Good point.  Friends, Seinfeld, Sex & the City, all often showed characters walking on the street, plot lines sometimes discussed the characters not having a car...

And how many TV shows have people living in the city these days? Hanging out in cool urban places. Seems like it really got going with Friends, Seinfeld, Ally McBeal and continued with Sex In The City, Big Bang Theory, and more.

Actually, "the city" is a character itself. 

i wish this was broken down by age.

maybe it is somewhere?

pretty eye opening regardless.

 

This is unshocking to say the least.  What it translates to is 92% of the working world choosing to have at least some personal control of their transportation mode.

 

One could, and perhaps should question how split trips and even those who do different things different days are handled.  The assumption would be if you're more than 50% one of the modes that's where you count, but....

 

Or 92% of the working world choosing the only choice given to them by the government.  When all roads are privatized and priced at what the market will bear, then we'll see the country's actual preference for driving.  This graph just shows the effect of dramatic disparities in public funding in various forms of infrastructure.  But I agree with mrnyc's thought: it would be interesting to see this chart broken down by age.  Also, within the solo-driver category, it would be interesting to see a further breakdown by age and distance.  I recently moved down from walking to solo-driver status, but on the flip side, my commute is 4.8 miles (which is about 4.5 miles longer than I'd prefer, but nothing like those coming into Akron from Medina, Kent, Solon, etc.).

 

 

Traffic fatalities across the state dipped to a record low in 2013.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/ohio_traffic_fatalities_reach.html

 

Perhaps this is a beneficial consequence of fewer young people driving.

I read an interesting article recently about the impact of TV & movies on young people, influencing them on cars.  People who grew up in the 80's had car culture thrown at them non stop in tv & movies:  hit shows like CHIP's, Dukes of Hazzard, Knight Rider, etc all featured car chases each week, amazing driving, etc.  Young men grew up & couldn't wait to get behind the wheel.  Now, not so much, without counting the "Fast & Furious" episodes...  I can't think of a single popular tv show out right now that features a car or a good amount of driving each week...

 

I don't know if you read the same article (from this month's Car and Driver), but the C&D article also mentioned how YouTube allows people to see the kind of motorized mayhem even TV and movies couldn't deliver: real people crashing with real-life consequences. Stuff like guys totaling their own Lamborghinis and Bugattis. Guys destroying brand new Raptors by jumping them on motocross tracks. Drivers dying. That makes the A-Team forcing a junk old military Jeep off the road then it rolling over as pro stuntmen safely eject seem tame.

^yes, that was the article I read

This is how they're selling cars now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-mgkcXs7_M

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsz6QRomlz8

hey, it's got us talking about it, doesn't it?

 

Can you classify those ads as "ironic"? And the only features they mention are "Pandora compatibility and a rear view camera"?

Also, a few years ago Ford launched the "Fiesta Movement", where they attempted to build buzz around their subcompact by giving away 100 cars to bloggers:

 

However sales of the car have tailed off, Ford Sez, because Millenials don't have enough money for a new car and those who do are choosing the Focus over the Fiesta:

http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/05/09/Ford-Fiesta-Social-Marketing-Challenge-050912.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

Can you classify those ads as "ironic"? And the only features they mention are "Pandora compatibility and a rear view camera"?

 

I prefer the Honda commercials 10x over the fake-whimsical Prius ads which are done as a cartoon showing the car winding through country roads filled with flowers...

Another thing that you have to keep in mind when noting the demise of the car chase and cool cars dominating '80s TV is that those shows were very expensive to make. They were essentially shooting half an action movie every week. By 1988 the networks had pulled all the Airwolfs, Hardcastle & McCormicks and Street Hawks for cheap, dippy sitcoms aimed at kids and teens such as Growing Pains, Alf, Full House and Mr. Belvedere. This was the time that the newsmagazine started wiping out the evening soaps too. Also, the demographics of those early '80s action shows skewed way too male in a world where women were making 85% of purchasing decisions. The Camaros, Mustangs and mini-trucks the dudes wanted weren't nearly as high volume vehicles as the minivans, Hondas, Tauri and Cavaliers that My Two Dads and 20/20 sold.

