I don't think those ads are actually aimed at young people, rather the same old middle-age to elderly suburbanites and rural dwellers. It doesn't speak in Millennial language but the same old Rush-speak instead. More doubling down and rallying the base from the Right.

Kid pays $2 million for license plate:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtN35OUIu0g

FYI - 89mil AED (Emirati Dirham) = 24,230,873 USD

New national survey shows that young professionals are increasingly basing decisions on where to work and live based on the availability of transit and other transportation options ....other than driving.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2014/04/24/8097443/

Those dancing events, especially ones held at "neutral" locations like Fountain Square, are ones that put the women in total control over nice guys.  It happens every time: girl acts happy to see nice guy when he shows up, he's got his hopes all up (hell, he's made up his mind he's going marry this girl! The women in his family will love her!), then after dancing together dorkily to one or two songs the girl goes and dances with Sergio from Brazil.  Girl comes over at some point and introduces Sergio ("we're good friends!!!") to nice guy, nice guy crumbles.  Even worse is when there is no Sergio, and the girl makes the trying-too-hard white guy (usually wearing a preposterous hat if not full period costume, and possibly shorter than girl and nice guy) a substitute Sergio.  Instead of simply folding, Nice Guy swells up inside, and there very well might be some dork drama.     

 

 

I saw this picture online and thought of the above post:

 

Straight people... :roll:

Those dancing events, especially ones held at "neutral" locations like Fountain Square, are ones that put the women in total control over nice guys.  It happens every time: girl acts happy to see nice guy when he shows up, he's got his hopes all up (hell, he's made up his mind he's going marry this girl! The women in his family will love her!), then after dancing together dorkily to one or two songs the girl goes and dances with Sergio from Brazil.  Girl comes over at some point and introduces Sergio ("we're good friends!!!") to nice guy, nice guy crumbles.  Even worse is when there is no Sergio, and the girl makes the trying-too-hard white guy (usually wearing a preposterous hat if not full period costume, and possibly shorter than girl and nice guy) a substitute Sergio.  Instead of simply folding, Nice Guy swells up inside, and there very well might be some dork drama.     

 

 

I saw this picture online and thought of the above post:

 

 

Ha, that's funny, because that post reminded me of this

 

 

 

PublicTransportation ‏@APTA_Transit  1m

66% of millenials list #publictransportation in the top 3 issues for moving to a city. http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/public-transportation-the-old-new-idea-for-millennials/ …

Apparently, we reached Peak Convertible in 2004: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3031410/convertibles-arent-cool-any-more

I still want one when I travel out west with two of my best friends and Britney Spears!

 

^bahahaha... Or to drive off a cliff with Gina Davis...

Apparently, we reached Peak Convertible in 2004: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3031410/convertibles-arent-cool-any-more

 

People figured out that they could buy a motorcycle (well, not a Harley) for a lot cheaper than a convertible. Convertibles basically suck for daily use so they're a lot better as second cars. Bikes are easier to stash and when they break down from disuse it's usually something simple -- unlike a car.

Convertibles became "cool" because of Hollywood, for the very simple reason that they made it easier to film the people inside a car. 

 

I've had three, and never any issue with daily use except of course for the Camaro in the winter.  One big advantage over a motorcycle is being able to put the top up if the weather changes while you are out (or at work).

We also have a "car-free" thread, but it's been silent for a couple years, so I'm going to post this here:

 

With Uber, Less Reason to Own a Car

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/technology/personaltech/with-ubers-cars-maybe-we-dont-need-our-own.html?src=me&ref=general

 

I've noticed a large uptick in the amount of my friends using Uber and Lyft regularly on weekends. They'll use it to get to ro from bars and like not having to deal with a car on a night out. It's not as convenient as, say, the NYC subway in terms of having no worry about transportation when partying, drinking, clubbing, etc. but it adds a nice layer of mobility that wasn't there before. Or, wasn't there in a safe way before. I'd be curious if these services also bring with them a reduction in drunk driving, at least within the core of the cities they operate in.

The end of driving (as we know it)

by  Michal Lev-Ram  @FortuneMagazine  JUNE 12, 2014, 7:17 AM EDT

 

With more than 6.1 million registered automobiles and a population of about 10 million, the L.A. metropolitan region has more cars per capita than any other urban area in the world. This city–from the 405 to the 110 to the 10–was built for driving, of course. Angelenos clock a combined 300 million miles every day (each of them spends an estimated 90 hours a year just sitting in traffic jams, which is more time than they devote to procreating or brushing their teeth). But despite its population’s longtime love affair with cars–Angelenos pretty much invented the drive-up, drive-through, and drive-in–L.A. is on the frontlines of a surprising tectonic shift that’s taking place all across the U.S.: People, particularly young adults, aren’t driving as much as they used to. Today only 77% of Americans ages 20 to 24 have a driver’s license, down from about 90% in the early 1980s. For the first time since the advent of the automobile, the collective number of miles traveled by car is in decline–since peaking in 2004, it has dropped about 9% (see chart below).

