's the data, posted 8/9ths of the way down the linked page:

(https://production-assets0.autolist.com/assets/infographics/millennials-bottom.png)

Alas, 3800 responses isn't much to go by. Neither does it tell us how much X/Y prefers [car brand] over another and by how much.

Statistically speaking, 3,800 (or 3,383) is a decent sized sample for this type study.  You'll never get tens of thousands of people to respond to such a study.

What it reveals to me: Those that are younger purchase cheaper vehicles, and have a thought process they'll hold onto the cars for a shorter period of time.  I'm sure if we looked at previous studies, this will probably be representative of similar results.

Of course millennials drive less expensive cars than people 10 years older.  They're earlier in their career with less disposable income.

Younger buyers usually buy vehicles that they'll be rid of in a few years; increased affluence, desire for a larger family, priorities which are prone to change as their interests progress. Also, they're also growing up with a sense that nothing is "built to last" or just becomes outmoded quicker than before. Asking someone how long they'll keep their new vehicle is a rather inane question...who knows? It's like asking newlyweds how long their second marriage will last. 

I thought the study concluded that younger buyers were willing to spend more than Gen X-ers.