 

Eventually though, people looking for laughs needed more than little girls mispronouncing words and teaching moments brought on by Dad finding a joint in a teen's nightstand. Enter Seinfeld, Friends etc. that at least started out cheap to make and drew both men and women. So it wasn't some kind of liberal mandate that moved things away from filming cars ramping in the desert to filming people at home but rather business sense and the need to maximize the wealth of the shareholders.

A Camaro is a guy's car?

Is this some kind of motorhead metrosexual thing?

I just merged the two "driving less" threads. There was one over in roads-n-driving section, too.

 

So, I love the new Nissan Rogue commercial, which has this "if you can't beat them, join them" message with regards to traffic, trains/transit and bikes....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiprDsiDvIQ

This graph just shows the effect of dramatic disparities in public funding in various forms of infrastructure.  But I agree with mrnyc's thought: it would be interesting to see this chart broken down by age.

 

This is the best I could do in a short amount of time based on pre-existing census tables (1-year ACS; which was the source for the figure mrnyc posted):

 

2005

Age 10-24:

Solo car/van/truck commute share*: 73.1%

Public transit share: 5.4%

 

Age 45-54:

Solo car/van/truck commute share*: 79.4%

Public transit share: 4.1%

 

2012

Age 10-24:

Solo car/van/truck commute share: 70.9%

Public transit share: 6.2%

 

Age 45-54:

Solo car/van/truck commute share: 78.7%

Public transit share: 4.2%

 

*"Share" is of employed persons in age group [denominator includes people working from home]. Mode is self-reported; respondents can only choose one mode.

 

Those numbers aren't too eye-popping, though the modal spread between age groups did widen some between '05 and '12. The trend line is pretty interesting though:

 

'05-'12 growth in number of 20-24 year-old single occupancy drivers: +3.3%

'05-'12 growth in number of 20-24 year-old public transit riders: +22.2%

 

'05-'12 growth in number of 45-54 year-old single occupancy drivers: +21.3%

'05-'12 growth in number of 45-54 year-old public transit riders: +20.6%

 

This is for the U.S. as a whole, so some of the driver here may be geographic differences in the change in distribution of the age cohorts. If I had more time and new how to program I would dig into the micro data to try to pull apartment the trends in greater detail...

 

[Edited for clarity]

-The fact is there *are* alternatives, and many of those alternatives can be expanded without too much difficulty if the extra demand existed.  It doesn’t seem to.  I suspect this has a lot to do with the decentralization of workplaces.  I’m not sure a centralized transit system can serve that very well, especially when centralized on the edge of a geographic area.

 

-Good point about the decline of the car shows.  Certainly they were more expensive to make.  Even without too many wrecks, a "Dukes of Hazzard" episode went through several cars.

 

 

 

 

Traffic fatalities across the state dipped to a record low in 2013.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/ohio_traffic_fatalities_reach.html

 

Perhaps this is a beneficial consequence of fewer young people driving.

 

Food for thought: What are traffic-fatality declines really indicative of? Cars have been made safer. Seat belts and air bags are now required. Emergency response has been greatly improved and professionalized. Medical care and technology are better than ever. Naturally traffic fatalities will decline in this environment. But are there figures on traffic maimings? Have serious accidents declined, too? Are people actually driving more safely? Does the emphasis only on reduced fatalities create a false sense of security in the driving public? Discuss.

I just merged the two "driving less" threads. There was one over in roads-n-driving section, too.

 

So, I love the new Nissan Rogue commercial, which has this "if you can't beat them, join them" message with regards to traffic, trains/transit and bikes....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiprDsiDvIQ

 

Monday, January 6, 2014

Nissan to Millennials: If You Really Want to Get Around, Don’t Drive

by Brad Aaron

 

This Nissan ad, in heavy rotation during the NFL playoffs, smacks of 21st century carmaker desperation.