 

What’s (ahem) driving the trend? The rise of a new kind of city living–and working–is a big factor. Young professionals, including those with families, are increasingly opting for urban life. And cities, even Los Angeles, are responding with new or improved public-transportation systems, bike-sharing programs, and more pedestrian-friendly thoroughfares. Companies, in turn, are moving back to cities or opening satellite offices downtown to be close to the talent. Exhibit A: San Francisco, which has supplanted Silicon Valley as the HQ city of choice for companies such as Salesforce.com and Square and Twitter.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/end-of-driving/

 

From a Business Courier interview with Jeff Wyler (requires subscription):

 

Business Courier: "Do you worry about the national trend of the millennial generation driving less or choosing not to drive at all? How do you convince them they need your product and to buy it?"

 

Wyler: "I’m not so much concerned in this market. Manufacturers today cater to millennials with technology and being environmentally conscious."

 

In other words... The Cincinnati good ol' boys are going to do everything in their power to keep this a car town.

How millennials are reshaping car buying

 

“You hear a lot that this generation doesn’t care about cars,” Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader’s vice president of research, said during an appearance at an Automotive Press Association event in Detroit. “[but] they do care about cars.”

 

Millennials’ delay in purchasing vehicles reflects other things they’re doing later in life, such as buying a home and getting married, Helms said.

 

 

http://nbr.com/2014/08/13/how-millennials-are-reshaping-car-buying/

“Not everyone’s dream is to have their own car and use it to get to work.” http://t.co/VjwUblQwPk #bikes #Pittsburgh

And...

 

"Millennials Don't Drive—And Here's Why They Aren't Likely To Start http://t.co/WxPZD7AvrI" Use the $27B/yr 4 more roads 4 transit instead.

If gas goes under 2$ a gallon does this change things?

It will clarify some things, perhaps.

 

If the Millennial shift has been largely economic, then you will see a change.  (On the flip side, remember that people only tend to adjust long-term behaviors in response to changes that they believe will last for some time.  People will not make a 5-year commitment to a car if they think the dip in gas prices will only last 1-2 years.)

 

If the Millennial shift has been largely cultural, then you'll see a much smaller change, or even no change.  It's like announcing to Millennials that CD prices have been cut; it might not mean all that much to people without CD players.

^Not really. People aren't driving less because of the cost of gas. They're driving less because cars themselves are expensive to own regardless of how many miles you drive and young people like living in places where you can walk everywhere. It MIGHT increase mileage a bit, but it won't be as dramatic as a lot of people suggest.

I’m not so sure it would, at least not in the long term, because a big factor in how much people drive is where they chose to live. It wouldn’t be a wise choice to move 20 minutes further from work because gas dips below $2.00, as there’s no reason to believe prices will last for a substantial amount of time. There could be some short term increases in trips other than commutes, though. Overall I don't think anyone is moving or buying a car based on gas prices, no matter how low they go.

 

For an anecdote, I live a 15 minute bike ride from work and even though I wimp out and drive when the weather isn’t nice, I get gas less than once a month. Saving $1 per gallon saves me about $10 per month, and isn’t going to change any of my habits. It may make me more likely to choose a road trip over a flight, though. 

 

On the flip side, remember that people only tend to adjust long-term behaviors in response to changes that they believe will last for some time.  People will not make a 5-year commitment to a car if they think the dip in gas prices will only last 1-2 years.

 

I disagree with this, actually. People tend to have very short memories. I just heard that small SUVs are having near record years. Best November in SUV sales since the Recession started. Jeep sales are up 45% since 2013. People seem to make long term life decisions on current conditions more often than you would like to believe.

Hah!  Fair point.  Well, on the margin, there is still some adjustment, but I admit, less than pure rational-actor-model economics would posit.  But on the flip side, you'd then see people adjust rapidly in the other direction in 1-2 years when gas spiked again.  But even with the small SUVs hitting records, it's also possible that hidden in that statistic is a number of people who might have chosen large SUVs or pickups, but hedged their bets against a gas price spike a few years down the line.