 

In “Commute,” a young motorist, stuck with colleagues in city traffic and watching cyclists pass her by, speeds onto a conveniently located ramp and launches her Nissan Rogue on top of a passing train. Now they can get where they’re going quickly and reliably.

 

“Fantasy, do not attempt,” reads a tongue-in-cheek disclaimer, as the driver floors it and M.I.A.’s “Y.A.L.A.” pulses in the background. “Cars can’t jump on trains.”

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/01/06/nissan-to-millennials-if-you-really-want-to-get-around-dont-drive/

 

 

Food for thought: What are traffic-fatality declines really indicative of?

 

I agree with everything you said. We really only have a little bit of data to describe a complicated situation.

 

What came to mind was a memory of driver's ed class: Young people have the sharpest eyes and the fastest reflexes. Why then is the accident rate greatest among young drivers? It would be interesting to see how traffic fatalities compare with age distribution. If you take the most risk-prone age group off the road, it makes sense that the overall accident rate would decline. 

 

What came to mind was a memory of driver's ed class: Young people have the sharpest eyes and the fastest reflexes. Why then is the accident rate greatest among young drivers?

 

Their car control is awful. They don't know the vehicle's limits.

I just saw a graph of accident rate the other day, maybe in the book Suburban Nation?  Basically it starts way up in the stratosphere, drops like a stone at around 25 years, then bottoms out at 35 stays there until 65 and begins going up fairly significantly from there.  I guess it's basically a bathtub curve. 

 

There's also a Subaru commercial on right now where a mom pretty much verbatim says, "my daughter was raised in this car."  Is that supposed to be a GOOD thing?  I mean, that sounds just awful.  Putting a kid in a car is the single most dangerous thing you can do to them for one thing.  Aside from that, if your whole life is just being driven around to places, that's sad beyond belief.  I bet that's the kind of kid who will eschew driving as much as possible. 

 

Their car control is awful. They don't know the vehicle's limits.

 

Or their own.

It's not the economy, stupid; young people really are turning their backs on cars

 

 

Lloyd Alter

Treehugger

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/its-not-economy-stupid-young-people-really-are-turning-their-backs-cars.html

 

Excerpt:

Longer term, the picture is consistent. People between the ages of 16 and 34 are driving a whole lot less. The cost of cars, parking, insurance and gas keep going up to the point that it becomes a serious burden, and that's not changing anytime soon. This started long before the smart phone revolution. However now, the picture has changed. If you want to get all anecdotal, my nephew has a very well paying job and can afford a car. But he lives near a streetcar line and would prefer to be on his phone on the streetcar than in a car stuck in traffic. When he needs one there's Zipcar or rental. Much of the time he bikes. He has made the choice that another car consultant describes in Bloomberg, In a wonderfully titled article: Gen Y Eschewing V-8 for 4G

^Yeah, I don't know anyone buying a car. I have friends making well over 150k who have no plans to buy a car. These are the wealthiest kids in America. They'll buy a $2000 bike before looking at used cars. By the time you factor in insurance rates and sky-high parking fees of $200-$500 a month, it doesn't make financial sense for anyone in the city to own a car.

 

I'm considered a luddite by friends for owning one, but I need it for work, and I love using it for photo trips to Marin and Big Sur. I'll probably always own a car (I've always been a road trip addict), but I don't think my generation will own them at anywhere near the levels of previous generations. Even without the cultural changes underway, student loan debts would prevent them being able to afford car loans.

 

There has been a massive shift back to urban living coupled with a massive expansion of our population living with student loan debt while working low wage jobs. The Big 3 is well aware of this. At CES, I heard a Ford rep say, "teens today worry more about buying an iPhone than a car." The passion isn't there anymore and it's no longer a status symbol. Your cell phone is your status symbol. And of course what neighborhood you live in is also a status symbol. Young people spend their money on rent, not cars.

 

Living in the suburbs and driving to work could kill your sex game.

I'm currently in the process of looking for a condo in Downtown or OTR in Cincy and have been calculating all types of numbers trying to see how much everything will be. I also did this for a cheap new car, a Kia Soul. Without actually going into the exact numbers of my financial situation, in order to own, operate, insure, etc. a bare bones Kia Soul I would be spending 2/3 the amount I would be spending on a mortgage, insurance, HOA, and taxes on a place I can afford. That's sure as hell not happening. I'll gladly take the 25 minute bus ride to Hyde Park.

Akron is, unfortunately, still very much a car-dependent city, and while I'm certainly supporting all reasonable measures to change that, a transit-only lifestyle is simply not feasible here.  Even when I lived right in the heart of Downtown, owning a car was still a necessity.

 

But as I pointed out earlier on this thread, young people don't need to be giving up driving entirely in order to be driving less, especially compared to previous generations.  There was a time when my family of four growing up had six motor vehicles.  And we also lived out in the countryside with a drive of 11 miles to get to the Wal-Mart in Heath (the strip center there is where we also often got our groceries).  That kind of sight is likely to become less common as the current generation of young Americans starts having kids (which, of course, they're also doing later, on average).

I'm currently in the process of looking for a condo in Downtown or OTR in Cincy and have been calculating all types of numbers trying to see how much everything will be. I also did this for a cheap new car, a Kia Soul. Without actually going into the exact numbers of my financial situation, in order to own, operate, insure, etc. a bare bones Kia Soul I would be spending 2/3 the amount I would be spending on a mortgage, insurance, HOA, and taxes on a place I can afford. That's sure as hell not happening. I'll gladly take the 25 minute bus ride to Hyde Park.

 

Also if you don't have covered or at least off-street parking it makes little sense to own a new car.  Then the problem in these condo complex lots (or parking structures) everyone has at least a decent car.  There is a sort of peer pressure to not have a piece of junk parked in plain sight. 

 

I have speculated about buying a new compact car with cash and keeping it in a self-storage locker so as to discourage myself from using it, with the idea of being that guy in 2031 with the 2014 Honda Fit with 14,000 miles on it.  Like, you'd be able to drive it in a car show (like the guy I saw with a mint condition '88 Chevy Nova last year).  But those storage lockers are $100/mo for one large enough for a compact car, so do the math...keeping a compact car garaged for 10 years costs about as much as buying it. 

 

 

Only one of the places I've looked at has parking included in its HOA (well, a slightly increased HOA since it's optional to tack it on for a discount over normal Washington Park Garage rates). I'm also waiting to tour Westfalen Lofts II and know there's no parking attached to those condo fees. There is currently a fair amount of available, non-metered street parking over there but I can't see that lasting as more and more is developed. Owning a car down there is frankly just a pain in the ass. Hence my lack of desire to even deal with it.

Akron is, unfortunately, still very much a car-dependent city, and while I'm certainly supporting all reasonable measures to change that, a transit-only lifestyle is simply not feasible here.  Even when I lived right in the heart of Downtown, owning a car was still a necessity.

 

But as I pointed out earlier on this thread, young people don't need to be giving up driving entirely in order to be driving less, especially compared to previous generations.  There was a time when my family of four growing up had six motor vehicles.  And we also lived out in the countryside with a drive of 11 miles to get to the Wal-Mart in Heath (the strip center there is where we also often got our groceries).  That kind of sight is likely to become less common as the current generation of young Americans starts having kids (which, of course, they're also doing later, on average).

 

Akron's in an odd position.  Its percentage of its county population (37%) is higher than Cleveland's, but the northern part of the county sees itself as a sort of borderland between the two MSAs and is very willing to play one off against the other.  That doesn't lead to transit support as destinations vary so much.  It also doesn't help that the two adjoining systems don't merge well, though that may be changing.

 

When cars and smart phones are compared, it's worth noting that Sunoco won't buy your car if you sign a contract to use their gas.

True, Akron probably doesn't permit a transit-only lifestyle, but when I went entirely without a car in Lakewood/Cleveland, I found that most trips I made weren't by transit. My transit trips mostly were to work. Instead, most of my trips were on foot or bike to the grocery store, drug store, convenience store, Target, restaurants, coffee shops, etc.