People might initially make decisions for financial reasons but those might turn into long-lasting habits. Millennials might be deciding to drive less now because they can't afford a car, but once they get used to taking transit, walking, biking, and living in urban areas, they may stick with that for life.

^I think the increasing number of married couple and people with children remaining in urban centers proves this point. It seems that people are either staying put or only moving as far as necessary to get the space they want. Meaning neighborhoods like those directly outside of the core are seeing a lot of reinvestment.

 

Not all will remain in the cores obviously, but time is starting to prove that the notion of moving to the suburbs the moment you get married or start a family is a dying trend.

Something that never seems to get mentioned, and which I think is a worthwhile idea relating to this topic is that there is a limit to just how much any one person can drive, and just how much any particular city can sprawl.  Nobody can drive 24/7, and in fact the average commute time to work throughout modern history has always been about 30 minutes, regardless of mode or distance.  Also, at some point cities just can't sprawl anymore because the fringes just get too far away from anything else.  Yes at a certain level sprawl becomes somewhat self-sustaining, but not to the extent that it does when connected to a major city.  I think we might be starting to approach some of those limits now. 

Hmmmm....any possibility that increasing retirements among the baby boomers are contributing to distance driven per person?

^Not when all the stats adjusted for population groups show the millennial generation having the largest drop and baby boomers either remaining the same or increasing.

Another question about the stats (and sorry if it might already have been answered somewhere in the middle pages of this thread): If a car-less Millennial rents a car from Enterprise for a road trip, drives it 1000 miles, and returns it, will that be counted in these "why are young people driving less" stats?

Another question about the stats (and sorry if it might already have been answered somewhere in the middle pages of this thread): If a car-less Millennial rents a car from Enterprise for a road trip, drives it 1000 miles, and returns it, will that be counted in these "why are young people driving less" stats?

Good question. But the rental use illustrates the point that Millennials see car ownership as a burden and that there are options. A better question is why U.S. automakers continue to try to lure Millennials to traditional car ownership with more tech gizmos and big ad campaigns, thus ceding the burgeoning rental market to an overseas competitor, Daimler AG.

Another question about the stats (and sorry if it might already have been answered somewhere in the middle pages of this thread): If a car-less Millennial rents a car from Enterprise for a road trip, drives it 1000 miles, and returns it, will that be counted in these "why are young people driving less" stats?

 

I own a car and drive a comically small number of miles in Cincinnati. However, as I travel often for my job, I will have about 70 days worth of car rentals this year. Whenever it's possible for me to travel for work without renting a car, I do so, but unfortunately many of my projects have been based in suburban office parks where that's not possible.

Right, but that's just it: those 70 days are probably the majority of vehicle-miles you will add to the national driving total for whatever age group you're in.  So the issue of whether they're being measured matters.

^If you combine the two stats you'll find the answer to the question you're asking. Total vehicle miles in the US is dropping. That includes things like car rentals. The only age group really seeing any change in per capita mileage is the 16-34 year old group. And since the population isn't declining the only logical conclusion is that millennials are driving less regardless of whether or not they own the vehicle.

Another variable is the number of people riding in cars together. The passenger-miles travelled is not the same as vehicle-miles travelled. If an 18-year old is driven to school by her mom, then the miles count toward the mother, who might be 45.

Another variable is the number of people riding in cars together. The passenger-miles travelled is not the same as vehicle-miles travelled. If an 18-year old is driven to school by her mom, then the miles count toward the mother, who might be 45.

 

Except the average number of occupants per vehicle has been stuck at 1.2 for as long as I've been paying attention to this stuff (30 years). And the proliferation of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes during that era hasn't changed that.

Kinda surprised by this

 

It Turns Out That Millennials Do Drive

 

It's become an uncontested truth that young Americans dislike driving, and indeed, Millennials do seem more fond of public transportation than their elders are. But a new Census tool comparing 18-to-34 year olds now and in the past raises questions about just how much things have changed. In many major U.S. metro areas, young people today drive to work as often as they did in 1980, if not more.

 

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/12/these-numbers-challenge-the-notion-that-young-people-dont-drive/383431/

^ A quick look at the breakdown by city shows that good transit, and specifically the rail transit, correlates with a lower percentage of commutes by car.

 

 

^ A quick look at the breakdown by city shows that good transit, and specifically the rail transit, correlates with a lower percentage of commutes by car.

 

It may not be that simple either.

 

"The rest saw them increase a smidge: Atlanta, Detroit, Phoenix, Dallas, Philadelphia, Chicago—with Millennials in the latter two cities driving almost a full percent more despite considerable transit upgrades in the past 30 years."