 

If there are neighborhoods in Akron where a grocery store, a 24-hour drug/convenience store and a few restaurants are within a short walk, you can live a car-free lifestyle.

 

BTW, the Cleveland-Akron-Canton corridor has the most frequent and longest-distance transit service in Ohio. SARTA has three weekday round trips that run express from Canton's Cornerstone Transit Center to downtown Cleveland and University Circle. It overlaps more local services, including SARTA's hourly weekday #81 service between Canton's Cornerstore and Akron's Pfaff Transit Center via CAK Airport, and Akron Metro RTA's 11 weekday round trips between Akron Pfaff and downtown Cleveland. Plus there is Akron Metro's #101 weekday route up to Brecksville where it meets Cleveland RTA's #77 and vice-versa. And if you need weekend service, there's always Greyhound between Cleveland and Akron, or you can take the daily Cleveland casino Lakefront Lines buses to Akron (Summit Mall -- served by Akron Metro's frequent, daily #1 bus on Market) and to Canton (Belden Village -- served by SARTA routes 81/81L, 105, 151 that run every day except Sunday, and five other routes to cities from Massillon north to Hartville.

 

But since these are three separate systems (five if you include Greyhound and Lakefront Lines), it is not easy to figure out all the schedules. Nor is there a singular fare or free transfers. But it's there.

If there are neighborhoods in Akron where a grocery store, a 24-hour drug/convenience store and a few restaurants are within a short walk, you can live a car-free lifestyle.

 

There's scattered neighborhoods around the region where that exists, or could with a couple extra amenities. 

 

If it wasn't for my daughter and I worked and lived on the same transit line, or for that matter worked at Northfield Park, I could go a month without my car.  Easily.  Downtown Bedford would be similar with a grocery store, and it is on a bus line.

Federal Transit Admn ‏@FTA_DOT  2m

Why are Americans in some cities driving less? Hint: it starts with a "T" and ends with "ransit" http://usat.ly/1fSl1oB  via @usatoday

Interesting presentation. Lots to digest here.....

 

Millennials & Mobility

Understanding The Millennial Mindset

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/c86403131b.pdf

I think a lot of the Millennials' attitudes towards many things comes from watching their parents try too hard. Millenials got shuttled everywhere all week and weekend long in these uber-boring minivans and SUVs bought in the name of safety -- the younger ones with DVDs playing the entire time on screens in the back seats. So they don't like the idea of having little visual stimulation while being transported since they had those DVDs running the entire time when they were little. A bunch of Applebee's, tract housing and Lowe's stores aren't enough visuals. Driving also means being up really early and getting home really late to them because that's what Mom and Dad had to do because of all that driving.

 

I doubt I'd be interested in cars if my folks hadn't raised me in two-door Thunderbirds, Monte Carlos, Cutlasses and pickups. And they didn't even care about cars. They just wanted something American that wasn't too tall. Sitting in the back of a Dustbuster van or a Camry for 15 years wouldn't make me care about the car any more than the dishwasher.

 

The Boomer parents trying too hard also bleeds over into non-transportation aspects such as delayed parenthood. The Boomers made parenthood look so difficult and overwhelming that the Millennials are like, "that's just too much. I don't know if I can do it really." Whereas the WWII dads, all they were expected to do was go to work then come home and watch the ballgame while drinking gin. And the moms had all day to accomplish the things they needed to do to keep the house up.

Other than the drinking gin part, you pretty well nailed the 50's when I was a kid. Dad could support a household on his income and that's good because Mom had very few modern appliances or conveniences. Want a nice looking shirt? Iron it. Dinner? Make it from scratch and then do all the dishes for a family of four by hand. Hell, they didn't even have Teflon back then. Dad wasn't exactly idle around the house either. He built a bedroom on the weekends and a garage, too.

Beer maybe?

The freedom of driving aspect also doesn't fit into their paradigm. When you HAVE to drive everywhere, that's not freedom. When that car is attached to your pocketbook like a ball and chain, that's not freedom. Being anti-establishment in the 1950s involved having a car, cruising, back-seat romances, etc. Being anti-establishment today means not having a driver's license, getting involved in a volunteer activity in the community, biking in a way that violates that traffic laws, hanging out at the pedestrian plaza, etc. Today, freedom OF driving has evolved into freedom FROM driving.

 

I think this is similar to how the freedom to smoke cigarettes has evolved into wanting freedom from second-hand smoke. Funny how definitions tend to change.

The freedom of driving aspect also doesn't fit into their paradigm. When you HAVE to drive everywhere, that's not freedom. When that car is attached to your pocketbook like a ball and chain, that's not freedom. Being anti-establishment in the 1950s involved having a car, cruising, back-seat romances, etc. Being anti-establishment today means not having a driver's license, getting involved in a volunteer activity in the community, biking in a way that violates that traffic laws, hanging out at the pedestrian plaza, etc. Today, freedom OF driving has evolved into freedom FROM driving.

 

I think this is similar to how the freedom to smoke cigarettes has evolved into wanting freedom from second-hand smoke. Funny how definitions tend to change.

Not a very good analogy, unless the plan is to actively discourage driving.  Freedom "from", whether it's "freedom from religion", freedom from being offended",  or "freedom from second hand smoke", usually means you're trying to limit the options of others for reasons having nothing to do with freedom.

Only if you look at things like that. If you see somebody doing something different from you or making a different decision than you then look at that act as a threat to a choice that you have made... well you're going to come to that conclusion every time.

Not a very good analogy, unless the plan is to actively discourage driving.  Freedom "from", whether it's "freedom from religion", freedom from being offended",  or "freedom from second hand smoke", usually means you're trying to limit the options of others for reasons having nothing to do with freedom.

 

You do realize that no one is trying to take your privilege (its not a right, BTW) of driving your car away from you or reduce the access to your car? Don't you?

Not a very good analogy, unless the plan is to actively discourage driving.  Freedom "from", whether it's "freedom from religion", freedom from being offended",  or "freedom from second hand smoke", usually means you're trying to limit the options of others for reasons having nothing to do with freedom.

 

You do realize that no one is trying to take your privilege (its not a right, BTW) of driving your car away from you or reduce the access to your car? Don't you?

 

Well, the parallel would be reducing access to roads, which yes, there definitely are plans for that underway.  But of course, you don't have the inherent right to publicly-funded roads, particularly when they're costing more taxpayer dollars than they're providing in taxpayer utility.

 

And, of course, because of the cultural shift around driving combined with the massive amount of road construction over the past two generations, the political support behind further buildouts isn't always what it was.  Sure, there are still projects underway, but there are also road removal projects underway in other places as well, and proposals to remove roads aren't generally encountering as fierce of opposition as you might have expected--and received--30 years ago.  Witness the lack of a general hue and cry over the proposal to remove the OH-59 innerbelt into Akron.

Retweeted by CNBC

Phil LeBeau ‏@Lebeaucarnews 6m

 

BREAKING: Vehicle Dependability falls in U.S. for first time in 16 years (per @JDPower)

That's a bad trend to break. :-(

Well, the parallel would be reducing access to roads, which yes, there definitely are plans for that underway.  But of course, you don't have the inherent right to publicly-funded roads, particularly when they're costing more taxpayer dollars than they're providing in taxpayer utility.

 

However, advocating for one mode (ie: rail) doesn't require the subtraction of another (ie: road). In all my rail/transit advocacy, I don't remember becoming engaged in campaigns to eliminate or downgrade any roads. I have allied my employer with some environmental groups who have fought road projects, but not for us to engage in their efforts but for them to engage in ours. Frankly, we're not big enough to make a difference in fighting road projects. We have our hands full enough with the rail/transit projects were already involved in!

The public policy response to the decline in driving has been slow in coming. But it's starting to -- in some states other than Ohio.......