 

I would consider both Philly and Chicago pretty well served by rail transit.

 

It just seems that there are a few outliers (NYC, BOS, SF) that really saw an appreciable decrease in car ridership, while the rest of the country stayed flat or even increased.

^ Aren't many of the El lines at-capacity or over-capacity during rush hours? It seems like if they could run more trains, it would attract some people that currently drive.

While Ohio transit systems depend on local funding, Pennsylvania systems have depended on a mix of local and state funding to pay for operations. Conservative, anti-urban interests have cut state funding significantly in Pennsylvania, resulting in equally significant cuts to transit services. So while urban development has occurred in response to the back-to-city movement, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have had to slash services resulting in less ridership at a time when it should be rising.

^The thing that is doubly infuriating about that is that the drop in ridership that's a result of the funding cuts is then used as evidence of a trend away from transit ridership. Which then leads people to support further cuts. And so on and so forth.

^The thing that is doubly infuriating about that is that the drop in ridership that's a result of the funding cuts is then used as evidence of a trend away from transit ridership. Which then leads people to support further cuts. And so on and so forth.

 

It's a tried and true way to destroy transit when a frontal assault won't work. Instead it's death by a thousand cuts. That's how car/tire/oil conglomerates that bought up streetcar systems got them abandoned. They reduced the frequency of services, forced transfers or intentionally misscheduled connections between transit lines to lengthen transit trips and deferred maintenance. The result was a decline in ridership that was used to demonstrate that the public didn't want old-fashioned streetcars. So they could get their petitions to abandon rail lines approved by public utility commissions. These services were then replaced by inferior buses supplied and fueled by partnering firms who invested in the streetcar system acquisitions.

 

This approach is being undertaken today but at the public sector level. You defeat it by taking the control over transit away from those who were put in place to weaken or kill it, and put it in the hands of those who wish to nourish it. Same as you would any neglected dependent.

 

 

Federal Highway Administration VMT forecast:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tables/vmt/vmt_forecast_sum.pdf

 

Wednesday, January 7, 2015 3 Comments

The Feds Quietly Acknowledge the Driving Boom Is Over

by Phineas Baxandall

 

The Federal Highway Administration has very quietly acknowledged that the driving boom is over.

 

After many years of aggressively and inaccurately claiming that Americans would likely begin a new era of rapid driving growth, the agency’s more recent forecast finally recognizes that the protracted post-World War II era has given way to a different paradigm.

 

The new vision of the future suggests that driving per capita will essentially remain flat in the future. The benchmark is important because excessively high estimates of future driving volume get used to justify wasteful spending on new and wider highways. In the face of scarce transportation funds, overestimates of future driving translate into too little attention paid to repairing the roads we already have and too little investment in other modes of travel.

 

MORE:

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/01/07/the-feds-quietly-acknowledge-the-driving-boom-is-over/

AAA's March 2015 newsletter, citing MTV data, says "Millennials love cars." Why MTV? Because GM hired them to say so:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/media/to-draw-reluctant-young-buyers-gm-turns-to-mtv.html

Why are American automakers trying to change the habits and desires of people rather than following the market? Millennials use cars, but many prefer not to own them. So Car2Go is a popular alternative -- developed and owned by a subsidiary of Daimler AG, a German automaker. Meanwhile, U.S. companies are ceding the market for what many millennials want and trying to sell them something they don't want.

Very simple answer to that one - the American automakers and their employee unions are dinosaurs, set in their ways since the 1950s or earlier, and will do absolutely anything and everything possible before even considering the idea of changing in even the smallest way. It's not intentional, it's just who they are.

I noticed an interesting phenomena last week when driving my son to high school (he lives with his mother attends my Alma Mater out in the burbs).  The student parking lot was probably only 1/3 full.  Conversely, when I graduated in the late 80's, we would have to fight for spots if we arrived close to the first bell.    My friends with pickup trucks would hop curbs and park in the grass to free up parking for other students. 

 

I checked the current enrollment data to see if this could be the reason for less cars, but the student population was similar to when I attended there.

 

So I asked my son (who is a car fanatic and obsesses over them) why the parking lot was so empty when once upon a time it used to be full.  He wasn't sure, but he thought fear had a lot to do with it.  Kids aren't getting their licenses as early because PARENTS are fearing their kids driving and possibly getting hurt.  This would be consistent with the fear driven by constant media attention to other dangers as well, like child abduction, which has no root in statistical facts. 

 

While not scientific, I thought my son might just be on to something.....