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,28849.msg698081.html#msg698081

Reducing access to roads...

 

I know what you meant, but I prefer the words expressways, freeways, or motorways instead of roads. Roads are basic to civilization and are not exclusively for automobiles.

This is the kind of stuff young people are coming up with about driving. You didn't see this in the "driving down the street in your Trans Am and getting flagged down by a random girl who gives you a BJ" days.

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/qwantz/driving-video-game

 

 

This is the kind of stuff young people are coming up with about driving. You didn't see this in the "driving down the street in your Trans Am and getting flagged down by a random girl who gives you a BJ" days.

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/qwantz/driving-video-game

 

 

 

You saw it, if you looked in the right places.  Instead of spending time reading John Hughes's pre-bratpack short stories.  :)

What we can learn from the millennials who are opting out of driving

By Ben Adler

17 Mar 2014 2:50 PM

 

The whole discussion of transportation has presumed too much that cultural preferences are what determine behavior. But if people are opting out of driving for economic reasons now, then economic forces might also dissuade them from driving in the future. Nor are cultural and economic motivations mutually exclusive. If you’re inclined to drive but not that strongly, you will more readily switch away from driving if costs rise or alternatives improve. As Bloomberg recently reported, “Young people are three times more likely than older generations to abandon their vehicle if costs increase, according to Deloitte’s 2014 Global Automotive Consumer Study.” Transportation is fundamentally about getting somewhere as quickly, cheaply, and easily as possible. With the right incentives, people will choose not to drive.

 

Ball notes that many millennials who go carless live in a handful of mostly coastal cities. Read one way, this shows that it is not a widespread phenomenon. Read another, it proves that transportation preferences are malleable. Most of those millennials grew up in car-dependent suburbs. They stopped driving when they moved to cities because they now live somewhere denser, with fewer incentives to drive and better alternatives. Offer that same deal to Americans in other places, especially the poor, and many of them would gladly take it.

 

Indeed, many of the rich might take it too. Ball mentions the New York City metro area as accounting for a very disproportionate share of affluent car-free households. That isn’t because everyone who moves to New York suddenly decides they hate driving any more than it means ex-New Yorkers discover they love it upon moving to L.A.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://grist.org/cities/what-we-can-learn-from-the-millennials-who-are-opting-out-of-driving/#.UydjNAj8WAI.twitter

The Republican Party's new ads try to court young people by promising policies for cheaper gas. I don't think I've ever seen so many "thumbs-down" ratings of a YouTube video before....

 

WEDNESDAY, MAR 19, 2014 07:43 AM EDT

RNC’s embarrassing new ad campaign: Meet Scott, the cool young Republican!

Can millennials be convinced to care about job creators? Maybe this guy in a leather jacket and glasses can do it VIDEO

ALEX PAREENE

 

Everyone knows how hard it can be to market to millennials. Today’s young Americans are wise to the traditional tricks of the pitchman. But one thing this generation responds to is sincerity. The best way to reach them is with an earnest, honest message from someone they can identify with. For a great example of what professional marketers think that means, take a look at this brilliant new ad campaign from the Republican National Committee. Meet Scott Greenberg, totally identifiable millennial guy who also happens to be a Republican:

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/rncs_mortifying_new_ad_campaign_meet_scott_the_cool_young_republican/?utm_content=buffer20593&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

_________________

 

Thursday, March 20, 2014 No Comments

#GOPHipster Ads Try to Reach Young People With Gas-Price Populism. Oops.

by Tanya Snyder

 

How embarrassing. The Republican National Committee’s outreach to young potential voters misses the mark so badly they’re just proving the point they were hoping to disprove: The party is absolutely clueless about young people.

 

Exhibit A: the whiny young #GOPHipster in this RNC ad (the party calls it the “Create Your American Dream” campaign but we’re gonna go with the group on this):

 

READ MORE AT:

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/03/20/gophipster-ads-try-to-reach-young-people-with-gas-price-populism-oops/